Cannabis Legalization News Podcast
Sep 20, 2026 · 54 min · 14 segments
Send us Fan Mail WHO GETS IN? The cannabis licensing fight reaches a new procedural step—not a Supreme Court ruling. Sunday, September 20 at 3:05 PM…
Thomas HowardHost
Miguel SantiagoHost
Well, we actually filed a certiorari petition against the state when they denied our social equity loan.
They are petitioning to the Supreme Court for certiorari getting their legal opinion regarding a particular issue, which one of the things that they did in Illinois is they've adapted their there are cannabis laws so that we don't have a dormant commerce issue because like, you know, you own 51% and you live in Seattle.
And so you're still social equity as well, unless for the money, then you're not social equity, which silly, but, um, uh, that is an issue of the dormant commerce clause with a split in the circuits.
And so if anything is going to get taken up to the Supreme court, it would be this issue.
Um, uh, I don't know how it's going to cause like the districts that say that it needs to comply with the dormant commerce clause.
Like you can't just preference your own state and discriminate against out-of-state actors trying to engage in commerce in your state.
now when they said that no you don't need to that's always because it's illegal right so that kids like does the Dormant Commerce Clause apply when it is illegal well interestingly enough the Dormant Commerce Clause the actual Commerce Clause applies for them to make it illegal as a commercial regulation and so that the schedule one is a commercial regulation in drugs you know effectively criminalizing them so if that regulation can be an exercise of the commerce power.
Shouldn't the opposite of that also be true? And so if you are going to have this dormant commerce, which is kind of like a prohibition against the states discriminate against one another in interstate commerce, either simply because it is illegal because of a congressional act to regulate commerce, I don't think that it should That should end the analysis.
I think that the dormant commerce clause should apply and you can't really have these in-state preferences for when they give out the licenses.
When you give out money, then you have state actors participating in the marketplace and discrimination becomes more real.
Well, Oklahoma did this too, where I had a buddy get burned because they had that two-year residential agreement.
And my question, does this, so like, because they didn't hear it, right? Because they were like, we don't want to encourage the breaking of the law.
Well, we actually filed a certiorari petition against the state when they denied our social equity loan.
They are petitioning to the Supreme Court for certiorari getting their legal opinion regarding a particular issue, which one of the things that they did in Illinois is they've adapted their there are cannabis laws so that we don't have a dormant commerce issue because like, you know, you own 51% and you live in Seattle.
And so you're still social equity as well, unless for the money, then you're not social equity, which silly, but, um, uh, that is an issue of the dormant commerce clause with a split in the circuits.
And so if anything is going to get taken up to the Supreme court, it would be this issue.
Um, uh, I don't know how it's going to cause like the districts that say that it needs to comply with the dormant commerce clause.
Like you can't just preference your own state and discriminate against out-of-state actors trying to engage in commerce in your state.
now when they said that no you don't need to that's always because it's illegal right so that kids like does the Dormant Commerce Clause apply when it is illegal well interestingly enough the Dormant Commerce Clause the actual Commerce Clause applies for them to make it illegal as a commercial regulation and so that the schedule one is a commercial regulation in drugs you know effectively criminalizing them so if that regulation can be an exercise of the commerce power.
Shouldn't the opposite of that also be true? And so if you are going to have this dormant commerce, which is kind of like a prohibition against the states discriminate against one another in interstate commerce, either simply because it is illegal because of a congressional act to regulate commerce, I don't think that it should That should end the analysis.
I think that the dormant commerce clause should apply and you can't really have these in-state preferences for when they give out the licenses.
When you give out money, then you have state actors participating in the marketplace and discrimination becomes more real.
Well, Oklahoma did this too, where I had a buddy get burned because they had that two-year residential agreement.
And my question, does this, so like, because they didn't hear it, right? Because they were like, we don't want to encourage the breaking of the law.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.