Alana Hans-Cohen, Assistant Counsel for the New York State Office of Cannabis Management – Interview Series

Given how new the field of cannabis law is compared to other more established fields of law, it’s rare that an attorney is licensed in as many states with robust legal cannabis markets as Alana Hans-Cohen, Assistant Counsel for the New York State Office of Cannabis Management. Along with this crucial role in the regulatory body of one of the nation’s youngest cannabis markets, Hans-Cohen is an adjunct professor at Medgar Evers College, teaching two different courses that are requirements for the monumental Bachelor’s Degree in Cannabis Science, those courses being The Business of Cannabis and Retail Dispensary Standard Operating Procedures.

What initially interested you about studying law and policy and what subjects did you study while attending John Jay College?

So, I actually studied political science/political philosophy, but from the moment I arrived at John Jay, I suspected law school might be on my horizon, so I chose classes that laid the groundwork for that path. But true to my counterculture rebel soul, I couldn’t resist diving into the philosophical track offered by the Political Science department. Unlike traditional political science—which focuses on describing and analyzing real-world governance—political philosophy tackles the fundamental questions behind it all: what is the nature and purpose of government, under what circumstances is power legitimate, and how should rights, power, and resources be shared?

Studying the philosophical underpinnings of politics felt in alignment with my strong belief in personal autonomy, open-mindedness deepened by plant medicines, and exploring the deeper layers of human thought. It allowed me to see beyond the rules and regulations and really question why they exist in the first place—and that’s exactly the kind of perspective I wanted a deeper connection with when heading into the law.

What fields of law did you mainly study while a student at New York Law School, and what organizations were you involved in?

When I enrolled in New York Law School, the notion of adult-use cannabis legalization in New York and New Jersey felt more tangible than ever, and I knew that I wanted to use my law degree to serve small business entrepreneurs in the cannabis industry. I asked myself, “What legal services will cannabis entrepreneurs need as they launch their businesses?” Because most cannabis companies begin as startups, I intentionally focused my studies on areas that would help me support a growing venture—corporate, commercial, real estate, and financial law.

At the time, there were no formal cannabis law courses offered at any New York City law school, so in addition to volunteering at cannabis industry events and cannabis CLEs, I immersed myself in the available programs at school that would give me a foundational toolkit: I joined the Center for Business and Financial Law, which emphasized coursework in corporate and commercial law, and I also became involved with the Center for Real Estate Studies, where I explored both private-sector development and the public regulation of commercial real estate.

My passion for cannabis law led me to propose a cannabis law course to my law school in 2016, advocating for its inclusion in the curriculum for over two years. I’m thrilled to say it’s now being offered—an exciting step toward legitimizing and preparing future lawyers for this dynamic industry.

Beyond academics, I stayed active in various organizations. I served as Co-Chair of the Community Service Committee of the Black Law Students Association (BLSA) and was a member of the First-Generation Law Students Association, the Legal Association for Women, and the Jewish Law Students Association. These groups broadened my perspective, and their support networks were a huge source of inspiration throughout my time in law school.

How did your experience with those organizations prepare you for practicing law?

My involvement with the Center for Real Estate Studies and the Center for Business and Financial Law was a game changer for my legal career. Through hands-on workshops and other experiential learning, I learned to navigate real-world scenarios—from analyzing financial regulations to negotiating real estate deals to drafting legal documents for business transactions—that equipped me with some of the practical skills I use in practice to this day. I also had the chance to collaborate with faculty and industry leaders who really helped to guide my growth and solidify my knowledge in business and commercial real estate law for startups.

At the same time, my participation in various student organizations was equally pivotal. As a first-generation college graduate and law student, these groups served as a welcoming community where I could network, seek advice, and develop the confidence needed to survive law school and real-world law practice dynamics. The connections I made during my law school career, inside and outside of law school—especially my legal mentor, Jessica Gonzalez, Esq.—helped shape my outlook on the legal field and encouraged me to aim higher than I ever thought possible, pun intended. Even now, I lean on the lessons and relationships formed during those days; they continue to inform my practice and remind me of the importance of community in the legal profession and the cannabis industry.

When serving as a student attorney for the United States Postal Service, what type of cases did you usually help litigate? In general, what types of lawsuits are usually filed against the USPS?

