California’s transition into a regulated market has many operators wondering what the universe of compliance looks like and where they fit into the process. In order to operate legally in California after January 1, 2018, you need both a local authorization and a state license. Temporary licenses from the state of California are sufficient to continue operating, though you will eventually need to obtain an Annual License. To date, 954 cannabis businesses in California have received Cease and Desist letters from the Bureau of Cannabis Control. While some were in error, others were operating without the required licenses for California.
It’s important to understand that licensure is not the end-all-be-all of compliance -- in fact, it is the minimum requirement for your business to operate legally. In addition to having a state license (which requires local authorization), you will need to begin thinking about how to set up your business with compliance processes that facilitate and enable adherence to state regulations for your activities: cannabis microbusiness, retail, manufacturing, cultivation or testing. The below infographic is an overview of the entire licensing/compliance process.
Where does your business fit in?
The City of San Francisco began its process of licensing retailers to sell adult-use cannabis on January 6, 2018. Any MCD (Medical Cannabis Dispensary) businesses that conducted delivery, cultivation, manufacturing, testing, or any other cannabis activity were required to register the activity with the Office of Cannabis between September 26, 2017 and November 30, 2017. Those that registered were then required to get their temporary permit(s) from the City. To continue each of these activities in 2018, temporary licensing must be obtained from the State. Any applicant who did not register as an existing business before November 30, 2017, must apply for a permit as a new cannabis business. The “Transition Provision” of City Ordinance 230-17 declares that existing MCD applicants temporarily permitted to sell cannabis starting January 1, 2018 cannot cultivate cannabis without new licensing as of April 1, 2018.
Beginning in 2018, all applicants must apply to the Equity Program (see eligibility requirements) either as individuals or incubators before applying for cannabis licensing. Since San Francisco was consistently targeted by the War on Drugs, the City is determined to make amends through this initiative, and compliance is mandatory for all cannabis businesses.
All new businesses require a license from the San Francisco Office of Cannabis and the State of California in order to sell cannabis in San Francisco. To be eligible for a temporary permit in the City of San Francisco, applicants must comply with the City’s zoning codes. These can be found on the SF City Planning website - check out the zoning for cannabis retail businesses. The Land Use Regulations for the City are have also been outlined in a table by the San Francisco Office of Cannabis, which provides useful zoning requirements for all retail and non-retail cannabis businesses (including cultivation, manufacturing and distribution). Mobile cannabis dispensaries will not be permitted in San Francisco.
At this time all cannabis licensing is temporary, subject to review by each municipal zone’s governing body and the State before permanent licensing can be applied for through the Office of Cannabis. According to Section 1605 of Article 16 in San Francisco City’s Ordinance 230-17 “Amending the Administrative, Business and Tax Regulations, Health, and Police Codes,” all cannabis businesses awarded a temporary license must apply for permanent licensing within 30 days of the date when the Office of Cannabis makes such permits available. Once permanent licensing becomes available, temporary licensing will no longer be offered to new businesses.
In summary, whether you are looking to start a business in cultivation, manufacturing, retail, distribution, a combination of the above (microbusiness), or testing, you will need to obtain temporary licensing from the City of San Francisco’s Office of Cannabis. The window for existing MCDs to register with the City has passed, but these businesses can still apply for new licensing along with all other new cannabis business applicants. The Office of Cannabis in San Francisco has not yet announced when permanent licensing will become available to businesses awarded temporary licenses by both the City and the State. More information about the application process and requirements can be found on the San Francisco Office of Cannabis website.
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.
One of the most frequent questions our cannabis lawyers get from savvy business owners is: How can I legally market my cannabis products? As with many branches of marijuana law, cannabis business advertising regulations are complex because they fall under an overlapping set of legal regimes, some of which are in conflict with each other. When considering advertising cannabis four bodies of law apply: Federal, State, Local, and Internet TOS (the terms of service and operating contracts that govern your relationships with digital advertising hosts). Cannabis marketers must navigate all four sets of regulations here.
Federal Law places an absolute ban on cannabis advertising under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. The Act stipulates: “It shall be unlawful for any person to place in any newspaper, magazine, handbill, or other publications, any written advertisement knowing that it has the purpose of seeking or offering illegally to receive, buy, or distribute a Schedule 1 controlled substance.” Further, “It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly or intentionally use the Internet, or cause the Internet to be used, to advertise the sale of, or to offer to sell, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance where such sale, distribution, or dispensing is not authorized by this subchapter or by the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act.” In other words, as far as federal law is concerned, there's no such thing as a legal marijuana advertisement.
California has recently placed regulations on marketing under the MAUCRSA (aka SB-94). This means that, if the regulations are followed, an advertisement can be in compliance with California law. Among its requirements are that advertisements must identify the license number of the advertiser, must not be targeted at individuals younger than 21, and must not contain false or misleading information about the products advertised. While these standards are relatively straightforward, figuring out how to advertise within the existing marijuana laws can be tricky even for California-based businesses. Local laws may differ from the state regulations, and a host of pending legislation like AB-175 (Marijuana: county of origin: marketing and advertising) and AB-76 (Adult-use marijuana: marketing) may change the state’s standards even further.
