The Hazy Rollout of Ohio's Medical Marijuana Control Program (MMCP

MY BENESCH MY TEAM Health Care & Life Sciences CLIENT BULLETIN

October 2016

The Hazy Rollout of Ohio’s Medical Marijuana Control Program (MMCP) By Jeff McCourt and Dan O’Brien The ultimate functionality of the MMCP several of the largest law firms in the state – both in terms of the opportunity for were forced to suspend their activities in seriously ill patients to access medicine, the space while the Supreme Court rushed and the opportunity for market participants through an amendment to the ethics rules. to create a sustainable program to serve Such an amendment was adopted on those patients – will be determined by the September 20th, allowing doctors, patients extensive rulemaking and licensure process and cannabis businesses to obtain legal to be carried out by the Department of representation in Ohio. Jeff McCourt Dan O’Brien Commerce, the state Pharmacy Board, and Adding further confusion to the mix, the the state Medical Board over the next two When Ohio House Bill 523 (HB 523) became Ohio Municipal League has launched years. Several early indicators, however, effective on September 8, 2016, Ohio joined a statewide effort to educate local have begun to cast doubt on the program’s the company of 25 other states, the District governments about HB 523. Given the lack viability as written. This article recaps of Columbia, and several U.S. territories of clarity on how the state regulations will several recent developments in the MMCP that have legalized cannabis for medicinal operate and where cannabis operations will and addresses specifically the Medical purposes. Modeled after highly restrictive be located throughout the state, dozens Board’s recent guidance on the “affirmative regimes adopted by state legislatures of local governments have chosen to defense” provision of HB 523, the only part in Illinois, Maryland, and New York, the preemptively adopt bans or moratoriums on of the law that is currently operational. Medical Marijuana Control Program (MMCP) all medical cannabis businesses within their envisioned by HB 523 has the potential to I. EARLY ACTIONS HAMPER jurisdictions. While most of the jurisdictions be one of the most complex and heavily IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MMCP that have adopted such measures are small regulated medical cannabis programs The Ohio Supreme Court’s board of cities in rural areas, a growing number in the country. HB 523 relies on a tightly professional conduct, which is responsible of larger cities with significant potential controlled ‘Schedule II’ pharmaceutical- for regulating Ohio lawyers, tossed a patient populations, such as Lakewood and style regulatory framework, but the Ohio fireball into the lap of the Supreme Court Cleveland, have adopted or are considering legislature left some room for flexibility in in August by releasing a narrow reading moratoriums as well.1 The rationale often the MMCP by punting to the rulemaking of the ethics rules applicable to Ohio cited by local officials when imposing process several of the toughest issues it lawyers when advising clients involved in these measures (essentially, that if cities faced, such as determining the number of the cannabis industry. Just weeks before don’t act now, their Main Streets could licenses available under the MMCP, the cost the effectiveness of HB 523, the board be populated with unregulated cannabis of licenses, the geographical distribution of professional conduct told Ohio lawyers businesses that would be ‘grandfathered’ of medical cannabis businesses, and that, among other things, it was unethical out of later-adopted zoning restrictions) the hurdles doctors will face in order to to assist clients in setting up medical are inconsistent with how the MMCP recommend medical cannabis to patients cannabis businesses or to represent them and zoning laws actually function. An with qualifying medical conditions. in the rulemaking process. As a result, unintended consequence of these

www.beneschlaw.com October 2016 Health Care & Life Sciences CLIENT BULLETIN measures is that cities with moratoriums Medical Board added that the Medical attempted to create an alternative path for on the books could be passed over entirely Board would “review a medical marijuana qualifying patients to obtain cannabis prior by businesses seeking to obtain licenses related complaint as they would any other... to the opening of dispensaries in Ohio. for significant cultivation and processing [and] would consider whether someone According to Section 6(B) of HB 523, if facilities, which could easily run into the violated state law, including the immunity a patient is arrested and charged with tens of millions of dollars and thus will provision.”4 Another prominent backer of possession or use of cannabis in Ohio and require certainty as to the viability of site HB 523, Senator Kenny Yuko (D-Richmond can establish that she or he (1) received a selection by such businesses early on in