State Prosecution of Medical Marijuana Execs Highlights Risks to Avoid, Lawyers Say
Pending felony drug smuggling charges against two former executives at Vireo Health, a medical marijuana dispensary with offices in a few states, highlight the difficulty of operating in an industry where state and federal law are at odds.
March 06, 2018 at 04:21 PM
5 minute read
Felony state drug smuggling charges pending in Minnesota against two former executives of a medical marijuana dispensary highlight the difficulties of operating in an industry where state and federal laws are at odds.
That may be especially true now that U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has rescinded the so-called Cole memo, which formerly told federal prosecutors to focus on drug cartels and cross-border trafficking, not marijuana outlets complying with state regulatory schemes, legal experts say.
In the Minnesota case, the former chief medical officer and security officer of medical marijuana company Vireo Health LLC, Dr. Laura Bultman and Ronald Owens, respectively, are charged in Minnesota state court with illegally transferring medical cannabis across state lines. They were charged after they allegedly transported cannabis oil in 2016 to New York to keep the company from missing a state deadline to start business there under a newly enacted New York law allowing medical marijuana distribution, according to court documents and news reports. Vireo Health, based in Minneapolis, is the parent company of medical marijuana dispensaries in Minnesota, New York and Pennsylvania.
The defendants have pleaded not guilty to the charges. In commenting on his client's case, Bultman's attorney, Paul Engh, cited the uncertainty surrounding the industry and its legal scheme.
“The medical marijuana industry is in its infancy, the rules have never been
interpreted, and are patchwork and uncertain from state to state,” he said in an emailed statement. “What we do know is that Dr. Bultman, who enjoys distinguished reputation, acted in good faith to serve patients in evident need.”
Owens' lawyer, Ryan Garry, declined to comment on the case because it is still pending.
A spokesman for Vireo Health did not respond to an emailed request for comment, though in prior news reports he has pointed out that neither the company nor any of its affiliates are parties to the criminal case and that state regulators in New York and Minnesota last summer renewed those states' licenses.
Minnesota and New York are among the 29 states and the District of Columbia where marijuana use in some form is legal. But because marijuana remains classified as a Schedule I drug under the federal Controlled Substances Act, its use is regulated by the individual states. In addition to being prohibited by state regimes, transporting medical marijuana products in their final form across state lines brings heightened federal scrutiny, despite the Cole memo's general hands-off approach in marijuana-legal states.
“You're not going to see a lot of interstate commerce at this point because of the federal government's stance,” said Adam Dolan, an associate at Goldberg Segalla in White Plains, New York.
But with the rescission of the Cole memo, it's difficult to determine if the DOJ will begin going after particular states or dispensaries for violating federal laws against distributing marijuana, mainly because Sessions' memo wasn't clear on the matter, Dolan said. He added, however, that the agency is temporarily prohibited from spending any federal funds on prosecuting marijuana-related activities that are allowed under state law, due to the recently renewed Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment.
Dina Rollman, chief compliance counsel of Chicago-based cannabis company Green Thumb Industries, said of the rescission's shift of more prosecutorial discretion to U.S. attorneys, “You have to have your finger on the pulse on a very local level.” The shift could lead to starkly different marijuana policies even within states that have multiple federal districts. “It's not enough to look at each state as a state,” Rollman said.
Despite the uncertainty, there are steps that medical marijuana executives and their in-house lawyers can take to stay off the feds' radar, the experts said:
- Make sure you are abiding by the regulations for all states in which you are operating, Dolan said. Breaking those rules by, for example, overproducing or transporting across state lines will get you “into [federal regulators'] crosshairs, he added.
- When you are unsure about state regulators' policy on a particular matter, ask them for guidance, said David Kotler, a shareholder with the law firm of Cohen Kotler in Boca Raton, Florida, who has a practice in medical marijuana business law for Florida. “I'm a fan of being proactive,” Kotler said. “If something hasn't been litigated and it's not in a statement, see if you can get a policy opinion from the department. Then you have something to fall back on if need be.”
- In addition to working closely with the regulators, work with other players, both state- and industrywide, said Bret Kravitz, chief corporate counsel at Green Thumb Industries.
“We're all competitors, but at the end of the day, we need each other to be compliant for the better of the program and what we're trying to achieve here in ensuring that patients have access to medicine,” he said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWill GOP-Led Senate, House Move to Repeal Biden's Late Regulations as Law Provides?
US Supreme Court Weighs Federal Agencies' Duty Under National Environmental Policy Act
FDA Defends Rejection of Vape-Flavor Applications Before Sympathetic Supreme Court
'Nuclear Option'?: Eli Lilly Taps Big Law Firms in Federal Drug Pricing Dispute
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 2Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 3Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
- 4Lawyers' Phones Are Ringing: What Should Employers Do If ICE Raids Their Business?
- 5Freshfields Hires Ex-SEC Corporate Finance Director in Silicon Valley
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250