Volume 96 — No. 5 — May 2025 ALSO INSIDE: Recognize Excellence: Submit Your OBA Award Nominations Celebrate Law Day 2025 • Solo & Small Firm Conference Cannabis Law
Stuart I. Teicher is a professional educator who focuses on ethics law and writing instruction. A practicing attorney for 30 years, Mr. Teicher’s career is now dedicated to helping fellow attorneys survive the practice of law and thrive in the profession. He also helps all professionals navigate the areas of anti-corruption regulations and corporate compliance issues and improve their writing skills. Mr. Teicher teaches seminars, provides training to law firms, legal departments and businesses, provides CLE instruction at law firm client events and gives keynote speeches at conventions and association meetings. His highly informative seminars are delivered in a uniquely entertaining manner, earning him the nickname “the CLE Performer." run-ins
contents May 2025 • Vol. 96 • No. 5 PLUS 42 Recognize Excellence: Submit Your OBA Award Nominations By LeAnne McGill 46 Celebrate Law Day 2025 By Mary Clement and Ed Wunch 50 Law Day 2025 Contest Winners Highlights 54 Solo & Small Firm Conference THEME: Cannabis Law Editor: Martha Rupp Carter FEATURES 6 Navigating Compliance Challenges: Addressing Oklahoma’s Legislative Gaps in Cannabis Processing By Rachel O. Klubeck 16 Up in Smoke: Seemingly Legal Situations With Unintended Criminal Consequences Surrounding Oklahoma’s Cannabis Laws By Sabah Khalaf and Cade Russell 20 How To Buy and Sell a Medical Marijuana Business in Oklahoma: Background and Analysis on 63 O.S. §427.14c By Brian Ted Jones and Max Federman 26 Guilty Until Proven Innocent: Federal Civil Asset Forfeiture and Medical Marijuana By Orion A. Strand 34 Oklahoma’s Newest Crop By Rachel L. Bussett DEPARTMENTS 4 From the President 62 From the General Counsel 66 From the OBA MAP Director 70 Board of Governors Actions 76 Oklahoma Bar Foundation News 80 For Your Information 84 Bench & Bar Briefs 86 In Memoriam 91 Editorial Calendar 92 Classified Ads 96 The Back Page PAGE 46 – Celebrate Law Day 2025
THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL 4 | MAY 2025 One of the challenges of living through “history” is to recognize it as it passes. As a child growing up in the 1950s and 1960s, I remember our local American Legion selling red silk poppies as a fundraising effort in my hometown of Skiatook. I do not recall making any connection between those red silk poppies and the deeply held appreciation my community had for the sacrifices of our military, nor do I recall making the intellectual connection between those sacrifices and what was then called “Decoration Day.” It was not until much later in life that I learned “In Flanders Fields” was the inspiration for the Veterans of Foreign Wars red silk poppies sales and that those items had been handmade by veterans as a source of income for hospitalized and disabled veterans. For me, Decoration Day was a trek to a small cemetery near Tahlequah, where my mother’s family shared maintenance responsibilities for a private cemetery where many of my mother’s family are buried. We dutifully “decorated” graves with flowers and spent time as a family remembering those no longer with us. This event was an extended family gathering that amounted to an annual family reunion and picnic at this very modest rural cemetery. My mother’s family did not have a strong military tradition, and my father’s family did not speak of their service during World Wars I and II, which may be why I did not make the connection in my early years. As I became involved in Boy Scouts, my adult leaders, who were ex-military, did a much better job of making the connection between Decoration Day and the sacrifices of fallen United States military men and women. Between the crosses, row on row That mark our place; and in the sky The larks, still bravely singing, fly Scarce heard amid the guns below. We are the Dead. Short days ago We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, Loved and were loved, and now we lie In Flanders fields. Take up our quarrel with the foe: To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders fields. – Maj. John McCrae, “In Flanders Fields” As my lovely bride would be the first to tell you, TU’s petroleum engineering school did not expose me to much poetry, nor is poetry one of my passions today. However, this particular poem has always haunted me with its simple phrasing and evocation of a terrible battle. During World War I, Maj. John McCrae served in the Canadian Artillery Brigade as a surgeon in the Second Battle of Ypres, Belgium, and penned this poem in May 1915 after losing a comrade and former student. Maj. McCrae was not pleased with what he had written and discarded the poem, but a fellow officer rescued the poem and sent it to newspapers in England, where it was published. The inspiration for the visual images was wild poppies that sprung up in ditches in that part of Europe in the spring. In Flanders Fields, the Poppies Blow... From the President By D. Kenyon “Ken” Williams Jr. D. Kenyon “Ken” Williams Jr. is a shareholder and director at Hall Estill in Tulsa. 918-594-0519 kwilliams@hallestill.com (continued on page 64)
