Legalization has been a bumpy road for California cannabis operators, and since January 1, owners are learning that it also comes at a price. The state’s steep taxes on cannabis businesses – with effective tax rates as high as 57% for some cannabis activities – have many operators bracing, and calling for a reduction in these so-called sin taxes. Consumers are also encountering price increases -- prices are up about 15% compared to last year.
As of this year, cannabis business is legal in Los Angeles, but the process of drafting and refining the laws and regulations that will actually govern the legal cannabis industry is still in its early stages.
To that end, over the past month, the LA city council met to adopt the following items:
- Item #21: Cannabis Advertisement
- Item #22: Prop D Dispensaries, MMD's, AUMA
- Item #23: MAUCRSA, Prop D, Land Use, Preparation of Ordinance, AUMA
- Item #24: New hires at the DCR, Cannabis Business Fees, Interim Position Authority
- Item #25: Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act / State-Chartered Bank / Cannabis Banking Activities
While none of these items are extremely surprising in their own right, they may have significant consequences for the nature of Los Angeles’ cannabis industry.
For instance, Item #23 lays out a path to adjust the LA municipal code, adding “provisions to allow for the Cannabis Regulation Commission to make exceptions to the 600-foot school restriction for non-retail cannabis activities subject to a California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 analysis of environmental impacts and conditions to address public health, safety and welfare considerations, as well as a public hearing.” This means that buildings that were not in the correct zoning could be, if the City finds after the environmental analysis that there are not negative effects from having a cannabis cultivation or manufacturing operation near a school. A change to this rule would potentially mean that, as long as they were in keeping with public health and safety, cannabis businesses could be located in far more locations across LA. Note that under state law, local jurisdictions can allow for closer than 600 feet.
Other ideas in these items may also have major impacts on the LA cannabis industry. For instance, Item #23 also provides for mixed-light cultivation and social consumption lounges, two activities that the city’s cannabis ordinances haven’t allowed in the past, while Item #25 expresses the city’s support for a State-chartered bank that would allow cannabis businesses to bank their money in California. Each of these changes would be a major step toward full legal legitimacy for marijuana in the Los Angeles area.
While these items are significant in their own right, they also reflect a trend of increasing acceptance of the cannabis industry in LA. Establishing regulations however, is an ongoing process. For more information, check our guide to California cannabis business law or contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org to speak with one of our Los Angeles cannabis lawyers.
Since mid-December, California has been issuing temporary state licenses to cultivators, manufacturers, retailers, distributors, microbusinesses, testing laboratories, and event organizers operating in the commercial cannabis market. These temporary licenses became effective as of January 1, 2018, and are currently being reviewed and approved by the Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC) and the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) per the Business and Professions Code, section 26050.1. As of today, over 2,500 temporary state licenses have been issued.
So what is this license and why do you need it? The temporary license is a conditional license that allows cannabusinesses to engage in commercial cannabis operations in the state of California for 120 days (about 4 months). The license is only available to applicants that have first obtained a local license, and allows cannabusinesses to operate before receiving their full state license. Within this 120 day period, the temporary licensee must apply for the state license. However, if the state license isn’t received by the end of that four-month period, California may grant extensions of 90-days to the temporary license as necessary. According to Lori Ajax, Chief of the BCC, California will routinely extend the licenses if the failure to obtain a state license is no fault of the licensee. “If it’s on us,” she says, “we will continue to give extensions so you can keep operating.”
What is required for the temporary license? Besides obtaining a local license, the temporary license application requires a number of additional pieces of information from the applicant, including:
- Applicant & Business Information: Physical address of the premises and name of the applicant(s) or business entity requesting the license, including the primary contact information of the applicant(s)
- Owner information: The name, mailing address, and contact information for each “owner” of the business, as defined in Business and Professions Code §26001
- License information: Specification of the license types applied for (such as distribution, or microbusiness, for example)
- Operational Activities: product type and activity information
- Local Jurisdiction: Local jurisdiction contact information
- Local Authorization: Documentation of authorization to operate from the city/county in which the business premises are located, consisting of a copy of the valid license, permit or other authorization
- Property Authorization: Either documentation of title or deed to the property or a lease agreement (or other such authorization) from the landlord demonstrating a right to occupy the premises and engage in the applied-for commercial cannabis use
- Property Site Plan: A diagram of the physical layout of the property and business premises
The required information varies depending on the type of license a business is applying for. For example, the Manufactured Cannabis Safety Branch of the Department of Public Health processes temporary license applications for manufacturing, while the BCC processes the applications for distributors, microbusinesses, testing laboratories, and event organizers. For more information on the licensing process, check our guide to California cannabis laws.
If you have obtained your local license, or are close to receiving it and looking to obtain your temporary state license, contact our cannabis attorneys today!
As the January 1 deadline for legalization approaches and Los Angeles prepares to open applications for cannabis businesses, the question on cannabis entrepreneurs’ minds is: How many cannabis microbusinesses will LA allow, and where will they be?
California classifies type 12 cannabis activity, or “microbusiness,” as an operation which engages in at least three different cannabis activities between cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, and retail sales. Since microbusinesses are, by definition, small-scale and permitted to engage in multiple different kinds of cannabis business, many see a microbusiness license as the best entry point to the marijuana industry for local entrepreneurs and small business operations. However, LA’s particular location restrictions may make getting one easier said than done.
Earlier this month, the City Council released the city’s proposed restrictions on commercial cannabis activity. For each neighborhood, there will be an upper limit on the number of licenses granted, so that no more than a certain amount of licenses will be given out for each type of business. For instance, Hollywood plans to give out a total of 20 licenses for marijuana retail businesses. However, when it comes to microbusiness, many neighborhoods’ upper limits are very small – for instance, Venice will only give out 5 licenses. Additionally, microbusinesses engaging in on-site retail or cultivation will count toward the total numbers for retail and cultivation.
