Los Angeles Cannabis Regulations Commission Announces Recommendations for Phase 3 Processing

Posted by Margolin & Lawrence on March 11, 2019

The Cannabis Regulations Commission met on March 5th and presented their recommendations to the City Attorney that would establish policies for processing phase 3 applications. Phase 3 would begin with a 60-day pre-vetting process of social equity applicants to verify Tier 1 or Tier 2 qualification. Verified Tier 1 or 2 applicants will then be eligible to move forward into the first phase of the licensing process. The DCR will issue 100 licenses in this initial phase allocating 75 to qualified Tier 1 applicants. Qualified Tier 1 applicants would receive priority receiving 75% of the available licenses during this initial phase so long as all basic application requirements are met including:

 

  • A signed lease with proof of payment or deposit, or a property deed
  • Meet all sensitive use requirements, including undue concentration
  • Payment of required license fees
  • Ownership organizational structure
  • Financial information
  • Proposed staffing plan
  • Indemnification
  • Complete and detailed diagram
  • Proposed security plan
  • Radius map
  • Labor peace agreement
  • Current Certificate of Occupancy
  • Compliance with the Equity Share Rules

 

Second phase 

The second phase will allocate an additional 100 licenses establishing no priority between Tier 1 or Tier 2 applicants. The second phase will establish a “first-come, first-serve” process that will allow the first 100 qualified applicants will move forward. Basic qualifications required to be met are payment of the required license fees or deferment approval; ownership organizational structure; financial information; indemnification; and, labor peace agreement. The remaining qualifications mentioned above would be required within 90 days.

 

The Commission also recommended the implementation of a pilot program for Type 9 Retail Non-Storefront delivery services. A total of 40 licenses would be available allocating 20 licenses to pre-vetted Tier 1 Social Equity applicants. The pilot program will also allow verified applicants who could not obtain a Type 10 retail license due to undue concentration limits will receive priority for a Type 9 delivery license. This will allow licensees to remain in their building and operate as a non-storefront retailer in lieu of having to locate and secure another compliant location. Eligible phase 2 applicants will also have an opportunity to amend their application to include delivery so long as they are compliant with the city’s zoning and regulatory requirements.

Phase 3 Licensing Estimated Timeline


 

Phase 3 Application Processing

60 day Pre-Vetting Period

  • Basic Tier 1 or Tier 2 qualification
  • Indemnification

 

 Phase 3A:

14 day application window

  • Qualified Tier 1 or Tier 2 applicants will be processed for 100 retail licenses (75% reserved for Tier 1 applicants). Pre-vetted applicants will receive 15 days notice of when the first phase application window is to open.
  • Deficient applications will have 5 days from the start of their application to rectify insufficiencies or issues with the basic qualifications.

 

 Phase 3B:

30 day application window

  • Pre-vetted Tier 1 or Tier 2 applicants who meet basic qualifications (see above) on a “first-come, first-serve” basis.
  • Applicants will have an additional 90 days to submit the remaining application requirements
  • Deficient applications will have 5 days from the start of their application to rectify insufficiencies or issues with the basic qualifications

 Delivery Pilot Program:

  • Pre-vetted Tier 1 or Tier 2 applicants will receive 15 days notice for when Type 9 delivery licenses will become available
  • Pre-vetted Tier 1 or Tier 2 applicants subjected to undue concentration limits will have priority
  • Eligible phase 2 applicants will have opportunity to amend their application to include delivery
  • Deficient applications will have 5 days from the start of their application to rectify insufficiencies or issues with the basic qualifications

CA Cannabis Retail Update

Posted by Margolin & Lawrence on March 7, 2019

Contra Costa County

On February 14th, Contra Costa officially issued a Request For Proposal form for new cannabis businesses, including storefront retailers. The number of retailer licenses (with or without delivery operations) will be capped at four.

The county’s deadline for letters of intent is April 4th, while full proposals will be due (by request only) on June 27th. Additionally, the county has released a zoning map showing the proposed areas that will be eligible for cannabis business locations.