Serving as a student attorney for the United States Postal Service was both fascinating and surprisingly expansive in scope. The USPS’s Northeast Region, where I worked, doesn’t just handle New York—it also covers New Jersey, Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. So, right away, I was exposed to a wide variety of federal legal matters across a huge geographic area.

My primary focus, however, was assisting with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) discrimination cases filed against the USPS. These cases often involved allegations of workplace discrimination based on race, gender, disability, or other protected categories. It was eye-opening to see firsthand how a federal agency handles such sensitive disputes, and it taught me the importance of thorough investigation and fair resolution.

Beyond EEOC matters, the USPS also faces a range of lawsuits like personal injury claims (e.g., slip-and-falls on postal property), contract disputes, and issues related to mail theft or delivery errors. Even in my short time there, I learned that managing litigation for such a large-scale operation means juggling many different types of cases at once. It was a crash course in federal employment law and civil litigation—a memorable and eye-opening experience in my legal journey.

What were your duties when serving as the Compliance Student Editor for the Cannabis Law Digest, and how would you describe the importance of the platform for cannabis business owners and employees alike?

The Cannabis Law Digest (RIP—it no longer exists) was an ambitious and invaluable project spearheaded by Patricia Heer, a brilliant legal mind and former First Deputy General Counsel at the Office of Cannabis Management. The goal was to create a comprehensive, one-stop resource for nationwide cannabis case law. During it’s time, it served as a vital platform for legal professionals, business owners, and anyone navigating the evolving cannabis industry.

As Compliance Student Editor, my responsibilities included monitoring jurisdictions across the country, scouring for cannabis-related judicial determinations, whether reported or unreported, to ensure our subscribers were constantly informed. My primary task was to analyze and brief new cannabis legal cases, distilling often dense and complex rulings into clear, actionable summaries.

Beyond just listing cases, the Digest gave cannabis business owners, investors, and advisors a way to connect the dots between judicial precedent and the broader industry’s short- and long-term objectives. Having a central hub to track legal developments was intended to help subscribers navigate what can often be a complex web of regulations. In that sense, Cannabis Law Digest was more than just a case repository—it was a crucial decision-making tool that provided greater clarity and confidence for stakeholders across the cannabis industry ecosystem.

Prior to working in cannabis law, what fields of law did you practice, and how would you say those experiences prepared you for working in this new and not nearly as litigated field of law?

The strange thing is, my journey into cannabis law didn’t begin with law at all—it started with a decade-long career in digital search marketing, specializing in SEO (search engine optimization) and PPC (pay-per-click) advertising. While that isn’t a traditional legal background, it gave me an incredible foundation in strategic thinking, data analysis, client service, and creative problem-solving. Those skills, it turns out, have been invaluable in navigating cannabis, where the regulatory landscape is constantly evolving, and many entrepreneurs are still learning how to establish and grow their businesses.

When I made the decision to go back to school and study law, I set a clear intention: once I graduated, I wanted to work with and for women, minority, disabled veteran, social equity, and legacy-to-legal cannabis entrepreneurs. I wasn’t interested in the conventional legal paths that most law students are encouraged to pursue. In fact, I made a conscious decision not to participate in On-Campus Interviewing (OCI), the traditional process where law firms and other employers recruit students for post-graduate positions. I knew there wouldn’t be any cannabis-focused employers in that mix, and I wasn’t willing to compromise on my vision.

My commitment to this industry—and the communities I wanted to serve—meant I had to get creative and hustle. I sought out mentors in the cannabis space and volunteered my time to gain experience and build a network. It wasn’t an easy path, and I became the “weird weed girl” in law school, but the work paid off. I landed a job in cannabis law right out of law school, thanks to my persistence and focus. That experience taught me an invaluable lesson: when you’re passionate about a cause, you have to be willing to carve your own path, even in uncharted territory – You have to be willing to be the “weird weed girl”.

Although cannabis law, in general, certainly hasn’t been as litigated as other fields of law, what would you say have been some of the most crucial or otherwise precedent-setting cases in cannabis law so far?

