Half-Truths and Canna Law on the Internet

Home | Canna Law Blog | Half-Truths and Canna Law on the Internet When it comes to canna law on the internet, half-truths might be a bigger problem than outright lies or mistakes. Recently, our sister China Law Blog declared that China Law on the Internet Is All Wrong. As a lawyer who spends a lot of time working on China-related matters, I can confirm that there is a lot of wrong information online on China law. This got me thinking about the vast amount of information about canna law on the internet that is, well, wrong. In many cases, however, the information is not entirely wrong: It may contain a kernel or two of correct information. These half-truths about canna law on the internet, however, may be more dangerous that outright mistakes. The latter are bound to raise more eyebrows, and to be in direct conflict with other information. Half-truths, on the other hand, are harder to detect, whether they concern canna law on the internet or other topics. When it comes to canna law on the internet, most of the wrong information is not peddled on purpose. But this does not make it any less dangerous to those who rely on it. What is worse, the analytical tools that may serve someone well when trying to evaluate information about, say, politics or sports may be insufficient to avoid pitfalls. In some instances, even those writing about cannabis for respected sources lack the sufficient knowledge to accurately present information. Sometimes, the half-lie that is inherent in every half-truth does not consist of inaccurate information, but rather of omissions or unhelpful organization of information. For example, pointing out that hemp is excluded from the Controlled Substances Act definition of marihuana is factually correct. However, it remains unlawful to introduce many hemp CBD into interstate commerce, on account on the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). If an article mentions the first bit of information, but does not address the FDCA, then the reader may take away an unhelpful half-truth. For casual consumers of information, the half-truths on canna law on the internet are unlikely to be a huge deal. However, for those interested in active involvement in the cannabis industry, what is out there in cyberspace will simply not cut it. Check Out Our Cannabis Law Services Share Twitter Facebook LinkedIn E-mail Comment Fred Rocafort Fred leads Harris Sliwoski’s intellectual property practice and is the coordinator of the firm’s international team. Much of Fred’s practice consists of helping cannabis businesses protect their brands. He also works with entrepreneurs and companies entering the Web3 space, a new frontier for IP law. Prior to joining Harris Sliwoski, Fred worked overseas for more than a decade, in both government and private sector roles. Fred is a regular contributor to the award-winning China Law Blog and Canna Law Blog. Fred began his career overseas as a U.S. consular officer in Guangzhou, China, where he advocated for fairer treatment of American companies and citizens in China and for stronger intellectual property rights enforcement. After entering the private sector, Fred worked at a Shanghai law firm as a foreign legal advisor and later joined one of the oldest American law firms in China, helping foreign companies navigate the Chinese legal environment. He also led the legal team at a Hong Kong-based brand protection consultancy, spending most of his time out in the field, protecting clients against counterfeiters and fraudsters in Greater China, Southeast Asia and Latin America. In addition to his IP work, as a native Spanish speaker, Fred works closely with different Harris Sliwoski teams on Latin America and Spain matters. Fred also provides advice to cannabis industry participants and other businesses on import and export transactions. Fred is an ardent supporter of FC Barcelona—and would be even in the absence of Catalan forebears who immigrated to Puerto Rico in the mid-1800s. Harris Sliwoski Attorney Read more posts [email protected] Read More Cannabis Advocacy, Legal Issues Related Posts September 25, 2026 DEA Enforcement in a Changing Cannabis Landscape: Rescheduling, Hemp, and What Comes Next September 17, 2026 The Supreme Court May Decide if Cannabis-Related Residency Requirements are Unconstitutional September 16, 2026 A $31.8 Million Cannabis-Related Verdict That a Federal Court Wouldn’t Enforce September 15, 2026 Jason Adelstone Moderates Federal Cannabis Policy Discussion at IgniteIt Denver September 11, 2026 Medical Marijuana in Schedule III Survives Its First Major Challenge September 10, 2026 How to Acquire a Colorado Cannabis License September 4, 2026 The Intoxicating Hemp Products Ban Was Delayed a Month. Now What? August 31, 2026 Is the Global Shift to the Right Threatening International Cannabis Reforms? August 28, 2026 Oregon Cannabis Roundup: Fall 2026 August 26, 2026 Five Bills Every California Cannabis Operator Needs to Track in 2026 August 14, 2026 California Cannabis Contracts After Rescheduling: Why Your Contracts Need a Second Look August 4, 2026 DCC License Conversions After Rescheduling: How and When to Split A/M Licenses in California August 3, 2026 The Contradictions of Cannabis Law: From the United States to International Treaties July 28, 2026 What California Operators Must Do After Rescheduling: DEA Registration, License Restructuring, and 280E July 24, 2026 Medical Marijuana Schedule III Litigation: The D.C. Circuit's First Major Test Leave a comment Cancel reply