City of Fresno

On December 12th, 2018, Fresno voted to allow up to seven medical cannabis retail licenses for the following year, with seven additional retail licenses to follow upon city approval in 2019. The current ordinance limits the number of cannabis retail businesses within the city to fourteen, but seven more may be allowed by a city council resolution.

Fresno limits cannabis retail businesses to locations zones DTN, DTG, CMS, CC, CR, CG, and CH. Additionally, no more than two cannabis retail businesses may be allowed in any one council district.

City of Martinez

On February 26th, the City of Martinez’s Planning Commission met to discuss the city’s newly released draft ordinance for cannabis businesses. The draft regulations would allow for a maximum of two storefront retail licenses, along with a maximum of two delivery licenses (to be associated with a storefront retail business). Retail cannabis businesses would be limited to commercial and light industrial zones. According to the Martinez Gazette, the Planning Commission sent these proposed regulations to the City Council, including a suggestion that the city raise the proposed number of licensed delivery services to three.

City of Pomona

On March 5th, the Pomona City Council met for the first reading of the city’s new cannabis ordinance. The draft regulations provide for licensing of both storefront and delivery-only cannabis businesses. However, the proposed caps on licenses and zoning/location restrictions for cannabis businesses have yet to be released.

City of South Lake Tahoe

On February 5th, the City of South Lake Tahoe released a new cannabis ordinance, allowing up to two retail operations and two microbusiness operations with on-site retail. Cannabis businesses will be restricted to the locations indicated on the city’s buffer map. The city has released its application form and guidelines: the submission period will last from March 11th to April 5th.

City of Ventura

On January 1st, new regulations from the California Bureau of Cannabis Control took effect, allowing delivery of adult-use and medical cannabis anywhere in the state. This overturned Ventura’s past cannabis ordinances, which had restricted retail cannabis activities within the city to deliveries by a maximum of three licensed businesses located outside of city limits. At a City Council meeting on March 4th, the city discussed new policy measures to bring Ventura’s policies in compliance with California law. Among the items on the agenda was the possibility of taxing and permitting cannabis activities within the city, an indication that Ventura is becoming more open to cannabis business.

Governor Newsom Calls In the National Guard

Posted by Raza Lawrence on February 19, 2019

Are we about to see more enforcement against unlicensed cannabis?

California Governor Gavin Newsom recently announced he is calling for the California National Guard to work with federal officials to target the California illicit market.  Given the history of the war on drugs and the current federal laws imposing harsh criminal and civil sanctions for cannabis, the involvement of the National Guard and the federal government in a new crackdown is concerning.  Governor Newsom’s announcement of this increased enforcement, however, comes amid growing frustration with perceived dysfunction in the state regulatory system and a persistent illicit market that crowds out regulated cannabis.

California has a thriving illicit market in cannabis, estimated by New Frontier Data to be valued at $3.7 billion last year.  This is due to many factors, including California’s unregulated cannabis collectives and cooperatives that operated for years before licensing came, the slow speed at which state and local governments in California have issued licenses, the high taxes and burdensome regulations of the new licensing system, and the demand for California cannabis products throughout the country.

In a sense, the entire cannabis market is an illicit market, as cannabis remains illegal under federal law, which makes any inconsistent California state law allowing cannabis invalid under the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution. This federal illegality has caused most banks to refuse to do business with cannabis-linked companies, resulting in a largely cash business that is more difficult to track and regulate than it would be if banks were involved.  Federal illegality also makes it so the entire interstate market is illegal and unregulated, though lucrative. 

The California Bureau of Cannabis Control, tasked with regulating cannabis retail sales, has issued a few enforcement actions against some unlicensed dispensaries, but the efforts have been largely symbolic, against only a tiny fraction of the unlicensed operators.  Los Angeles and other cities have also filed misdemeanor cases against unlicensed operators for violations of local licensing laws, but unlicensed dispensaries seem to pop back up faster than they are shut down.