Heights), issued a press release stating written recommendation from a licensed the planning process. that “the affirmative defense section spells physician6 and (2) possessed and used out everything a physician would need to Most recently, on September 24th, the state cannabis only in the forms and by the do to provide patients with this limited, Medical Board, which is responsible for methods permitted under HB 523 (namely, short-term protection without having to wait regulating Ohio doctors, dealt a significant did not smoke it), the patient should be for the agencies. It simply wouldn’t make blow to patients hoping to avail themselves acquitted of the charges.7 This sounds sense to read it any other way.”5 of the protections provided by HB 523 prior nice in theory, but two very significant to the opening of dispensaries two years The affirmative defense provision and the practical hurdles have thus far rendered the from now.2 While couched in the context of varying interpretations of it by key actors affirmative defense nearly useless to Ohio guidance to doctors, the carefully worded has created quite a hairball for Ohio doctors patients: (1) the inability to find a doctor interpretation of Ohio doctors’ ability to and their patients to untangle with their willing to provide a written recommendation recommend medical cannabis during the lawyers. In an effort to facilitate discourse for cannabis; and (2) the potentially severe “affirmative defense” period served only to among the legal and medical professions legal consequences for obtaining cannabis highlight the gray area created by HB 523. regarding the affirmative defense provision on the black market or smuggling it into (and by no means to provide legal advice Ohio from other state-sanctioned markets. In its guidance, the Medical Board to anyone), the rest of this article will cover instructed physicians that they cannot some of the relevant considerations that A. The Doctor Recommendation Process issue a “state of Ohio approved written doctors and their employers may want to The most significant obstacle to a patient’s recommendation” to use medical cannabis evaluate with counsel in order to minimize ability to establish the affirmative defense until the Medical Board adopts rules for risks when recommending cannabis to is the requirement to obtain a written doing so, which could take up to a year. patients during the affirmative-defense recommendation from a physician licensed In the meantime, physicians who receive period. While the recommendation and use in Ohio. For the written recommendation requests from patients for medical cannabis of medical cannabis does pose at least to qualify under the affirmative defense, were encouraged to “consult with their some theoretical legal risk to all parties the physician must certify all of the five private legal counsel and/or employer involved in the process, it is reasonably following criteria: for interpretation of the legislation.” In clear that Ohio physicians willing to face response to the Medical Board’s guidance, (1) that a “bona fide physician-patient those risks do currently have the ability representatives from the Ohio State relationship”8 exists between the to recommend cannabis to patients with Medical Association (OSMA) reiterated the physician and patient; qualifying medical conditions. association’s previous stance that doctors (2) that the patient has been diagnosed should not recommend cannabis until the II. UNDERSTANDING THE with a qualifying medical condition;9 Medical Board adopts its formal rules.3 “AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE” (3) that the physician or physician delegate A bit of background on the “affirmative The OSMA’s interpretation of the Medical has requested from the Ohio Automated defense” provision of HB 523 is helpful Board’s guidance, in turn, quickly drew Rx Reporting System (OARRS) a report for understanding the Medical Board’s widespread news coverage. One of the lead of information related to the patient reluctance to provide guidance on the state legislators behind HB 523, Senator that covers at least the twelve months topic. Recognizing that it would take up to Dave Burke (R-Marrysville) responded immediately preceding the date of the two years to fully implement the MMCP, in interviews that “willing physicians are report; in the free and clear” to recommend and hearing incredibly heart-wrenching cannabis during the affirmative-defense and compelling testimony from seriously (4) that the physician has informed the period, and representatives from the ill constituents in urgent need of access to patient or the patient’s parent or legal sources of cannabis, the legislature guardian of the risks and benefits of

www.beneschlaw.com October 2016 Health Care & Life Sciences CLIENT BULLETIN