MAY 2025 | 5 THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL JOURNAL STAFF JANET K. JOHNSON Editor-in-Chief janetj@okbar.org LORI RASMUSSEN Managing Editor lorir@okbar.org EMILY BUCHANAN HART Assistant Editor emilyh@okbar.org LAUREN DAVIS Advertising Manager advertising@okbar.org HAILEY BOYD Communications Specialist haileyb@okbar.org Volume 96 — No. 5 — May 2025 D. KENYON WILLIAMS JR., President, Sperry; AMBER PECKIO, President-Elect, Tulsa; RICHARD D. WHITE JR., Vice President, Tulsa; MILES PRINGLE, Immediate Past President, Oklahoma City; JOHN E. BARBUSH, Durant; BENJAMIN J. BARKER, Enid; CODY J. COOPER, Oklahoma City; KATE N. DODOO, Oklahoma City; PHILIP D. HIXON, Tulsa; JANA L. KNOTT, El Reno; CHAD A. LOCKE, Muskogee; WILLIAM LADD OLDFIELD, Ponca City; TIMOTHY L. ROGERS, Tulsa; NICHOLAS E. THURMAN, Ada; JEFF D. TREVILLION, Oklahoma City; LUCAS M. WEST, Norman; TAYLOR C. VENUS, Chairperson, OBA Young Lawyers Division, Enid The Oklahoma Bar Journal (ISSN 0030-1655) is published monthly, except June and July, by the Oklahoma Bar Association, 1901 N. Lincoln Boulevard, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105. Periodicals postage paid at Oklahoma City, Okla. and at additional mailing offices. Subscriptions $85 per year. Law students registered with the OBA and senior members may subscribe for $45; all active members included in dues. Single copies: $8.50 Postmaster Send address changes to the Oklahoma Bar Association, P.O. Box 53036, Oklahoma City, OK 73152-3036. THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL is a publication of the Oklahoma Bar Association. All rights reserved. Copyright© 2025 Oklahoma Bar Association. Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. Although advertising copy is reviewed, no endorsement of any product or service offered by any advertisement is intended or implied by publication. Advertisers are solely responsible for the content of their ads, and the OBA reserves the right to edit or reject any advertising copy for any reason. Legal articles carried in THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL are selected by the Board of Editors. Information about submissions can be found at www.okbar.org. BAR CENTER STAFF Janet K. Johnson, Executive Director; Gina L. Hendryx, General Counsel; Chris Brumit, Director of Administration; Jim Calloway, Director of Management Assistance Program; Beverly Petry Lewis, Administrator MCLE Commission; Gigi McCormick, Director of Educational Programs; Lori Rasmussen, Director of Communications; Richard Stevens, Ethics Counsel; Robbin Watson, Director of Information Technology; John Morris Williams, Executive Consultant; Julie A. Bays, Practice Management Advisor; Loraine Dillinder Farabow, Jana Harris, Tracy Pierce Nester, Katherine Ogden, Steve Sullins, Assistant General Counsels Barbara Acosta, Taylor Anderson, Les Arnold, Allison Beahan, Gary Berger, Hailey Boyd, Cassie Brickman, Cheryl Corey, Lauren Davis, Nickie Day, Ben Douglas, Melody Florence, Matt Gayle, Emily Buchanan Hart, Steve Jagosh, Debra Jenkins, LaRica Krischel, Rhonda Langley, Durrel Lattimore, Renee Montgomery, Jaycee Moseley, Tracy Sanders, Mark Schneidewent, Ben Stokes, Krystal Willis, Laura Willis & Roberta Yarbrough Oklahoma Bar Association 405-416-7000 Toll Free 800-522-8065 FAX 405-416-7001 Continuing Legal Education 405-416-7029 Ethics Counsel 405-416-7055 General Counsel 405-416-7007 Lawyers Helping Lawyers 800-364-7886 Mgmt. Assistance Program 405-416-7008 Mandatory CLE 405-416-7009 Board of Bar Examiners 405-416-7075 Oklahoma Bar Foundation 405-416-7070 www.okbar.org OFFICERS & BOARD OF GOVERNORS BOARD OF EDITORS MELISSA DELACERDA, Stillwater, Chair BECKY R. BAIRD, Miami MARTHA RUPP CARTER, Tulsa NORMA G. COSSIO, Enid MELANIE WILSON RUGHANI, Oklahoma City EVAN A. TAYLOR, Norman ROY TUCKER, Muskogee MAGDALENA A. WAY, El Reno DAVID E. YOUNGBLOOD, Atoka
MAY 2025 | 7 THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL Cannabis Law Navigating Compliance Challenges: Addressing Oklahoma’s Legislative Gaps in Cannabis Processing By Rachel O. Klubeck OKLAHOMA’S LACK OF LEGISLATIVE CLARITY and regulatory definitions surrounding cannabis processing has led to compliance challenges, inconsistent labeling and enforcement difficulties within the industry. INTRODUCTION Oklahoma’s cannabis industry has experienced unprecedented growth – and obstacles – since medical marijuana was legalized in 2018. With just over 900 active Oklahoma medical marijuana processing licenses,1 this evolving sector presents both opportunities and significant regulatory challenges. Unlike cultivators and dispensaries, processors operate in a uniquely complex space, necessitating clear guidelines on manufacturing, safety and compliance. However, Oklahoma’s regulatory framework fails to understand and define key industry terms, leading to inconsistent enforcement, compliance confusion and industry uncertainty. This article examines the gaps in Oklahoma’s cannabis processing laws, clarifies licensing classifications and proposes reforms to promote industry stability as well as consumer safety. DEFINING PROCESSING AND CLASSIFYING HAZARDOUS AND NONHAZARDOUS LICENSING The current licensing structure in Oklahoma allows for a broad definition of cannabis processors, leading to variations in compliance requirements. While some processors engage in the direct manufacturing of cannabis products – extracting, refining and infusing raw cannabis into oils, concentrates, edibles and topicals – other business models operate primarily as intermediaries. These processors act as distributors, facilitating and brokering the transfer of cannabis products from cultivators to dispensaries or other licensed businesses without engaging in the actual manufacturing process. Because their role is distinct from traditional processing, their compliance obligations differ, focusing more on inventory tracking, transportation and quality assurance rather than extraction and solvent safety protocols. Cannabis processing refers to the transformation of raw cannabis flower into a variety of products, including oils, concentrates, edibles and topicals.2 The Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority (OMMA) defines processing as the distillation, extraction, manufacturing, preparation or production of a medical marijuana product.3 However, this definition lacks specificity regarding the different methods and risk factors associated with various processing techniques. Under Oklahoma law, processing is categorized as either hazardous or nonhazardous, depending Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff.
THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL 8 | MAY 2025 on the extraction method used.4 Hazardous processing uses volatile solvents, such as butane, propane, CO2 or ethanol. 5 These chemicals require strict safety protocols and facility buildout requirements under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) Hazard Communication Standard,6 including Class 1, Division 1 (C1D1) certification to prevent fire and explosion hazards pursuant to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA).7 Nonhazardous processing, by contrast, avoids volatile solvents and includes methods such as ice water hash8 production, rosin pressing9 and the manufacturing of edible products and uninfused prerolls.10 Additionally, processors operating under a distribution-only business model would fall under the nonhazardous category. These techniques pose fewer safety risks and are subject to less stringent regulatory oversight. KEY PROCESSING TERMS THAT REMAIN UNDEFINED OMMA’s regulations fail to provide clear definitions for several essential terms, creating regulatory uncertainty and enforcement inconsistencies. The absence of standardized terminology leads to misclassification of products, inconsistent testing requirements and compliance difficulties for processors. Below are some of the most critical missing definitions and their potential impacts. Cannabis Concentrate Variations OMMA rules define “medical marijuana concentrate” or “concentrate” as: A substance obtained by separating cannabinoids from any part of the marijuana plant by physical or chemical means, so as to deliver a product with a cannabinoid concentration greater than the raw plant material from which it is derived. Categories of concentrate include water-based medical marijuana concentrate, food-based medical marijuana concentrate, solvent-based concentrate, and heat- or pressure- based medical marijuana concentrate as those terms are defined in the Oklahoma Medical Marijuana and Patient Protection Act.11 However, OMMA regulations do not distinguish between different classifications of concentrates, with examples such as rosin,12 resin,13 distillate14 and hash.15 These variations involve distinct extraction and refinement techniques, yet they remain undefined, leading to compliance confusion, inconsistent production and discrepancies in regulatory and testing enforcement. Standardized definitions would clarify and ensure uniform application of regulations. Concentrates should be specifically defined and classified based on their source material and processing methods. For example, cured resin is derived from drycured cannabis,16 while live resin is extracted from fresh, frozen-cured cannabis.17 Rosin and hash should be classified separately, as hash serves as a precursor to rosin, rather than a final extract. Establishing classifications such as these would provide regulatory clarity, improve enforcement consistency and create a standardized framework for cannabis processing compliance. Solvent-Based vs. Solventless Extraction The current rules lack specificity on which solvents are approved, restricted or prohibited. There is also no regulatory framework outlining acceptable residual solvent limits in final products. Without clear solvent guidelines, processors risk noncompliance due to varying interpretations of what constitutes a hazardous or nonhazardous process, potentially leading to public safety implications. For example, the use of hexane and heptane as solvents in cannabis extraction has raised significant health and safety concerns.18 Hexane, a Class II solvent – per the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use19 – has been linked to respiratory irritation, dermatitis, liver and kidney failure and neurological disorders, such as Parkinson’s disease.20 Heptane, while considered less toxic than hexane, is still associated with health hazards, including respiratory irritation and central nervous system effects.21 OSHA identified the handling and transfer of flammable solvents like hexane and heptane as potential health hazards in cannabis processing, emphasizing the need for proper safety protocols to prevent employee exposure.22 Given these risks, many in the industry advocate for the use of safer alternatives, which offer effective extraction capabilities with a more favorable safety profile. A defined list of permitted solvents and standardized solvent residue thresholds would clarify compliance and enhance safety and regulatory certainty. Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff.
MAY 2025 | 9 THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. Terpene and Cannabinoid Profiling Terpenes play a significant role in consumer choice and product differentiation, yet OMMA has not established a clear definition or any requirements for their reporting. Oklahoma mandates potency testing but does not require consistent terpene labeling or profile classifications. According to Oklahoma law, “terpenoids” are defined as isoprenes that are the aromatic compounds found in cannabis, including but not limited to limonene, myrcene, pinene, linalool, eucalyptol, delta-terpinene, beta-caryophyllene, caryophyllene oxide, nerolidol and phytol.23 These naturally occurring hydrocarbons contribute not only to the sensory experience of cannabis but also to its therapeutic effects through a phenomenon known as the entourage effect, where they interact with cannabinoids like THC24 and CBD25 to enhance or modify their effects.26 However, state regulations do not currently mandate terpene-specific testing or labeling, leaving gaps in consumer transparency and standardization. As research into cannabis terpenes expands, their role in therapeutic applications, strain differentiation and product formulation continues to gain industry attention. Cannabinoid profiling refers to the analysis of a cannabis product’s chemical composition, specifically identifying and quantifying cannabinoids such as THC, CBD and CBG.27 28 This profiling helps differentiate between full-spectrum, broad-spectrum and isolate products. Full-spectrum extracts retain a wide range of cannabinoids and terpenes, including trace amounts of THC, promoting the entourage effect, where compounds work synergistically for enhanced therapeutic benefits.29 Broad-spectrum extracts also contain multiple cannabinoids and terpenes but undergo further processing to remove THC, making them a preferred choice for consumers seeking cannabis benefits without psychoactive effects.30 Isolates, on the other hand, contain a single purified cannabinoid, such as CBD isolate, eliminating all other plant compounds.31 Defining acceptable terpene profiles and cannabinoid classification standards would improve transparency and regulatory enforcement. Isomerization Isomerization is a chemical process that alters the molecular structure of cannabinoids, often converting CBD into delta-8 THC32 or other minor cannabinoids. No clear standards exist for cannabinoids derived through isomerization, creating significant compliance challenges and uncertainty in product classification, labeling and marketing. Due to the lack of explicit regulatory guidance, processors face uncertainty regarding legality, testing requirements and permissible concentration limits, leading to inconsistencies in enforcement. This regulatory gap also complicates marketing claims as businesses struggle to determine how these cannabinoids should be labeled and whether they fall under the same compliance standards as naturally occurring THC variants. Without clear legal definitions and standardized testing protocols, the industry remains vulnerable to shifting interpretations, inconsistent enforcement and potential legal risks for processors and retailers. Postprocessing Techniques Techniques such as winterization (removing fats/lipids), decarboxylation (activating THC/CBD through heat) and nanoemulsification (creating water-soluble THC for edibles) are common industry practices but are not addressed in OMMA’s guidelines. The absence of regulatory oversight for these processes leaves a gap in compliance standards, potentially resulting in inconsistent product quality and safety concerns. A regulatory framework outlining acceptable postprocessing methods and safety protocols is necessary to ensure consumer and business protection. Defining acceptable terpene profiles and cannabinoid classification standards would improve transparency and regulatory enforcement.
THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL 10 | MAY 2025 Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. CONVOLUTED LICENSING AND COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS While licensing requirements differentiate between hazardous and nonhazardous processing, Oklahoma medical marijuana laws fail to define key aspects, such as solvent concentration limits, facility safety requirements and compliance obligations for emerging technologies. Processors must also secure permits beyond standard OMMA licensing, including Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (OBNDD) registration,33 Class VIII un-odorized LP Gas Administration (LPG) permit(s) for the use of propane or butane,34 Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry (ODAFF) permits for the purchase and resale of live plants35 and cannabis seeds36 and Oklahoma State Department of Health (OSDH) food permit for edible cannabis products.37 Cannabis processing facilities must comply with fire safety regulations set by the Oklahoma State Fire Marshal (OSFM),38 which has emphasized the need for processors to engage with local government agencies during their facility-planning phase. The fire marshal’s oversight is particularly relevant in unincorporated areas where local jurisdiction agreements may not exist, adding another layer of complexity to compliance obligations. Obtaining a business license and building permit may not suffice; additional permits and adherence to specific safety protocols are often required.39 Processors should be strongly encouraged to consult licensed Oklahoma design professionals for facility planning to ensure compliance with the latest state-adopted building and fire codes. Environmental compliance also plays a critical role in cannabis processing regulations. The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) oversees key environmental permits affecting cannabis processors, including air quality, water quality and waste management.40 Their regulatory authority includes environmental permitting, compliance monitoring and enforcing state and federal environmental laws.41 Firstly, the DEQ regulates air quality through a dual permitting system comprising construction permits and operating permits.42 This system applies to both major and minor sources of air pollution. Cannabis processing facilities may fall under these regulations, depending on their specific operations and emission levels. Secondly, the DEQ oversees water quality and waste management through its Water Quality and Land Protection divisions.43 While the general wastewater disposal permit (OKG42T) primarily addresses wastewater from medical marijuana cultivation facilities, it explicitly excludes wastewater from processing facilities.44 Therefore, cannabis processors are not authorized to dispose of their wastewater under this general permit. As a result, cannabis processors must seek alternative permits for wastewater disposal (if applicable to their operations) to comply with state and federal environmental regulations.45 For instance, discharges to waters of the state or potentially contaminated stormwater generated at processing sites require coverage under a different Oklahoma Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (OPDES) permit. Additionally, discharges to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) are not covered under this permit and may necessitate applying for coverage under a different permit. When it comes to the disposal of solid medical marijuana waste, processors are not permitted to obtain their own DEQ-issued solid waste disposal license; instead, they must use OMMA-licensed waste disposal companies to ensure proper cannabis waste management in compliance with state regulations.46
MAY 2025 | 11 THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. By reforming and establishing a uniform regulatory framework for cannabis processing terms, Oklahoma can create a more consistent and predictable compliance environment. This will not only protect consumer safety but also promote industry growth and regulatory adherence. REGULATORY GAPS AND COMPLIANCE CHALLENGES Oklahoma’s cannabis processors face numerous regulatory challenges stemming from legislative gaps, overlapping jurisdictions and financial burdens. Navigating state, federal and municipal requirements presents significant barriers to operational stability and long-term success. While Oklahoma state law primarily regulates the distance between dispensaries and sensitive locations, municipal regulations further complicate processing compliance, as local governments impose zoning restrictions, additional permitting requirements and operational limitations. Certain municipalities have enacted local buffer zone restrictions specifically for cannabis processing facilities – for example, the city of Purcell requires a 1,000-foot buffer between processing facilities and schools; a 750-foot buffer from places of worship, libraries, museums and childcare centers; and a 200-foot distance from residential zones.47 Other cities may have similar restrictions, requiring processors to carefully review local zoning laws before establishing operations. Financial constraints further hinder processors’ ability to operate properly. Due to federal prohibition, cannabis businesses have limited access to banking services, often requiring them to operate as cash-only entities.48 This increases security risks and complicates payroll, tax compliance and vendor payments.49 Additionally, IRS Code 280E prohibits cannabis businesses from deducting standard operating expenses, resulting in disproportionately high tax liabilities.50 Many processors face effective tax rates of up to 70%, making profitability an ongoing challenge.51 Without federal legalization or reclassification, businesses remain restricted from traditional financing