 In order for California’s regulatory project to succeed going forward, the state will need to convince more operators to move to the regulated market, through some combination of greater enforcement and lower taxes and regulatory burdens. 

The large illicit market and slow roll-out of the licensing process have shaken the confidence of many people who are attempting to comply with California laws.  Hopefully, state and local regulators will take advice from frustrated operators, learn from their mis-steps and continue to develop a functioning system.  The state and local governments are trying to find the right regulatory balance.  Over-regulation makes it so difficult and burdensome to comply that only rich people and companies with lots of resources can operate, and an expensive final product that leads many consumers to buy from the illicit market.

For now, many license holders are playing the long game, hoping the illicit market will shrink over time, and more consumers throughout the state (and eventually the country and world) join the regulated cannabis market.  Governor Newsom says that he expects it may take at least five years to develop its complex regulatory system.  If the state gets it right, this can be an industry that drives the state economy, creating more resources and jobs for everyone.

One approach that could be successful would be to offer a more simplified and inexpensive process to get new cannabis businesses up and running.  More burdensome regulations and higher taxes could kick in only after businesses have gotten through the startup phase and adapted to the regulations.  There could be a tiered or graduated system of compliance, taxes, and enforcement that is welcoming to new operators.  Startup costs for new businesses are already very expensive, and high licensing expenses and a burdensome application process can dissuade many people from pursuing licenses who might otherwise want to follow the law.  Lowering the tax rates in the beginning, while businesses get off the ground, could also encourage new entrants to the regulated market.  Once businesses become established and there is a healthy regulated market, taxes could be increased to desired levels.  The government has many tools available to help establish a functioning market.  We are optimistic that the future is bright for the cannabis economy in California.

North San Diego County Cannabis Update

Posted by Margolin & Lawrence on January 18, 2019
While most of the attention on cannabis business in San Diego County has focused on the area in and around the City of San Diego, there are also a few jurisdictions in the northern half of the county with open cannabis license applications. Here's a breakdown of the licensing application processes in the cities of Vista and Oceanside.
 
City of Vista
 
The City of Vista is offering business licenses for medical dispensaries only, limited to one business per 10,000 residents of Vista (so the limit is currently 10).
 
Applications will open on January 22nd and remain open for 7 days. During this period, applicants must submit complete applications (including site plans, security plans, etc.) and a $100,000 deposit to be held by the city during the application process. Applications are limited to pre-existing registered collectives/cooperatives. If fewer than 6 businesses are granted licenses, another application period will be opened at a later time. 
 
The application form can be found online here.
 
Additionally, the city has released a list of potentially eligible locations where cannabis businesses may be located.
 
City of Oceanside
 
The city of Oceanside is  currently accepting applications for cultivation, distribution, manufacturing, testing, and non-storefront retail. From the city website:
 
The City has a limit of 5 licenses for Cultivation. There are currently 16 applications under review for cultivation.
The City has a limit of 2 local licenses for Non-Storefront Retail. There are currently 4 applications under review for Non-Storefront Retail.
There are currently 7 applications for Manufacturing and 6 for Distribution under review. There is no limit to the number of local licenses that will be issued for these types. 
The City has received no applications for Testing Labs.
 
To apply, businesses must obtain a zoning verification letter confirming their property's eligibility, and submit an application (including a business plan, security plan, etc.) along with an initial $3,471 application fee (not including the background check fees). Additional fees will be charged for each phase of the licensing application process.
 
The application form can be found online here.
 
Oceanside has also released a map of eligible zones, which can be found online here.
 
For more information on cannabis l icensing requirements in San Diego County or elsewhere in California, check our   guide to California's cannabis laws   or reach out to our cannabis attorneys directly at  info@margolinlawrence.com .
 

Mergers & Acquisitions in the Cannabis Industry

Posted by Tiffany Carrari on January 18, 2019

As the cannabis industry grows, businesses at every level are participating in mergers and acquisitions, despite regulatory hurdles. Some of the biggest players in cannabis are continuing to consolidate their holdings, while smaller operations and entrepreneurs are also seeking a way forward.