medical marijuana as it pertains to the risks posed to doctors in this setting are: to recommending medical cannabis to patient’s qualifying medical condition loss of medical license, exposure to civil patients. Of course, doctors who are not and medical history; and and criminal liability, and loss of their self-employed should also check with their DEA registration to prescribe controlled employer regarding relevant policies and (5) that the physician has informed the substances. Luckily, HB 523 provides restrictions on their ability to recommend patient or the patient’s parent or for broad protections of doctors against cannabis to patients. guardian that it is the physician’s criminal, civil and professional liability, and opinion that the benefits of medical The other major concern that many the risk of a doctor losing his or her DEA marijuana outweigh its risks. doctors have with recommending cannabis registration for acting in compliance with is the risk that the DEA will revoke the The last two criteria on this list are the HB 523 appears to be minimal. doctor’s DEA registration to prescribe reasons why you have not yet heard news Most relevant to Ohio doctors considering other controlled substances. As cannabis reports of patients relying on the affirmative recommending cannabis during the remains a federally illegal “Schedule I” defense to use medical cannabis in Ohio. affirmative-defense period, O.R.C. Section controlled substance under the CSA, HB These criteria require a physician not only 4731.30(H) provides that: 523 follows most other states by relying on to enumerate “risks and benefits” of using “recommendations” for cannabis instead of cannabis for the patient’s specific condition “a physician is immune from civil “prescriptions.” This distinction is derived and medical history, but also to state their liability, is not subject to professional from the seminal Conant v. Walters decision, medical opinion that the benefits of using disciplinary action by the state medical where the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals cannabis outweigh the risks. board or state board of pharmacy, found that the act of merely recommending and is not subject to criminal While other states have similar medical cannabis constituted physician- prosecution for any of the following requirements of their doctors, a restrictive patient speech that is protected under the actions: (1) Advising a patient, patient reading of HB 523 could necessitate First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.16 representative, or caregiver about the physicians seeking to recommend The mere act of discussing the risks and benefits and risks of medical marijuana cannabis therapies for their patients to benefits of cannabis and recommending to treat a qualifying medical condition; justify the risk/benefit determination at a cannabis for qualifying medical conditions (2) Recommending that a patient use higher standard.10 Illinois is a particularly should not be grounds in itself for revoking medical marijuana to treat or alleviate instructive example – in June 2016, a DEA registration. If a physician where to the condition; (3) Monitoring a patient’s the Illinois legislature amended their prescribe cannabis (meaning providing an treatment with medical marijuana.” cannabis law specifically to remove the order that cannabis be dispensed to the requirement that doctors make a risk/ This provision is broad and unqualified in patient) or directly dispense cannabis to the benefit determination in justifying their its scope, and serves to insulate physicians patient, however, those acts could be viewed recommendation.11 The risk/benefit from criminal, civil and professional liability as aiding and abetting the patient’s violation determination required under prior for recommending cannabis during the of the CSA and subject the physician to loss Illinois law, which was less restrictive affirmative-defense period and thereafter.14 of his or her DEA registration (among other than the current provisions of HB 523, The immunity provided by this provision is penalties). While the injunction imposed was specifically cited as the reason for unlike any other in state law in terms of the in the Conant decision is only directly unexpectedly low patient counts at the scope of liability protection that it provides binding in the Western states that are outset of the Illinois program.12 In its to doctors. Not only does it allow doctors to part of the Ninth Circuit, it is unlikely first year of operation, a single physician recommend cannabis without fear of losing that the DEA would challenge similar certified nearly one-third of the 3,300 their medical license or facing criminal actions by doctors in Ohio that amount patients registered in Illinois.13 penalties in Ohio, including during the only to recommending cannabis and not affirmative-defense period, but it could also All that said, it is still possible for prescribing or dispensing it. protect them from potential civil malpractice doctors who are knowledgeable of the Doctors should be mindful that the Conant liability to their patients or others.15 Even pharmacology of cannabis to make decision is grounded in the physician- with the broad immunity provided to this risk/benefit determination during patient relationship; it does not extend physicians under HB 523, it would be wise the affirmative-defense period without to physicians who own or are otherwise for doctors to check with their malpractice presenting undue risk of legal or affiliated with cannabis businesses. insurance carrier to confirm that they are professional liability. The most direct Physicians who depend on their DEA covered for claims that may arise related