and interstate commerce, limiting growth opportunities. Regulatory inconsistencies exacerbate compliance difficulties. Oklahoma law does not clearly define distinctions between cannabis products and extraction methods, as noted previously, leading to discrepancies in product classification and labeling requirements. This lack of standardization results in enforcement inconsistencies, creating legal uncertainty for businesses (and attorneys) attempting to comply with shifting regulations. Further, laboratory testing inconsistencies pose a serious problem, as processors receive conflicting potency and contaminant test results from different labs, increasing the risk of mislabeling. These major discrepancies undermine regulatory enforcement and heighten the risk of unintentional noncompliance and the risk of product recall. LEGISLATIVE SOLUTIONS AND THE PATH FORWARD Bridging Regulatory Gaps With Targeted Reforms and Unified Regulatory Framework While defining key industry terms is a crucial first step in resolving regulatory ambiguities, broader reforms are necessary to create a functional and sustainable cannabis processing framework in Oklahoma. The current fragmented regulatory structure, in which multiple agencies impose overlapping and sometimes conflicting requirements on processors, presents one of the most significant challenges to industry stability. Presently, cannabis processors are subject to regulations from multiple state and municipal agencies, each overseeing different facets of compliance, from product testing and safety standards to environmental and fire safety regulations. However, there is no centralized system ensuring uniformity in enforcement, leading to regulatory inefficiencies, delayed approvals and unnecessary financial strain on businesses. The absence of a coordinated compliance structure not only complicates regulatory adherence but also deters investment and innovation within the industry. To address these challenges, Oklahoma lawmakers should consider the establishment of an interagency task force – a coordinated body composed of representatives from OMMA, the OBNDD, OSHA, the OSDH, the ODAFF, the OSFM, the DEQ and the LPG (and the Oklahoma Tax Commission and more), as well as industry stakeholders and legal professionals. This task force would be responsible for: Standardizing enforcement policies across agencies Clarifying jurisdictional authority to eliminate redundant or conflicting regulations Creating a unified compliance framework that
THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL 12 | MAY 2025 Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. streamlines licensing, safety and reporting requirements Identifying necessary updates to existing laws to reflect evolving industry practices and technology Oklahoma must establish a single regulatory framework that aligns regulations into a streamlined and enforceable structure, reducing burdens on businesses while ensuring compliance. A unified system would eliminate contradictory regulatory interpretations and create a more predictable compliance environment. A dedicated task force would ensure that Oklahoma’s cannabis regulations evolve proactively rather than reactively, providing greater regulatory stability for businesses and consumers alike. Defining Key Industry Terms That Remain Undefined To create a more predictable and enforceable regulatory framework, Oklahoma must define key terms in cannabis processing to eliminate compliance ambiguity and inconsistencies. The lack of clear classifications for concentrates, solvent use and postprocessing techniques leaves processors vulnerable to regulatory uncertainty and inconsistent enforcement. Without standardized terpene labeling, solvent residue limits and cannabinoid classifications, businesses struggle to comply with shifting interpretations of the law, while consumers are left without transparency or enforcement in product labeling. Legislators and regulators must act now to establish precise definitions and uniform standards that provide clarity, promote compliance and foster a stable and sustainable cannabis industry in Oklahoma. Financial Relief and Incentives Beyond compliance standardization, Oklahoma lawmakers must address the financial barriers that hinder the growth and sustainability of cannabis processing businesses. The burdens of high tax rates, limited access to banking and significant compliance costs place an undue strain on processors, particularly small and midsized operators. To foster industry stability, policymakers should consider a range of economic incentives that ease financial pressure while encouraging regulatory adherence. One approach is the introduction of tax incentives for compliance upgrades, allowing processors to offset the costs of facility modifications, safety improvements and new equipment necessary to meet evolving regulatory standards. Providing grants for facility enhancements – particularly for small businesses investing in energy efficiency, security measures or quality control infrastructure – would further encourage long-term compliance. Additionally, state-backed loan programs could provide processors with much-needed access to capital, helping businesses finance operational expansion, safety upgrades or technology investments that improve efficiency and compliance. To create a more equitable tax structure, lawmakers should explore a tiered tax system that scales based on business size and revenue, ensuring that small and mid-sized processors are not disproportionately burdened compared to larger, more established operators. This would help prevent excessive tax liabilities that stifle growth and innovation, allowing smaller businesses to Proactive engagement from the legal community is essential to establishing a fair and sustainable regulatory environment for the cannabis industry in Oklahoma.