2018 saw massive expansion in the cannabis industry, led by both U.S. and Canadian industry frontrunners such as Cronos Group, MedMen, and Aurora Cannabis.

  • Aurora Cannabis

Canada’s Aurora Cannabis is now the largest producer of cannabis following its acquisitions of CanniMed and MedReleaf in 2018, as well as funding construction projects to expand production facilities. Aurora is one of many companies funding consolidation and infrastructure development projects by raising funds from investors through publicly traded securities  and bought-deal offerings.

Aurora became one of the first cannabis companies listed on a stock exchange after completing a reverse takeover to join the Canadian Securities Exchange (CSE) in 2014 and started trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) in 2017 before having its shares listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in October 2018. Canadian firms like Aurora Cannabis that do not have cannabis assets within the U.S. are able to list on the TSX and NYSE – both of which have restrictions against listing cannabis companies operating in the U.S. for as long marijuana remains federally illegal. Meanwhile, cannabis companies with U.S. operations such as MedMen have been listing on the more receptive CSE which does not restrict firms with U.S. operations.

In a world where traditional financing methods remain scarce, the reverse takeover model (RTO) has been a popular vehicle for both Canadian and U.S. cannabis companies looking to tap into public markets to raise capital. A reverse takeover is an attractive alternative to an initial public offering (IPO) because it allows a private company to bypass the lengthy and complex process of going public by taking control of and merging with a dormant company that is already publicly traded.

  • MedMen 

MedMen is one of several U.S. based companies now listed on the CSE following a reverse takeover last May. MedMen’s CSE listing was the company’s quickest route to access liquid capital– a move that has inspired droves of U.S. firms to seek out reverse takeover deals as a way to raise money. MedMen was steady in its efforts to raise money and consolidate throughout 2018, entering into a $120 million bought-deal financing and making the largest ever U.S. cannabis acquisition when it purchased medical-marijuana retailer PharmaCann in a $682 million all-stock transaction  that gave the firm access to 79 retail and cultivation licenses in 12 states. The acquisition of PharmaCann effectively doubled MedMen’s footprint, now the largest U.S. cannabis company.

Bought-deal financings occur when a company sells common stock, convertible debt, stock options, and/or warrants to an investor or group of investors to raise cash. Stock options, warrants and convertible debt allow an investor to purchase shares for a certain price at a later date. For instance, MedMen’s $120 million bought-deal financing deal saw the Company sell Units comprised of Class B Shares and Class B Share Purchase Warrants. Each warrant entitles the holder of such warrant to purchase one Class B Share for $10.00 for a period of three (3) years following the deal’s closing.

MedMen’s expansion sees no signs of stopping in 2019. Just this month, the company announced a new plan to raise capital by spinning its real estate out into a newly formed Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) created in partnership with Venice, CA investment firm Stable Road Capital. The REIT has raised $133 million dollars to purchase cannabis real estate owned by MedMen and others. The REIT will then lease back retail stores, production and cultivation facilities to MedMen who will use sale proceeds for funding the company’s continued growth.

  • Cronos Group

In addition to mergers and acquisitions, we are seeing partnerships and joint ventures between companies such as Canadian cannabis producer Cronos Group, Inc. (Cronos) and MedMen. The two companies intend to form a jointly-owned third company (MedMen Canada Inc.) to bring Cronos cannabis to Canada’s retail market via MedMen branded stores.

Last month, Cronos announced that it has entered into a subscription agreement with Altria Group, Inc. pursuant to which Altria will make a $2.4 billion equity investment in exchange for common shares and warrants, resulting in Altria holding a 45% ownership interest and a total potential ownership position of 55% dependent on exercise of the warrants. Marlboro maker parent Altria’s investment in Cronos marks the dawn of big business entering the cannabis space in 2018.