In my opinion, some of the most interesting cases in cannabis law playing out in many states right now revolve around social equity litigation. We continue to see a number of lawsuits that challenge the constitutionality and fairness of social equity programs designed to address the harms of prohibition, especially in licensing. Unfortunately, this often boils down to a certain degree of gatekeeping: Some license holders—or prospective license holders—feel that once they’ve secured a spot in the market, they don’t want others to have the same opportunities.

It’s frustrating to watch, because social equity provisions exist precisely to uplift communities disproportionately affected by the War on Drugs and to offer pathways into the legal market for entrepreneurs who have traditionally been excluded. Instead, the courtroom has become the battleground for those who believe these policies are unfairly restrictive or prefer to limit new competition. The results of these suits can have major implications for how inclusive—and ultimately, how innovative—the cannabis industry can be moving forward. If social equity programs can withstand legal challenges and be effectively implemented, they have the power to continue to shape the future of cannabis licensing by ensuring that it remains open, diverse, and truly reflective of the communities it serves.

How does the Cannabis Advisory Group assist cannabis businesses and patients and how does this organization fulfill its mission statement of “maximizing the context for the legal access to hemp and cannabis”?

When the Cannabis Advisory Group (CAG) was established in 2020 by Jackie Cornell and Jacqueline Ferraro, their goal was to provide unbiased, fact-based guidance to governments, nonprofits, entrepreneurs, and patients navigating the newly legal cannabis industry through establishing this volunteer run 501(c)3 non-profit.

Over the years, CAG has partnered with a wide range of stakeholders, including the New Jersey League of Municipalities, individual municipalities, and even non-profit groups serving the cannabis industry, to develop best practices that reflect mindful regulation, social equity, and robust market opportunities. CAG works to expand access to the cannabis market while prioritizing equity, by offering resources and guidance for everyone from local and state governments to small business owners just starting out and established companies looking to diversify their supply chain responsibly.

Ultimately, the mission—to “maximize the context for legal access to hemp and cannabis”—drives everything CAG does. By promoting evidence-based standards, testifying on proposed regulations, and sharing knowledge and resources nationwide (in places like Maryland, Colorado, New York, and New Jersey), as well as providing financial support to other nonprofits working in cannabis or with communities disproportionately affected by past cannabis prohibition, CAG works to shape a more inclusive, trustworthy, and socially responsible cannabis landscape.

How did you end up as Assistant Counsel for the New York State Office of Cannabis Management? From your experience in that office, what are the most widespread issues in the New York cannabis industry, and how could those issues be solved?

I often ask myself that same question—how did I end up here? Haha! But in all seriousness, my path to becoming Assistant Counsel for the New York State Office of Cannabis Management is rooted in a deep passion for equitable cannabis reform and a desire to serve communities that have been historically excluded from the benefits of legal cannabis.

Over the 4+ years that I was working in private legal practice, I kept meeting incredible small business cannabis entrepreneurs—women, minorities, disabled veterans, social equity applicants, and legacy-to-legal operators—who inspired me with their dedication and drive. Yet the overwhelming reality was how expensive and out-of-reach competent legal assistance could be for them, which is a major barrier to actually fostering a truly inclusive and innovative cannabis industry.

Being offered an appointment as Assistant Counsel at the New York State Office of Cannabis Management, was not only an honor, I also saw this opportunity as one that could allow me to use my legal background in the cannabis industry to serve my chosen communities more directly, and it’s a role that combines my passion for the plant, equity, and the law. It felt like the best possible way to ensure that the regulatory framework and ongoing policy decisions could uplift the very people who’ve poured so much into the plant. That’s how I ended up as Assistant Counsel, and I’ve never looked back.

As far as the challenges we are seeing in the NY Market, in my personal and professional experience—both in New York and other legal-cannabis states—the most widespread issues we face aren’t unique to New York at all. The first is the lack of access to legitimate banking and financial services. Despite cannabis being legal in numerous states, businesses still face barriers to accessing traditional banking and financial resources at rates comparable to non-cannabis businesses, because of the plant’s federal status. This issue extends to federal small business administration programs and financial assistance, which remain out of reach for cannabis operators.

The second major challenge is the burden of the federal tax code, specifically IRC 280E. This means operators can’t deduct most standard business expenses, which creates a distinctly uneven playing field. This places them under a tax scheme far harsher than that faced by businesses in other industries, creating financial strain and stifling economic growth.

