1 February 2017

Medical Marijuana Comes to North Dakota: What North Dakota Employers Need to Know
http://ogletree.com/shared-content/content/blog/2017/january/medical-marijuana-comes-to-north-dakota-what-north-dakota-employers-need-to-know?utm_source=Mondaq&utm_medium=syndication&utm_campaign=View-Original

Author: Ashley A. Wenger-Slaba (Minneapolis)

Published Date: January 24, 2017

When North Dakota’s Compassionate Care Act went into effect on December 8, 2016, North Dakota joined a proliferation of 28 states across the country that have legalized some form of medical marijuana use. Codified at North Dakota Century Code Section 19-24-01, North Dakota’s new law limits medical use of marijuana to individuals with certain “debilitating medical conditions,” including, but not limited to, cancer, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and epilepsy.

North Dakota’s Compassionate Care Act does not allow employees to possess marijuana in the workplace. And, unlike the medical marijuana laws in neighboring Minnesota and a handful of other states that contain antidiscrimination provisions that employers must adhere to, North Dakota’s Compassionate Care Act provides no such prohibition.

As such, North Dakota employers are free to choose to comply with federal law where North Dakota and federal law differ, and thus may continue to prohibit marijuana possession and use for medical purposes in their drug-free workplace policies. North Dakota employers that wish to continue to prohibit all marijuana use and possession among their employees despite the passage of the Compassionate Care Act may want to consider revising their drug-free workplace policies and otherwise communicating to North Dakota employees their intention of doing so.

United States: Medical Marijuana In Seniors Housing And Senior Care Communities
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/563790/Healthcare/Medical+Marijuana+In+Seniors+Housing+And+Senior+Care+Communities

Last Updated: January 27 2017

Article by Joel S. Goldman, Tomek J. Koszylko and Elisha Yang

Hanson Bridgett LLP
The history of legalized medical marijuana spans only 20 years. It was first legalized by California voters in 1996. Ten years later, 11 states had some form of medical marijuana laws on the books. Fast-forward another ten years to 2016, and we find that medical marijuana is legalIn only a few short years, we have seen a dramatic transformation in the public’s opinion toward medical marijuana. These days, medical marijuana is increasingly viewed as a legitimate alternative treatment for medical conditions such as chronic pain, seizure disorders, cancer, glaucoma, and Alzheimer’s-related agitation. In fact, as of the publication of this Special Issue Brief, more states in the U.S. allow medical marijuana than prohibit it.

United States: Draft Rules From The Department Of Health Limit The Potential Number Of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/562114/Healthcare/Draft+Rules+From+The+Department+Of+Health+Limit+The+Potential+Number+Of+Medical+Marijuana+Dispensaries

Last Updated: January 23 2017

Article by Tara L. Tedrow

Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, P.A.

Amendment 2 increased the number of patients potentially eligible for medical marijuana by expanding the scope of qualifying debilitating conditions. However, the number of organizations permitted to grow, proThe Department of Health (“DOH”) has issued only seven medical marijuana dispensing organization licenses, and based on draft rules proposed this week, that number may not change.

Canada: Agricultural Law Netletter – January 21, 2017 – Issue 364
http://www.mondaq.com/canada/x/564146/agriculture+land+law/Agricultural+Law+Netletter

Last Updated: January 31 2017

Article by Brian P. Kaliel Q.C.

Miller Thomson LLP

Your LinkedIn

Connections at Firm
* A Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia has conducted an in-depth review of the law concerning the formation of partnerships in relation to a proposed partnership to finance and develop an Abbotsford, British Columbia farm for the purpose of growing medical marijuana. The Court concluded that although the parties intended to enter into a written partnership or joint venture agreement, they had not reached a consensus with respect to the essential terms of the agreement, including when it would commence, their respective roles and responsibilities, how revenue and expenses would be accounted for and how they would share profit and losses. Although there had been discussions, they never actually commenced carrying on any business. A Vancouver businessman who had proposed a partnership to the owners of a small Abbotsford farm in financial difficulty, was granted judgment for funds he had advanced to pay down the farmer’s mortgage ……