Growing Pains

With so many mergers and acquisitions, both at home and abroad, there is much conjecture about which “pot stocks,” if any, are an investor’s best bet going into 2019. U.S. federal illegality has created an interesting situation where cannabis companies with U.S. based operations cannot list on NASDAQ so instead list on the CSE. Conversely, Cannabis companies with Canada based operations are able to list on the TSX and NASDAQ. Therefore, companies like MedMen have the advantage of developing operations in both countries and still list on the CSE, despite not having access to mainstream securities exchanges. While companies like Cronos and Aurora have the advantage of listing on the TSX and NASDAQ, they cannot expand operations into the U.S. – where consumer spending on legal cannabis  is expected to climb to nearly $21 billion by 2021 as compared to only $4.5 billion in Canada.

A general criticism applicable to pot stocks using bought-deal financing to fuel growth is that the continued issuance of new stock, convertible debt, stock options and warrants can result in long-lasting share dilution. Shares are diluted when outstanding share counts balloon leading to a substantial reduction in  per-share profit. The impact of dilution isn’t always immediate since convertible debt, stock options and warrants can build up for years, leading to unanticipated increases in share counts down the road. However, until access to non-dilutive forms of financing and basic banking services for cannabis companies becomes readily available, bought-deal offerings will continue as the preferred method for raising capital.

M&A Locally

Meanwhile, smaller industry players and hopeful investors are jockeying for position at the local level, focused on securing licenses, building out facilities, expanding operations and developing brands - presumably in a bid to position themselves as acquisition or partner targets for larger groups like MedMen.

Like most jurisdictions throughout California, the City of Los Angeles is still in the process of reviewing commercial cannabis license applications for cultivation, manufacturing, distribution and retail operations within the City. Many of the applicants are persons and pre-existing businesses already in operation, having been “grandfathered” in and protected as part of LA’s Social Equity Program which also mandates priority consideration in favor of applicants who meet certain criteria.

Investors are chomping at the bit to acquire existing cannabis businesses and take advantage of the priority consideration afforded to social equity applicants in Los Angeles. Likewise, applicant-operators and social equity applicants are enthusiastic about the prospect of cashing in on their advantageous position. However, investors and applicants face challenging regulatory hurdles because applicants (even those already in operation) are just that – applicants.

So long as an application for licensure is pending at the local or state level, there is no “asset” to transfer because no license has issued. The local authorizations and state temporary licenses issued by licensing authorities are not “transferable” and neither is any pending application or the right to pursue licensure as a social equity candidate. Despite these roadblocks, investors, applicant operators and social equity candidates are looking to negotiate pre-licensing agreements to bring investor capital and management support to ‘authorized’ operations, as well as financial and business development support while applicants await final licensure and until those licenses become transferable.

Furthermore, LA’s Social Equity Program mandates that some social equity candidates are required to retain certain ownership percentages in a licensee business. While these regulations are intended to protect the interests of social equity candidates, practical business considerations related to capital contributions and operating capital are more likely to dictate profit distributions among investors and social equity owners in a licensee business. Further, such regulations could inhibit social equity candidates from selling their ownership stake in a business license. Until permanent licenses are issued and become transferable, investors and applicants negotiating pre-licensing deals will need to exercise high-risk tolerance and accept that all parties will be obligated to participate in the business and license application process until the licenses become transferable assets.

Peculiarities associated with license transferability issues are giving rise to various work-around solutions and complex deal structures emphasizing the rights and obligations of investors and applicants during the period of non-transferability. For instance, in the case of an investor who desires to purchase the assets and pending license of an applicant-operator’s business, a deal may involve an initial ‘closing’ and the parties’ execution of ancillary agreements setting forth terms associated with transferring the license at a later date. Such ancillary agreements generally require an applicant to continue directing business operations, as well as remain engaged in prosecution of license applications. The applicant is then required to cooperate in transferring permanent license(s) once they become transferable. Obligations of the investor(s) include financial and management obligations during the interim period between the closing and ultimate transfer of the license. One tricky issue to deal with is how payments are made to managing parties. Such payments must be reasonably related to the work being performed and any payments based on a percentage of profits must be disclosed to both local and state authorities. Furthermore, only an applicant/licensee can direct or control the licensed activity and therefore must remain in charge of business operations pending transfer of the license(s).