www.beneschlaw.com October 2016 Health Care & Life Sciences CLIENT BULLETIN registration to run their practice should criminal and civil penalties, including life mere act of recommending cannabis to consult with counsel prior to entering in prison and forfeiture of substantial treat qualifying medical conditions (even any relationships with Ohio cannabis personal assets. Through a series of during the affirmative-defense period) is businesses seeking licenses to operate memoranda (most recently, the 2013 thoroughly protected from liability under HB under the MMCP. A common tactic of “Cole Memorandum)18 issued to federal 523 and likely would not put the physician’s license applicants in highly restrictive prosecuting attorneys, the DOJ crafted DEA registration in jeopardy. “Schedule II” style cannabis regimes is a limited-enforcement policy that allows Disclaimer: As with all of our publications, to enlist a doctor as a “medical director” states to establish “strong and effective we remind you that we are providing this of the business or similar titles. While regulatory and enforcement systems” for analysis for general informational and this is often an effective way to establish regulating cannabis activity without federal educational purposes, to help advance the credibility of a license applicant for interference. The Cole Memorandum a general understanding and discourse regulatory approval, it poses unique risks to strongly suggests that federal prosecutors around cannabis law and regulated the doctors entering the relationships. For should not prosecute those engaged in industries. This article does not provide example, in 2014, several Massachusetts state-sanctioned cannabis activities, unless legal advice or create an attorney-client doctors who held positions with licensed they implicate any of the DOJ’s eight relationship. Perhaps most importantly, cannabis dispensaries in the state were “enforcement priorities.”19 please remember that the use, possession, visited by DEA agents and allegedly offered While the MMCP will surely satisfy the Cole distribution and sale of marijuana remains an ultimatum between relinquishing their Memorandum non-enforcement criteria a crime under federal law and (except as DEA registrations or severing ties with the once fully implemented, the affirmative- specifically permitted by HB 523) the laws dispensaries.17 Further, under HB 523, defense provision may not be viewed of Ohio. This publication does not, and physicians who are certified to recommend as favorably by federal prosecutors.20 If should not in any way be construed to, cannabis in Ohio are explicitly prohibited a patient is able to find a doctor willing assist anyone in violating applicable law. from owning or having compensation to write a recommendation during the arrangements with state-licensed cannabis 1 affirmative-defense period, he or she See Jackie Borchardt, Ohio lawmaker urges businesses. cities not to ban medical marijuana before state will then have to obtain cannabis either sets rules, Cleveland.com, September 8, 2016; As a result of the broad liability protections by purchasing it on the black market in Leila Atassi, Cleveland City Council proposes provided to physicians under HB 523 and Ohio or by smuggling it into Ohio from moratorium on issuing medical marijuana licenses, Cleveland.com, September 15, 2016; First Amendment protections of the act another state, such as Colorado. Either of and Jackie Borchardt, Lakewood, other Ohio of recommending cannabis to patients, those activities could implicate multiple cities block medical marijuana business licenses it seems unlikely that doctors would face of the enforcement priorities outlined in months before any will be awarded, Cleveland. com, August 8, 2016. much practical risk for recommending the Cole Memorandum and trigger federal 2 State Medical Board of Ohio, Affirmative Defense: cannabis to patients in a manner that prosecution. Further, the act of smuggling What is required of a physician to recommend satisfies the affirmative-defense provisions. cannabis out of a state such as Colorado medical marijuana now that House Bill 523 is could entail crossing into states, such as effective?. B. Other Relevant Legal Concerns Nebraska and Kansas, that still aggressively 3 See Jim Provance, Ohio board deals blow for Patients enforce harsh cannabis prohibition laws to medical marijuana, ToledoBlade.com, September 23, 2016 (“The Ohio State Medical Outside of the unwillingness of most and have