On top of that, the terms of service of online sites which host advertisements, such as Google and Facebook, often ban any mention of marijuana, on the basis that federal law still forbids it – since, of course, any online advertisement can be seen outside of California. This rapidly evolving area of law will be discussed at the State of Marijuana Conference this weekend in downtown Los Angeles, where attorney Allison Margolin will be leading a panel on Next-Gen Cannabusiness Marketing. For more information, check our guide to California cannabis business law or contact us at email@example.com to speak with one of our Los Angeles cannabis lawyers.
As California gears up for the full legalization of adult-use commercial cannabis, entrepreneurs across the state are considering breaking into the marijuana industry. However, the entry costs for marijuana businesses can be high, and the exact legal requirements for starting an operation are often confusing. Given this background, a would-be cannabis enterpreneur might wonder: is it worth it for a new marijuana business to hire an attorney?
On this subject, it's fair to take a cannabis law firm's comments with a grain of salt – a little like asking a barber whether you need a haircut. That said, as lawyers with years of experience providing legal support to california's top cannabis businesses, we're familiar with the legal demands of the cannabis industry in California. Given this inside perspective, we will advise you that the state and local laws which marijuana businesses must adhere to are extremely complex and intertwined, with harsh consequences possible for even relatively minor violations. In this context, our view is that it's a dangerous gamble to try to maintain a business in the cannabis industry without a cannabis attorney.
Of course, we can’t advise anyone to enter the industry in the first place – according to federal law, possessing, using, or selling marijuana in any capacity is still entirely illegal. The only thing protecting California marijuana consumers and businesses from federal prosecution is the Department of Justice's decision to allow “state and local authorizes [sic] to address marijuana activity through enforcement of their own narcotics laws.” While this federal deference to state law has been the norm since 2013, there's no guarantee that this won't change in the near future, especially given that Trump administration appointees like Attorney General Jeff Sessions have announced their intent to crack down on marijuana use. To avoid federal prosecution, then, it's crucial to stay within the bounds of state and local law. However, in a state as large as California, this is easier said than done.
While California currently affords limited immunity from prosecution to certain marijuana businesses, many cities and counties don't, which means that even a business which follows state law to the letter could be operating in a manner that violated local regulations. Our Los Angeles cannabis lawyers have advised hundreds of businesses who ran into issues with Prop D and have defended their rights since even before that regulation was passed. With the new cannabis regulations being introduced into the City of LA, it is important to speak to a los angeles cannabis attorney who is familiar with the regulations and can advise you on how to set up your business for success. (For more on these changes, see our recent blog posts on LA marijuana licensing.)
Retaining a cannabis lawyer provides a degree of access and ease in interpretation of these regulations that a private citizen doesn't have. Though it's easy to find information online, but the amount of outdated, contradictory, misleading, or outright false advice on marijuana business on the internet is nothing short of overwhelming.
For these reasons, it's worth considering hiring a california cannabis attorney for your business. Not only does having legal counsel help you stay within the law, it helps offset the financial risk inherent to any new business by ensuring that your organization's paperwork and cannabis licensing applications are in order. For more information or to arrange a consultation with one of our los angeles cannabis lawyers, check our brief overview of California's marijuana laws or email us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
As med. cannabis lawyers, we think LA's regulations should allow for those operators already existing who have had prop D violations to still apply. Moreover, karaoke and cannabis should not make an illegal combo.
Today's Los Angeles Daily News includes a guest editorial on LA's new marijuana regulations by M&L partners Allison Margolin and Raza Lawrence!
Reflecting the fact that cannabis edibles have become an increasingly popular alternative to smoking marijuana, California's MAUCRSA introduces new regulations on edible cannabis manufacturing. Cannabis manufacturers must take heed of these new limits and regulations to ensure that their products are not only within compliance, but also effective and safe for human consumption.
The MAUCRSA defines an “edible cannabis product” as manufactured cannabis intended for human consumption, either in whole or in part. “Manufacturing” of cannabis is the production, preparation, propagation or compounding of cannabis products. This includes the extraction and infusion processes, packaging, repackaging, labeling and relabeling of manufactured medical cannabis or cannabis products.
According to theLEAFonline, many other forms of manufactured cannabis, including tinctures, have a maximum of up to 1,000 mg of THC. However, under the proposed regulations, edible cannabis products will only be allowed to contain 10 mg of THC per serving, with the finished product capping no more than 100 mg of THC per package. This caution speaks to a key concern about edible cannabis: consistency.