Not only is the enforceability of these agreements questionable, but they also require investors and applicants to perform obligations and remain “in bed” with one another for an indeterminable amount of time. Despite inherent risks, investors are more than willing to engage in pre-licensing deals as a way to get in at the ground floor in California – the world’s largest cannabis market.

California Jurisdictions Open for Cannabis Retail

Posted by Margolin & Lawrence on January 8, 2019

Despite all the talk about cannabis retail in the news, it can be difficult to tell exactly when and where it's possible for businesses to apply for a cannabis retail license. Here are a few jurisdictions where applications for cannabis retail are either currently open or planned to open in the near future. 

Riverside County

Per the county planning department, Riverside is planning to give out a maximum of 19 retail licenses. While no date is currently set, the proposal process is scheduled to begin later this year.


Santa Barbara County

County is currently accepting cannabis permit applications. Storefront retail permits are limited to eight countywide, with no more than two in any supervisorial district.


Cathedral City

Applications for retail businesses are currently open, with an application form available on the city website.


City of Chula Vista

The city’s application for cannabis businesses will open on January 14th and remain open until the 18th (for Storefront Retail, Non-Storefront Retail, and Cultivation businesses) and the 25th (for Manufacturing, Distribution, and Testing Laboratory businesses.)


City of Desert Hot Springs

Conditional use permits for cannabis activities, including Cannabis Sale Facilities, are available on the city’s website.


City of Goleta

Goleta is currently accepting applications for up to 15 total storefront retail businesses.


City of Jurupa Valley

Jurupa Valley will accept priority applications for cannabis retail from January 22nd to February 6th, with non-priority applications opening on April 1st. The number of retail businesses permitted will be linked to the city's population, with 1 license given for every 15,000 residents. This currently means that the number of licenses given will be capped at 7. 

 

City of Lompoc

Lompoc is currently accepting cannabis retail license applications.


City of Moreno Valley

In December, the city raised its cap on dispensary licenses from 8 to 23. In addition to admitting qualified applicants from the last round of applications, the city will make proposal forms for new applicants available online.


City of Pasadena

The city will license up to 6 retail establishments. The permit application process is open on the city website through January 31st.


City of San Diego

The city is currently accepting applications for cannabis outlets with retail sales, up to a limit of four businesses per council district.


City of San Luis Obispo

Applications for 3 storefront retail businesses and an indefinite number of delivery-only retail businesses are open on the city website through January 29th.


City of Vista

Per the ordinance released in December, the city will be granting 3 delivery-only (non-storefront) retail licenses this year.

What the First Step Act Means for Criminal Justice Reform

Posted by Tom McMahon on December 21, 2018

On Tuesday, the First Step Act passed the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support, 87-12. If it passes the vote in the House of Representatives, as experts predict it will, then President Trump has pledged to sign it into law.

Proponents of the Bill praise it as sensible criminal justice reform. Among its provisions, it will offer a number of changes aimed at inmate rehabilitation: more good-time credits to federal prisoners, more training and work opportunities, and the chance to earn money for escrow accounts that would service post-release expenses. There are a number of sentencing reforms as well, including giving judges more flexibility on “mandatory minimums,” where the conviction is for nonviolent drug crime. Importantly, estimates are that this relaxation could result in the reduction of sentences for 2,000 people every year. SB3649 also addresses the disparity in charges for crack and powder cocaine offenses which have historically disproportionately targeted black Americans – finally making the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act retroactive for 2,600 inmates. In addition, it also promises to ban the shackling of pregnant inmates.