specifically implemented law Association had advised its members to wait doctors to issue written recommendations, enforcement programs to intercept for further guidance from their state licensing the second biggest obstacle to patients cannabis being trafficked out of Colorado. and disciplinary board. That position has not availing themselves of the affirmative changed. “We would advise our members not to Despite the significant dilemma that do anything until the rules and regulations have defense provision is the unknown and been drafted and promulgated,” said spokesman patients face in deciding whether and potentially unsafe process of obtaining Reginald Fields. “We understand that may not be how to obtain medical cannabis during medical cannabis for use in Ohio. Cannabis for a year or so.””). the affirmative-defense period, most 4 remains a Schedule I controlled substance See Jackie Borchardt, Ohio medical board: Ohio physicians will have a much smaller Doctors should talk to lawyers, employers under the CSA, and people who chose to scope of legal concerns to address than about medical marijuana law, Cleveland.com, engage in most of the activities permitted September 23, 2016. their patients. As mentioned above, for by HB 523 in Ohio will nonetheless be 5 See Senator Yuko Responds to Medical Board physicians seeing patients in the normal violating federal law in a manner that Statement, OhioSenate.gov, September 24, course of a medical office practice, the 2016. could subject them to potentially severe

www.beneschlaw.com October 2016 Health Care & Life Sciences CLIENT BULLETIN

6 The term “physician” means an individual behind on its scheduled implementation timeline, 13 See Robert McCoppin, Is risk of state discipline authorized to practice medicine and surgery or and will likely be held up in litigation for a while scaring doctors away from medical marijuana?, osteopathic medicine and surgery under O.R.C. (see Fenit Nirappil, Rejected medical marijuana ChicagoTribune.com, February 10, 2016. 4731 (the statue establishing the state medical grower seeks to join lawsuit against regulators, 14 It will be particularly interesting to see how board). WashingtonPost.com, September 28, 2016). this provision is interpreted in light of “the 7 Note that the affirmative defense also applies Massachusetts’s program, while operational, minimal standards of care when recommending to the parents or guardians of patients who has not been warmly embraced by its medical treatment” with medical cannabis that the are minors. The affirmative-defense provision community – as of this summer 13 doctors Medical Board is required to develop as part automatically sunsets and becomes ineffective provided nearly 75% of the 31,818 medical of its rules under the MMCP. As the immunity sixty days after the Pharmacy Board begins cannabis recommendations in the state, two provided by O.R.C. Section 4731.30(H) is not accepting applications for patient and caregiver doctors recently had their medical licenses explicitly qualified by the Medical Board’s rules, registration. revoked by the state medical board, and the it could provide doctors with a strong defense DEA allegedly threatened to revoke licenses to 8 against liability even in cases of clear violations O.R.C. Section 4731.30(C)(1)(b) provides that prescribe controlled substances from doctors a “bona fide physician-patient relationship” is of the standard of care. who were affiliated with licensed cannabis 15 established when all of the following occur: (i) businesses (see Kay Lazar, Most Mass. doctors Also note that O.R.C. Section 4731.30(B)(1) an in-person physical examination of the patient wary of approving marijuana use, BostonGlobe. provides that, except for certain research and by the physician; (ii) a review of the patient’s com, July 2, 2016; Kay Lazar, Medical marijuana clinical trials, “a physician seeking to recommend medical history by the physician; and (iii) an doctor loses license to practice, BostonGlobe. treatment with medical marijuana shall apply expectation of providing care and receiving care com, June 3, 2016; and Kay Lazar, DEA to the state medical board for a certificate to on an ongoing basis. While this definition does targets doctors linked to medical marijuana, recommend” in the manner provided by the not explicitly apply to the affirmative defense BostonGlobe.com, June 6, 2014). medical board’s rules. This requirement to obtain provision, it seems reasonable to assume that a a certificate to recommend is not qualified by court would look to this definition if it were asked Even under the highly restrictive programs in the affirmative defense provision. As highlighted to determine whether a bona fide physician- Maryland and Massachusetts, a physician is only by the medical board in its guidance, physicians patient relationship was established. required to determine that the benefits of medical may not be able to obtain a “certificate to cannabis likely outweigh the risks to the patient 9 recommend” cannabis