What all this means is that the cannabis licensing process will be particularly competitive for microbusinesses, since, in many neighborhoods, a large number of applicants will be competing for a small number of slots. While it will still be possible for a small business owner to break into the Los Angeles marijuana industry, any aspiring microbusiness operators should get their applications in order as soon as possible.
Cannabis attorney Allison Margolin addressing the LA City Council on the new zoning regulations on Monday:
Today the LA City Council will vote to determine all of the City's. the city's new restrictions on where a cannabis business may be located. The current California cannabis law requires that cannabis businesses be located more than 600 feet from all schools.
On top of that, LA's most recent draft of its location ordinance required businesses intending to conduct on-site retail sales to be located 750 feet away from sensitive-use areas, including schools, public parks, libraries, and drug treatment facilities, as well as any existing marijuana retail business.
While this is a more lenient approach to sensitive-use areas than LA's previous zoning restrictions, which called for an 800-foot buffer zone, some cannabis businesses and marijuana advocates, including our Los Angeles Cannabis lawyers, argue that introducing two different distancing standards will only complicate the already-opaque standards for marijuana zoning.
The City Council's vote will take place at 10 A.M. tomorrow, December 5th, at 200 N. Spring St.
If you have been looking into protecting your cannabusiness' intellectual property, you may have heard the term “trade dress” tossed around. Trade dress is a legal term for the visual components, design/shape, and packaging of a product. It encompasses the “bells & whistles,” so to speak, and is generally intended to protect the overall visual appearance of a product, minus any elements that are functional. The name comes from its historical origins, i.e., how a product is “dressed up.” And even though trade dress is a commonly forgotten right, it is actually quite important when it comes to cannabis law.
Trade dress protection has been extended to everything from restaurant “atmospheres” (Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992); Fuddruckers, Inc. v. Doc’s B.R. Others, Inc., 826 F.2d 837, 843 (1987)) to the unique setting of a golf course’s “signature hole.” (Pebble Beach Co. v. Tour 18 I, Ltd., 942 F.Supp. 1513 (S.D.Tex. 1996)). The gist of it is the “dressing” must be distinctive enough that consumers identify the source of your product by looking at its total appearance and packaging.
So can cannabusiness owners get trade dress protection? As with many questions in marijuana law, the answer is yes and no.
Just as with a trademark, you have common law rights to your trade dress that you can assert in bringing a lawsuit against infringers that pass off their products as yours. The basis is section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, which establishes civil liability for false designations of origin. However, trade dress owners asserting common law rights in court have the additional burden of showing that the “dressing” serves a non-functional purpose. For this reason (as well as the statutory damages established in the Lanham Act) it is preferable to obtain trade dress registration beforehand wherever possible.
Here we run into the same issues as with trademark: CSA-based rejections. The USPTO has caught on to the emerging cannabis industry, and currently has four trademark examining attorneys that that look at all of the cannabis-based applications coming in. There are many ways around a CSA refusal, and many of the strategies we have discussed for trademarks apply here as well.
If you are thinking of trade dress protection already, then good news – you’re already ahead of the game. Speak with our cannabis law attorneys when you’re ready to take the next step!
This weekend was the second annual The Edibles List Infused Expo in DTLA. As LA Cannabis lawyers, our firm is tracking the City's development of regulations and also California's. This weekend, the focus was on edibles.
Los Angeles cannabis lawyers are often asked "but what about CBD?"; this post is part 2 of our series on the extract.
As a derivative of cannabis, CBD is currently considered a schedule I controlled substance. However, although cannabidiol has psychoactive effects, it’s very different in effect to other, better-known cannabinoids such as THC; CBD doesn’t produce a mentally altered state or any type of euphoric ‘high.’ Instead, its main purpose lies in its wide variety of therapeutic uses. The Huffington Post writes that “CBD is a powerful anti-epileptic, anti-depressant, anti-inflammatory, anti-nauseate, sleep aid, muscle relaxant, sedative and anti-proliferative.” In other words, distilled CBD is a broadly useful form of medical marijuana that comes without traditional marijuana’s ‘drug-like’ effects. This explains why the FDA is willing to label it “beneficial.”
Of course, the medicinal value of CBD doesn’t exactly come as a surprise. As the NORML foundation writes in its statement on the FDA’s request for comment, “Seventeen states explicitly recognize [...] CBD as a therapeutic agent. Safety trials have determined the substance to be non-toxic and well-tolerated in human subjects and even the head of the US National Institute on Drug Abuse has publicly acknowledged that CBD is ‘a safe drug with no addictive effects.’” In other words, CBD is already widely understood to be beneficial. However, having the Food & Drug Administration call it “beneficial” may prove useful to the effort to have it legalized.
Despite the acceptance of CBD use in individual states, the current policy of the U.S. Justice Department, as led by Trump administration Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is to treat all forms of marijuana as schedule I controlled substances. (For more information on the current legal status of marijuana, consult our “Do I Need a Cannabis Lawyer?” blog post and California Cannabis Law FAQ.) The DEA issued a clarification in December 2016 confirming its position that it considers CBD a Schedule I substance.
This statement by the FDA might complicate that strategy, as would a WHO decision in favor of easing international restrictions on CBD: If one branch of the federal government believes that derivatives of marijuana can be straightforwardly beneficial, another branch treating them the same as dangerous narcotics doesn’t seem reasonable. In this sense, the text of the FDA’s request may be an asset to U.S. groups seeking an end to marijuana prohibition.