However, the Bill is not without its criticisms. Backed by the Koch brothers, the Bill is designed to benefit the private prison companies, such as the multibillion-dollar giant GEO that currently runs the detention facilities warehousing immigrant families in Karnes City and Dilley, Texas. By increasing the use of electronic monitoring  of those released, it will increase their bottom line. The bill also prevents sentence reduction for those sentenced for violent crimes, excluding them from participation in the same rehabilitative programs. And though the bill would reduce mandatory minimum sentences prospectively, it does not have any retroactive effect on those already serving such sentences. Finally, excepting extreme circumstances, the shackling of pregnant women has been banned in federal prison since 2008. The bill's promise to solve this 'problem,' is disingenuous. Indeed, according to the Marshall Project, many of the provisions in the act are merely attempts to enact policies that are already in place – but have simply been ignored by the Bureau of Prisons. 

There are also significant limitations to the scope of the Bill as well. It does not remove the threat of federal prosecution in states where cannabis is legal, or lift restrictions on federally insured banks, currently barred from working with cannabusinesses. Senator Cory Gardner had worked diligently to add such an amendment, but he was blocked by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. It is also worth nothing that the roughly 2 million prisoners in local and state custody will not be affected because it only addresses the federal inmate population of approximately 181,000Ultimately, the bill may indeed be a good “first step,” but meaningful criminal justice reform still has a long way to go.  

Lessons From the Cape

Posted by Margolin & Lawrence on December 20, 2018
By Allison Margolin with Erin Williams
 
Last week, I travelled to Brewster, Massachusetts, a small town on Cape Cod, to speak to the city planning board about a client's proposed cannabis cultivation license. The client's proposal was the first of its kind in Brewster. Since Massachusetts legalized cannabis in 2016, so far there are only three recreational dispensaries in the whole state, with more expected to open in the coming months. Nearly 80 towns have issued bans and about 90 others have moratoriums. In other words, the change has been slow. 
 During this meeting with the planning board, I quickly realized the city seemed open to the plan, but had some basic questions on what a grow and potential retail location would mean for their small community. A few board members voiced their concerns on the effects of cultivation on groundwater and the energy costs, the town traffic (a key issue for an area with two lane highways), and potential increases in crime in the area. 
 Personally, I found these questions very encouraging. When Raza and I first started our practice almost a decade ago, the stigma against marijuana use was high, especially outside of California. Now that 33 states and the District of Columbia have legalized either recreational or medical cannabis, public opinion has shifted, too. None of the questions I heard in this meeting were about the morality of using cannabis. Instead, they were all practical concerns on the industry's impact on the environment and town safety. Here I will try to address these broad concerns.
 
Impact on Environment 
 
Obviously, this will vary with each site proposal, but what I can guarantee is that a regulated cannabis market will take the necessary precautions in meeting each state and city's guidelines than the illegal cannabis market. 
One environmental concern is water use. Cannabis plants are a  thirsty bunch, which poses more of a problem for desert climates like Southern California than places like Cape Cod. Still, it is far better to have a regulated cannabis grow in your town than an illegal grow, which might divert water or disrupt irrigation. 
Another issue is the potential clearing of forests and the effects on soil as well as the potential for pollution through the use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. Many in the industry are combatting this issue by using plant nutrients and fertilizers with a low environmental impact. 
There is also the issue of energy usage. Colder climates like Massachusetts' Cape will almost always use indoor cultivation, which will require a lot of electricity. There are ways to offset these energy costs by using solar panels, LED grow lights, etc. The more that area has renewable energy options, the better things will go for the city. 
In short, there will be environmental costs, but it will not be any more harmful than say, driving an SUV or eating too much factory-farmed meat.
 
Impact on Crime Rates 
 
Although I did not get any questions on the potential for crime – probably because Brewster is one of the safest cities in the region – this is another common question for places new to legal cannabis. Will legal weed will make your town more dangerous?
In the  5 years since Colorado and Washington became the first states to legalize recreational cannabis, there has been a decrease in violent crime for both states and a decrease in youth use of marijuana. The legal market also led to an economic boom in these states. The negative result is that there is an increase in impaired driving and traffic accidents.
Ultimately, as long as there is federal prohibition, the cannabis industry will be inherently riskier than other industries. Still, the evidence shows that legal cannabis is safer than the unregulated black market, not only for cities and states but for individual consumers which requires product testing. 
 