until a year from now Per O.R.C. Section 3796.01(A)(6), a “qualifying (see See Md. Code, Health-Gen §§13-3301(m); medical condition” means any of the following: when the Medical Board adopts its rules. and Mass. St. 2012, c. 369, Section 2(n)). Physicians recommending cannabis during the (a) Acquired immune deficiency syndrome; (b) This is an easier professional liability standard Alzheimer’s disease; (c) Amyotrophic lateral affirmative-defense period, therefore, would be in for doctors to satisfy than the more stringent technical violation of the requirement to obtain a sclerosis; (d) Cancer; (e) Chronic traumatic requirements of HB 523, which require Ohio encephalopathy; (f) Crohn’s disease; (g) Epilepsy certificate to recommend prior to recommending doctors to make their risk/benefit determination medical cannabis to a patient. Relatedly, O.R.C. or another seizure disorder; (h) Fibromyalgia; (i) in a definitive manner, rather than a probabilistic Glaucoma; (j) Hepatitis C; (k) Inflammatory bowel Section 4731.22(B)(49) added a specific one. Ohio’s MMCP, therefore, stands out even requirement that the Medical Board “shall, to disease; (l) Multiple sclerosis; (m) Pain that is among the most highly restrictive medical either of the following: (i) Chronic and severe; (ii) the extent permitted by law, limit, revoke or cannabis regimes in the country in terms of the suspend” a physician’s certificate to practice Intractable. (n) Parkinson’s disease; (o) Positive barriers that it imposes on doctors. status for HIV; (p) Post-traumatic stress disorder; medicine or certificate to recommend cannabis 11 (q) Sickle cell anemia; (r) Spinal cord disease or See Illinois Public Act 099-0519, amending 410 for “failure to comply with the requirements of injury; (s) Tourette’s syndrome; (t) Traumatic brain I.L.C.S. 130, Section 10(y) as follows: “Written [the provisions of requiring physicians to obtain a injury; (u) Ulcerative colitis; (v) Any other disease certification” means a document dated and certificate to recommend] when recommending or condition added by the state medical board signed by a physician, stating (1) that in the treatment with medical marijuana.” The italicized under section 4731.302 of the Revised Code. physician’s professional opinion the patient is language limiting the Medical Board’s authority 10 likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit to revoke a medical license “to the extent Under New York’s medical marijuana program, from the medical use of cannabis to treat permitted by law” is important. While a physician for example, physicians are required to certify or alleviate the patient’s debilitating medical would be in technical violation of O.R.C. Section that they have discussed the risks and benefits condition or symptoms associated with the 4731.30(B)(1) for issuing a recommendation for of medical cannabis, but the basis for their debilitating medical condition; (2) that the cannabis during the affirmative-defense period, recommendation is that the patient is “likely to qualifying patient has a debilitating medical the physician would be immune from liability receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from” condition and specifying the debilitating medical for doing so by operation of O.R.C. Section treatment with medical cannabis (see 10 C.R.R.- condition the qualifying patient has; and (2) (3) 4731.30(H), and the Medical Board therefore N.Y. 1004.2(a)(11)). Illinois’s cannabis law is that the patient is under the physician’s care for would not be “permitted by law” to revoke the even more favorable to its doctors, requiring the physician is treating or managing treatment physician’s medical licenses (as otherwise would that physicians issue a recommendation that of the patient’s debilitating medical condition. be required by O.R.C. Section 4731.22(B)(49)). merely provides a diagnoses of the qualifying A written certification shall be made only in 16 condition, rather than requiring that the physician See Conant, et al. v. Walters, et al., 309 F.3d 629 the course of a bona fide physician-patient specifically recommend cannabis to the patient (9th Cir 2002). relationship, after the physician has completed (see 410 I.L.C.S. 130, Section 10(y)). 17 an assessment of the qualifying patient’s medical See Kay Lazar, DEA targets doctors linked to The requirements of HB 523 reflect similar history, reviewed relevant records related to the medical marijuana, BostonGlobe.com, June 6, language used in Massachusetts and Maryland, patient’s debilitating condition, and conducted a 2014. both of which require the recommending physical examination. 18 Memorandum from Deputy Attorney General physician to determine that benefits of cannabis 12 See http://www.cannabispolicyadviser.com/ James M. Cole to All United States Attorneys, likely outweigh its risks. Maryland’s program illinois-sb10-physician-certification/ Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement has yet to become operational, is nearly a year (August 29, 2013).