Addressing these issues will require action at the federal level—namely, the passage of banking reform and removing 280E restrictions, or alternatively, tax equity legislation. That said, I’m encouraged by the progress we’re making, and I remain optimistic that continued dialogue among state and federal stakeholders will move us toward common-sense solutions, hopefully sooner rather than later.

From a licensing perspective, I often hear concerns that New York’s licensing rollout is going “too slow.” However, having practiced in multiple states where adult-use cannabis is legal, I can attest that New York has made remarkable strides in a relatively short amount of time—often matching or outpacing others when you compare how long it took from application to operational launch. For instance, before coming to the Agency and leaving private practice, I had clients who obtained their New York licenses and opened their doors before receiving their New Jersey license, even though those clients applied for their New Jersey license much earlier and applied with real estate in both instances. That’s a testament to New York’s deliberate effort to create not just a functioning market, but an equitable one. As the saying goes, “If you want something you’ve never had, you must be willing to do something you’ve never done,” and New York is living by that principle.

Finally, on a personal note, I think it’s important to acknowledge the hardworking individuals behind the scenes at the Office of Cannabis Management. They’re passionate about this industry and genuinely care about setting New York up for success. I’ve seen colleagues arriving early, staying late, and pouring their energy into every detail—often beyond the scope of a typical government job. They must operate within guidelines set by the legislature and leadership, which can sometimes draw public criticism when the pace or process isn’t exactly as stakeholders hope.

Remember, it’s easy to criticize government agencies, but it’s important to remember that these are real people, passionate about the industry, who care deeply about getting it right. They don’t make the overarching policy decisions, but they work diligently to carry them out. Seeing their efforts and commitment firsthand has been inspiring, and I encourage the public to offer them grace as they navigate the challenges of building something truly new and innovative. The commitment, dedication, and genuine enthusiasm of these employees should not be overlooked. They’re shaping a new market under significant pressure, trying to make diamonds, and I believe they’re doing so with integrity and a real drive to see New York’s cannabis industry flourish.

How would you envision a federal cannabis rescheduling from Schedule I to Schedule III occurring, and how would that impact the billion-dollar New York cannabis industry?

To be honest, I wouldn’t envision it because I’m not in favor of rescheduling; I advocate for de-scheduling cannabis altogether. While rescheduling cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III would represent some progress, it’s far from the solution our industry needs. Cannabis is safer than alcohol, and if alcohol isn’t scheduled under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), why should cannabis be?

Rescheduling continues to perpetuate a fundamental misrepresentation of cannabis. Reclassifying it to Schedule III would place it alongside substances like ketamine and codeine products—hardly a fair or accurate comparison given cannabis’s well-documented safety profile. Meanwhile, unscheduled substances like alcohol continue to be legally and culturally normalized despite their far greater risks. This discrepancy reinforces outdated stigmas rather than embracing the scientific evidence and listening to the lived experiences of millions.

Most critically, rescheduling fails to address the glaring conflict between state-legal cannabis programs and federal law. Even if cannabis were reclassified as a Schedule III substance, state-compliant operators would still technically violate federal law, and banks would remain hesitant to fully serve the industry. This legal dissonance hampers growth, innovation, and stability in a market that has already contributed billions to the economy and created thousands of jobs.

From a New York perspective, rescheduling could present additional challenges. New York’s cannabis industry has a unique social equity focus and robust licensing framework, but a federal move to Schedule III may inadvertently benefit west coast states with more mature cannabis markets. Those states, with their larger production capacities and economies of scale, could dominate any future interstate commerce, potentially leaving New York’s cultivators and manufacturers at a disadvantage.

Ultimately, while rescheduling would signal some progress, it’s a half-measure that fails to fully consider the (proven) potential of the legal cannabis industry. And, while rescheduling could offer incremental benefits—perhaps improved banking access or more research opportunities—my position remains that de-scheduling cannabis altogether better reflects our modern understanding of the plant and the will of the people.

Thank you for joining us, Alana! For more information about the Medger Ever’s cannabis courses, please visit their website. To stay up to date on the OCM, its website can be found here.