Harm Reduction 
 
Although I never got the chance to dive into this subject at the planning board meeting, there is evidence showing that places with legal cannabis are not being hit as hard by the nationwide opiate crisis. After 14 years of steady increases in opioid-related deaths in   Colorado, there was a 6.5% reduction in 2014. This result is consistent across other places with legal cannabis, whether medical or recreational. 
Cape Cod, a vacation area that sees little business for nine months of the year, has been deeply impacted by the opioid epidemic. A 2018  report in the  Cape Cod Times showed rescuers responded to 15% more overdose calls on the Cape in 2017 than they had in 2016. The expanded use of the opioid overdose reversing drug Narcan saved a lot of lives. Even as the rest of the state saw a decrease in opioid-related deaths for the first time in 6 years in 2017, the problems facing the Cape remain. The community is aging and the lack of opportunities have driven its youth to the major cities inland like Boston. The research implies that the medical benefits of marijuana, as well as the economic opportunities that marijuana businesses provide, would only support the Cape's community.
 I believe there will always be some potential for risk when introducing a new industry to a community, especially when that industry is centered on a federally illegal substance. However, I think the rewards far outweigh the risks. 
 

Attorney Allison Margolin on Hemp Legalization & The Farm Bill

Posted by Margolin & Lawrence on December 18, 2018

In a new video for Cheddar, Allison Margolin explains some common misconceptions about hemp legalization and the 2018 Farm Bill: 

Click here to watch the full video on Cheddar's site.

The 2018 Farm Bill: What it Means for Hemp and CBD

Posted by Margolin & Lawrence on December 11, 2018

The House Committee on Agriculture is in the process of finalizing the 2018 Farm Bill, which is expected to go into effect later this month. It’s likely that the bill’s provisions will include the legalization of hemp, in the form of the removal of the plant from the government’s list of Schedule I Controlled Substances. Not only will this mean that hemp can be grown much more widely, it will also affect the production of hemp derivatives, including hemp-derived CBD. However, the legality of CBD products remains more complicated than this news may suggest.

As discussed in a prior blog post, the legal status of CBD can be very confusing to consumers, businesses, and lawmakers alike. As a substance that is derived from the cannabis plant, but is not cannabis’ main active ingredient, CBD currently occupies an unclear middle ground – particularly in California, where the state has imposed additional rules affecting how the various types of CBD may be legally used.

The legalization of hemp, though a step forward in the overall process of cannabis legalization, doesn’t do much to resolve the confusion surrounding CBD products. Even after hemp is legalized, CBD will be considered a drug and therefore subject to regulation by the FDA. Though the FDA has approved certain cannabis-derived CBD medications, CBD’s status as a drug makes it illegal to use as an ingredient in any kind of food or food additive.

Topicals, oils, and other non-edible forms of hemp-derived CBD, on the other hand, may not necessarily be banned once hemp is legalized. However, the FDA has yet to make a statement regarding this possibility – though they have sent unambiguous legal warnings to CBD businesses that make unsubstantiated or false claims about their products, indicating that they plan to regulate all CBD products to some degree, they’re less clear about the future legal status of hemp-derived CBD and non-edible hemp derivatives in general. 

In California, the law on CBD edibles will remain paradoxical even after hemp is legalized. While CBD products with THC levels of 0.3% or more will be treated as cannabis edibles and therefore legal, CBD products with lower THC levels – or no THC at all – will be considered food products and therefore banned, regardless of whether they’re derived from cannabis or hemp. However, hemp-based non-edible CBD products are not currently regulated by any state agency, meaning their legal status remains unclear. For the sake of the state’s cannabis consumers and businesses, hopefully California will respond to the new Farm Bill by clarifying the legal status of these products.

For more information on the legal status of hemp and CBD, check our Guide to California Cannabis Laws or contact our cannabis attorneys at info@margolinlawrence.com

1

Categories

This blog is not intended as legal advice and should not be taken as such. The possession, use, and/or sale of marijuana is illegal under federal law.