www.beneschlaw.com October 2016 Health Care & Life Sciences CLIENT BULLETIN

19 Id. (1. Preventing the distribution of marijuana JEFF McCOURT is an associate in the Additional Information to minors; 2. Preventing revenue from the sale Corporate & Securities Practice Group in of marijuana from going to criminal enterprises, our Cleveland office, where he focuses For more information, please contact a gangs, and cartels; 3. Preventing the diversion member of Benesch’s Health Care of marijuana from States where it is legal under on counseling cannabis businesses and state law in some form to other States; 4. other emerging-growth companies, venture & Life Sciences Practice Group. Preventing state-authorized marijuana activity capital and private equity funds in a variety Visit our Health Law Blog at from being used as a cover or pretext for the of business and finance matters. He can www.beneschhealthlaw.com trafficking of other illegal drugs or other illegal be reached at (216) 363-4428 or activity; 5. Preventing violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of [email protected]. THE NATIONAL HEALTH CARE PRACTICE @ BENESCH marijuana; 6. Preventing drugged driving and DAN O’BRIEN is an associate in the Health the exacerbation of other adverse public health Heather Baird at (614) 223-9361 or consequences associated with marijuana use; Care & Life Sciences Practice Group in [email protected] 7. Preventing the growing of marijuana on our Cleveland office, where he focuses on public lands and the attendant public safety advising long-term care providers, durable Gregory Binford at (216) 363-4617 or and environmental dangers posed by marijuana medical equipment companies, hospitals, [email protected] production on public lands; and 8. Preventing home health care companies and other marijuana possession or use on federal property.) Mark S. Blubaugh at (614) 223-9382 or ancillary service providers on transactional 20 Note that, while congress acted to prohibit [email protected] the DOJ from spending money appropriated and regulatory business issues. He can be reached at (216) 363-4691 or Harry Brown at (216) 363-4606 or through the 2015 budget on efforts to prevent [email protected] certain states from implementing their medical [email protected]. marijuana programs (referred to as the Frank Carsonie at (614) 223-9361 or “Rohrabacher-Farr amendment”), this provision [email protected] only restricts the DOJ from spending funds authorized in the 2016 budget and Ohio is not William E. “Bill” Doran at (312) 212-4970 included in the list of states that it protects. or [email protected] See Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016, PL 114-113, December 18, 2015, Sec. 542 Janet Feldkamp at (614) 223-9328 or (“None of the funds made available in this Act [email protected] to the Department of Justice may be used, Joseph N. Gross at (216) 363-4163 or with respect to any of the States of Alabama, [email protected] Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Thomas Y. Kendrick at (614) 223-9364 Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, or [email protected] Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Daniel Meier (914) 682-6819 or New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North [email protected] Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, W. Cliff Mull at (216) 363-4198 or Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, [email protected] or with respect to the District of Columbia, Guam, Daniel J. O’Brien at (216) 363-4691 or or Puerto Rico, to prevent any of them from implementing their own laws that authorize the [email protected] use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of Alan Schabes at (216) 363-4589 or medical marijuana.”). [email protected] Kelly J. Skeat at (216) 363-4182 or [email protected] Victoria L. Stephenson at (614) 223-9344 or [email protected] Martha Sweterlitsch at (614) 223-9367 or [email protected]

As a reminder, this Advisory is being sent to draw your attention to issues and is not to replace legal counseling. UNITED STATES TREASURY DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY THE IRS, WE INFORM YOU THAT, UNLESS EXPRESSLY STATED OTHERWISE, ANY U.S. FEDERAL TAX ADVICE CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION (INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS) IS NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN TO BE USED, AND CANNOT BE USED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (i) AVOIDING PENALTIES UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, OR (ii) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.