MAY 2025 | 13 THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL remain competitive in an increasingly regulated market. By implementing these financial relief measures, Oklahoma can create a cannabis processing industry that is not only compliant but also economically sustainable, promoting and sustaining jobs, investments and long-term industry viability. Industry Collaboration and Legislative Action While legislative changes are essential, their success hinges on coordinated efforts between regulators, industry stakeholders and legal professionals. Regulatory agencies must work closely with the industry to ensure compliance measures are both enforceable and practical. Ongoing engagement through public comment periods, industry forums and legal advisory panels can help fine-tune regulations before implementation. The financial burden of compliance also necessitates a structured approach to enforcement. Overly aggressive penalties for minor infractions can discourage investment and drive smaller operators out of business. Regulators should focus on providing clear guidance, offering compliance assistance and implementing graduated penalty structures to ensure fair enforcement. Additionally, attorneys and compliance specialists must stay ahead of evolving regulations to effectively advise clients. Legal professionals play a critical role in bridging the gap between business operations and regulatory requirements by interpreting new laws, advocating for fair policies and helping businesses navigate compliance challenges. Even with state-level improvements, federal uncertainty remains a barrier to growth. Advocating for federal banking reform, such as the SAFE Banking Act, would help processors access financial services, improving stability and compliance. Additionally, policymakers should push for clear recall procedures to protect processors from liability due to inconsistent testing standards. CONCLUSION By addressing these challenges, Oklahoma can create a regulatory framework that not only ensures compliance but also fosters business growth and innovation. Policymakers and legal professionals have a crucial role to play in shaping the future of cannabis processing regulations. Attorneys can advocate for reform by participating in legislative discussions, contributing to policy proposals and ensuring their clients remain informed of evolving compliance requirements. Proactive engagement from the legal community is essential to establishing a fair and sustainable regulatory environment for the cannabis industry in Oklahoma. Policymakers, industry leaders and legal professionals must collaborate to push for meaningful reforms that balance public safety, economic sustainability and regulatory clarity, ensuring Oklahoma remains a leader in the evolving cannabis industry. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Rachel O. Klubeck is the managing attorney at Jarman Law, practicing cannabis, business, administrative and criminal defense law in Oklahoma City. In 2021, her article “Waste Not, Want Not” was published in the Oklahoma Bar Journal’s first cannabis law issue. She is admitted to practice in both state and federal courts. She received her J.D. in 2018 from the OU College of Law. ENDNOTES 1. Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority, “Licensing and Tax Data,” www.oklahoma.gov (Feb. 5, 2025), https://bit.ly/3ReXVAm (last visited Feb. 8, 2025). 2. Okla. Stat. tit. 63, §423(C)(1) (2023); Okla. Admin. Code §442:10-1-4 (2024). 3. Okla. Admin. Code §442:10-1-4 (2024). 4. Id. 5. Id. 6. OSHA Hazard Communication Standard: 29 C.F.R. §1910.1200 (2024). 7. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 70, National Electrical Code, art. 500 (2024). 8. Ice water hash (or bubble hash) is a solventless extraction method that uses ice-cold water and agitation to separate trichomes from cannabis plant material. The trichomes are then collected through a series of fine mesh bags to produce a purified concentrate. See Leafly, “Ice Water Hash Definition,” https://bit.ly/428oT2V (last visited Feb. 8, 2025). 9. Rosin pressing is a method of applying heat and pressure to cannabis plant material to extract cannabinoids and terpenes without solvents. See Cannabis Bus. Times, “Understanding Solventless Extraction Methods,” at 32 (February 2024). 10. Okla. Admin Code, supra note 3. 11. Okla. Admin Code, supra note 3, at 2. 12. Rosin is a solventless cannabis concentrate produced by applying heat and pressure to plant material – such as dried flowers, hash or kief – to extract a resinous sap. This method preserves cannabinoids and terpenes without chemical solvents, making it a preferred option for consumers seeking a clean, full-spectrum extract. See Lo Friesen, “The Evolution of Ethanol Extraction Methods in Cannabis,” 4 Cannabis Sci. & Tech. 13, 14 (2021), https://bit.ly/3EgbI6R (last visited Feb. 10, 2025). 13. Resin is a sticky, cannabinoid-rich secretion produced by the trichomes of the cannabis plant. It serves as the raw material for many cannabis extracts and can be processed into live resin (extracted from fresh-frozen flower) or cured resin (derived from dried flower). Resin contains a high concentration of cannabinoids and terpenes, making it a key component of many concentrates. See Aitor Sainz Martinez et al., “Extraction Techniques for Bioactive Compounds of Cannabis,” Nat. Prod. Rep. 2023. https://bit.ly/3XVPsWy (last visited Feb. 10, 2025). 14. Distillate is a highly refined cannabis extract produced through distillation, a process that isolates cannabinoids by separating them from other plant compounds based on boiling points. Distillate is often odorless and flavorless, making it a versatile ingredient for edibles, vape cartridges and infused products. However, because the process removes terpenes, some products reintroduce them for enhanced effects. See Lo Friesen, supra note at 12. 15. Hash is a traditional cannabis concentrate made by collecting and compressing trichomes, the resinous glands that contain cannabinoids and Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff.
THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL 14 | MAY 2025 terpenes. Hash can be produced through various methods, including dry sieving, hand-rubbing or ice water extraction (bubble hash), resulting in a dense, resinous product. It is one of the oldest and most widely used cannabis concentrates. See Aitor Sainz Martinez, supra note at 13. 16. Dry-cured cannabis refers to harvested cannabis plants that have undergone a drying and curing process to remove moisture and enhance flavor and aroma. This involves hanging the plants in a controlled environment to dry, followed by storing the dried buds in airtight containers to cure, allowing for the breakdown of chlorophyll and the development of desired flavors. See “The Ultimate Guide to Drying and Curing Cannabis for the Best Results,” Leafly, https://bit.ly/428p3Hz (last visited Feb. 10, 2025). 17. Fresh-frozen cannabis refers to cannabis plants that are harvested and immediately frozen to preserve their cannabinoid and terpene profiles. This method skips the traditional drying and curing stages, maintaining the plant’s freshness, and is often used in the production of high-quality concentrates like live resin. See “What Is Fresh Frozen?” Leafly, https://bit.ly/3G1Jux4 (last visited Feb. 10, 2025). 18. Modern Canna Labs, “Residual Solvent Testing in Cannabis,” https://bit.ly/3R9TKWz (last visited Feb. 8, 2025); Drexel University Cannabis Research Center, “OSHA and Cannabis Workplace Safety,” https://bit.ly/3RcAgRa (last visited Feb. 8, 2025). 19. International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH), “Guideline for Residual Solvents” Q3C (R8), (May 2021), https://bit.ly/3GiiWrI (last visited Feb. 8, 2025). United States Pharmacopeia (USP), USP General Chapter <467> “Residual Solvents,” (2021), https://bit.ly/3ExAUWA (last visited Feb. 8, 2025). 20. Id. 21. Id. 22. Id. 23. Okla. Admin Code supra note 3, at 2. 24. Id. 25. The Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority does not provide a specific definition for cannabidiol (CBD) in its regulations. However, under Oklahoma law, a “cannabinoid” is defined as “any of the chemical compounds that are active principles of marijuana,” which includes CBD. See 63 Okla. Stat. §427.2(4). 26. Ethan B. Russo, “Taming THC: Potential Cannabis Synergy and Phytocannabinoid-Terpenoid Entourage Effects,” 163 Brit. J. Pharmacol. 1344, 1348-49 (2011), https://bit.ly/3GfGf5e (last visited Feb. 10, 2025). 27. Cannabigerol (CBG) is a nonpsychoactive cannabinoid found in the cannabis sativa plant. It is synthesized from its precursor, cannabigerolic acid (CBGA), which also serves as a biosynthetic precursor to other cannabinoids, including cannabidiol (CBD) and Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). CBG is typically present in low concentrations within the plant. See Benedikt B. Wenzel et al., “Pharmacological Aspects and Biological Effects of Cannabigerol and Its Synthetic Derivatives,” 13 Biomolecules 1841, 1843-45 (2023), available at https://bit.ly/3GfGjlu (last visited Feb. 10, 2025). 28. “Full Spectrum CBD vs Isolate CBD – What’s the Difference?” Cannabis Clinic, https://bit.ly/4jqVeYs (last visited Feb. 10, 2025); “Full Spectrum, Broad Spectrum, and Isolate: What’s the Difference?” SōRSE Technology, https://bit.ly/43SR9I8 (last visited Feb. 10, 2025); “What’s the difference between CBD isolate and full-spectrum CBD?” Medical News Today, https://bit.ly/4jzWfh6 (last visited Feb. 10, 2025). 29. Russo, supra note 26. 30. Id. 31. Id. 32. Delta-8 THC (Δ8-tetrahydrocannabinol) is a naturally occurring minor cannabinoid in cannabis, structurally similar to delta-9 THC but with milder psychoactive effects. It is often produced synthetically through the isomerization of CBD due to its low natural concentration in cannabis plants. Delta-8 THC interacts with the CB1 receptors in the endocannabinoid system, producing euphoric and relaxing effects, though it is generally considered less potent than delta-9 THC. See Daniel J. Kruger and Jessica S. Kruger, “Delta-8-THC: Delta-9-THC’s Nicer Younger Sibling?” 46 J. Med. Toxicol. 1, 2 (2021), available at https://bit.ly/4ii82Q6 (last visited Feb. 10, 2025). 33. Okla. Admin. Code §442:10-1-5(c) (2024). 34. Okla. Admin. Code §420:10-1-5(b)(9)(2024). 35. “Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Nursery Program FAQs,” https://bit.ly/44cq7vB (last visited Feb. 8, 2025). 36. “Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Agricultural Licenses Needed,” https://bit.ly/4jwlsJ0 (last visited Feb. 8, 2025). 37. Okla. Admin. Code §§442:10-5-8, 310:257, 310:260 (2024). 38. 74 Okla. Stat. §324.11 (2024). 39. C1D1 certification for hazardous processing safety protocols: supra note 7, at 2. 40. Okla. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality, “About DEQ,” www.deq.ok.gov/asd/about-deq (last visited Feb. 10, 2025). 41. Id. 42. Okla. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality, “Air Permits,” https://bit.ly/3GbRMCU (last visited Feb. 10, 2025). 43. Okla. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality, “Water Quality Division,” www.deq.ok.gov/divisions/wqd (last visited Feb. 10, 2025); Okla. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality, “Waste Management,” https://bit.ly/4juWHgn (last visited Feb. 10, 2025). 44. Okla. Admin. Code §252:656-1-3 (2024). 45. Id. 46. Okla. Admin. Code §442:10-9-9 (2024). 47. Purcell, Okla., Mun. Code §123-10 (2022). 48. James J. Black and Marc-Alain Galeazzi, “Cannabis Banking: Proceed with Caution.” Bus. L Today. (Feb. 6, 2020), https://bit.ly/4cEq0uB. 49. Id. 50. 26 U.S.C. §280E (2018); Nat’l Cannabis Indus. Ass’n, The Impact of IRS 280E on the Cannabis Industry (2022). 51. Andrew Larson, “Effective Tax Rate on Cannabis Companies ‘Can Be Fatal’; Proposed Bill Would Offer Relief,” Hartford Bus. J., Feb. 6, 2022, https://bit.ly/3Y5Rbsy. (last visited April. 18, 2025). Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff.
THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL 16 | MAY 2025 Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. THE PASSAGE OF STATE QUESTION 788 IMPACTED EVERY OKLAHOMAN more than they may know. In June 2018, Oklahoma became the 30th state to allow for the sale of medicinal marijuana to state-registered patients.1 If someone does not have a medical marijuana card themselves, they are guaranteed to know someone who does. There were over 350,000 medical marijuana-licensed patients in Oklahoma in 2023.2 Since the passage of State Question 788, the pertinent law surrounding the use, growth and consumption of marijuana has become far more complex. Oklahoma cannabis law is a quagmire, constantly changing and adapting to reflect the current morals and values of our state lawmakers. The laws can be very confusing and turn an innocent situation into a crime scene. There are numerous scenarios in which a person who lawfully possesses marijuana can make a choice that turns their legal weed into an illegal substance. This article will outline some illustrative examples of legal, medicinal cannabis use that turned into a crime in Oklahoma. THE FRIENDLY CONCERT GOER Billy is at a Willie Nelson concert, probably at Cain’s Ballroom or the Oklahoma City Zoo Amphitheater, watching a great show. Billy has an Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority (OMMA) patient license; therefore, he can legally use cannabis for medicinal purposes. The crowd makes Billy a little anxious, so he grabs one of his prerolled cannabis joints and starts to smoke it. Billy’s buddy, Adam, who also has an OMMA card, sees Billy using the marijuana and asks him “for a hit.” Billy, without thinking twice, passes the joint to Adam. Under Oklahoma law, Billy could be charged with a felony.3 Billy has violated 63 O.S. §2-401(A)(1), which holds it is unlawful for a person to distribute a controlled dangerous substance.4 When we think about distributing drugs, we think of cartels, Breaking Bad or scenarios involving large amounts of an illegal substance for some type of financial gain. Billy was not a career drug dealer, nor did he intend to give the drugs to Adam in exchange for money. Furthermore, Billy was lawfully prescribed the marijuana. Cannabis Law Up in Smoke: Seemingly Legal Situations With Unintended Criminal Consequences Surrounding Oklahoma’s Cannabis Laws By Sabah Khalaf and Cade Russell
MAY 2025 | 17 THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. Yet, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has held that distribution is simply the delivery, whether actual or constructive, of a controlled dangerous substance to another.5 If Billy were convicted of this crime, he would face up to five years in the Oklahoma Department of Corrections and a $20,000 fine.6 Billy’s seemingly harmless action could put him behind bars. THE ALLEGEDLY IMPAIRED DRIVER Maria has a medical condition that requires her to take a daily prescription of medical marijuana. Maria is prescribed medical marijuana and consumes it on Friday. She does not drive after consuming her prescribed cannabis. On Monday, while sitting at a stoplight, Maria was rear-ended by an inattentive driver. When police officers arrived at the scene, they questioned both drivers. Because of the smell of marijuana in Maria’s car and her bloodshot eyes, the officer jumped into suspicion mode and made the unsupported conclusion that Maria was under the influence of marijuana. Maria had just worked an overnight shift, had bad allergies and was extremely tired. She was also legally transporting her prescribed medicine in the car. However, the officer arrested Maria and gave her the option to submit to a blood test. Maria lawfully possessed medical marijuana and knew she was not under the influence of anything, so she submitted to the blood draw after her arrest. Oklahoma law is quite clear: Driving with any registrable amount of marijuana in your system is illegal.7 Whether it was legally prescribed or not has no bearing on an officer’s ability to find probable cause that a person committed a DUI. While at first, this might seem like a common-sense policy to make our roads safer, it leaves no room for major differences in how marijuana affects the body and how impairment is measured. Our no-tolerance per se DUI laws passed in 2013 treat marijuana consumption by the federal standard. Since
THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL 18 | MAY 2025 Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. marijuana is a Schedule I drug and illegal federally, any trace amount of marijuana or its metabolites in bodily fluid is enough to trigger a DUI arrest, regardless of intoxication or impairment.8 The main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana is Delta-9tetrahydrocannabinol, commonly known as THC.9 Because THC is fat soluble, it remains in the body long after the psychoactive effects have worn off.10 In fact, THC can stay in the body for 30 days after consumption, long after impairment.11 A National Institute for Justice report conducted in April 2021 found that marijuana’s cognitive and psychomotor effects, those that indicate potential impairment, returned to baseline after four to eight hours.12 Another study suggests that common field sobriety tests administered by officers lack sensitivity to cannabis impairment.13 These field sobriety tests were created to detect alcohol impairment, not cannabis impairment.14 This study provides further evidence that field sobriety tests and biological concentrations of THC (in the blood) may have limited capacity to identify individuals who are intoxicated from cannabis.15 But in Oklahoma, THC presence in the blood is often used to convict, regardless of a prescription or actual intoxication. Smoking marijuana on Friday can lead to a DUI arrest on Monday – or the next Monday or longer – even when there is no impairment. THE FIREARM OWNER Fred is an average Oklahoman who enjoys outdoor activities, especially those involving firearms. He is an avid deer hunter, skeet shooter and connoisseur of collectible guns. After a hunting accident, Fred’s physician prescribed him a medical marijuana card. He uses this prescription to combat the persistent chronic back pain he has endured since the accident. Fred decided to buy himself a new Ruger rifle for the upcoming deer season. When Fred went to register his new gun, he filled out the form like he had numerous times in the past. However, this was the first time he had registered a firearm after being prescribed medical marijuana. When the form asked if Fred used any drugs or illegal substances, he instinctually marked “no.” Fred could be charged with a federal felony for his answer. Under our federalist government system in the United States, there can be conflicts of law between a state statute and the federal code. The current federal government code classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug.16 Even though Fred was issued a medical marijuana card in Oklahoma, where medical marijuana is legal, he has violated federal law by possessing a Schedule I drug, i.e., marijuana, and indicating he did not use drugs on his federal gun registration form.17 Federal law preempts state law based on the federal Constitution’s supremacy clause.18 Fred’s ignorance of the conflicting federal and state laws could result in him being charged with a crime and facing up to 10 years in federal prison.19 THE CANNABIS FARMER John owns 100 acres of land in rural Oklahoma. John applied for and was issued a license to grow medicinal marijuana on a small portion of his land by OMMA and the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control (OBNDD). As John’s license’s expiration grew closer, he began the renewal process with OBNDD. John made numerous attempts to contact the agency to see what he needed to do to comply with the renewal process but never received a response. His license ultimately expired. OBNDD requires an inspection of the land used to grow in the renewal process. As the license renewal process slowly
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==