Due to its being absorbed through the stomach rather than the lungs, edible cannabis doesn't usually reach its full potency for at least an hour after consumption. When combined with inconsistent labeling, this makes edibles easy to consume to excess before their full effects are felt. As WikiLeaf writes, this may cause side effects like anxiety, paranoia, cottonmouth, and lethargy. Nevertheless, these effects often differ from person to person, depending on factors such as the frequency of use, size and weight of the user, and whether the edibles are taken on an empty stomach. Consistent dosage helps to prevent these possible adverse effects. For this reason, edible products that contain more than a single serving must be recorded, defined, or otherwise marked to indicate how many servings they contain.
Under the MAUCRSA, manufacturers would be required to take reasonable measures to ensure that their products successfully communicate:
How many milligrams of THC are in each serving
What the recommended dosage would be based on specific criteria, such as weight, size, etc.
What, if any, side effects may occur if taken in excess
With these THC dosage limits in place, a consumer can easily understand how many servings are needed to achieve their desired results without any side effects.
The proposed regulations have also stated that edible cannabis products cannot contain any infused alcoholic beverages, nor any non-cannabinoid additives such as caffeine and nicotine. This is to ensure that these additives don't combine to increase the potency, addictive potential, or toxicity of cannabis edibles.
The MAUCRSA is vague, however, in determining whether natural caffeine is permissible; some caffeinated edible cannabis products, such as tea to alleviate pain and insomnia, are currently available for medical use, but it's unclear what their status would be under the new regulations. Manufacturers may bear the greater burden when it comes to remanufacturing their products to comply with state law.
As explained in our previous blog post, “compliance” will be a major factor in the distribution of marijuana licenses in Los Angeles – and cannabis lawyers around the city are fielding a number of questions about what, exactly, LA’s priority licensing process will entail.
The draft regulations the City has released extend a certain amount of privilege to existing marijuana sellers when it comes to licensing. Businesses and dispensaries that have operated “in substantial compliance” with prior iterations of marijuana law will be given priority, allowing them to continue operating while their license approvals are pending. Clearly, this confers a major business advantage, which has raised concerns about whether a compliance-based approach to awarding priority is equitable.
Disqualifying potential cannabis business owners for past violations, but opening the door to “compliant” newcomers, threatens to reinforce inequality. As Drug Policy Alliance policy director Cat Packer, slated to head the City of LA’s Cannabis Commission, explained in an interview with Merry Jane, “The impact of marijuana prohibition and the drug wars was heaviest in black and brown latino communities. If you say people with prior arrests and convictions can’t participate, it automatically has a disproportionate effect on communities that were punished by the War on Drugs.” In other words, privileging “compliance” could compound the negative effects of marijuana prohibition, blocking communities which have historically been more likely to be punished for cannabis use from gaining access to the benefits of the new, legal marijuana industry. As attorneys who have practiced in cannabis law for many years, we have seen the damage prohibition has done to these communities, and are fully supportive of a restorative approach to justice through the licensing process.
The LA City Council recently moved to create a Social Equity Program for marijuana licensing, intending to serve “those individuals and communities that were disproportionately harmed by cannabis prohibition.” This follows in the path of a similar program in Oakland, which reserved half of new dispensary permits for residents who lived in certain neighborhoods, had below-average annual incomes, or had previously faced cannabis convictions. Given how much larger Los Angeles' marijuana industry is than Oakland's, however, the mechanics of the LA program may need to be worked out, and it may not be able to mirror the Oakland model in every way.
Whatever the exact parameters of LA's Social Equity Program end up being, (and however they'll be affected by recent changes to state and city licensing regulations,) the priority-based system will continue to play a major role in deciding which marijuana businesses are allowed to operate. At present, the city plans to reserve a special round of applications for organizations that fit a profile similar to the requirements Oakland used. For more on priority and marijuana laws to the new state law (MAUCRSA), check our previous blog posts or guide to Prop 64, or email us at email@example.com.
Los Angeles is moving ahead with regulating marijuana, a shift that will bring many businesses out of the gray and black and into compliance with municipal and state law. As cannabis lawyers who have been practicing throughout the implementation of various California marijuana regulatory regimes, we could not be happier to see these changes coming to fruition. The city will go from granting limited prosecutorial immunity to a short list of dispensary operators, as it did under 2013’s Prop D, to fully regulating a host of medical cannabis businesses with the implementation of 2017’s Measure M. This post will give you an overview of the Draft Regulations released by City Council President Herb Wesson’s office in June 2017, and will answer the question of how the city will treat existing cannabis businesses.
The regulations treat dispensaries differently from cultivators and manufacturers, and lay out different requirements for priority processing for each. Measure M will give priority to existing medical marijuana dispensaries (EMMDs) that have a 2016 or 2017 Business Tax Registration Certificate, are operating in compliance with current zoning law, and have been in “substantial compliance” with the city’s 2013 regulations. Those regulations, as laid out in Proposition D, require 1000-foot distancing from sensitive use areas, restrict operating hours to between 10 a.m. and 8 p.m., and introduce a host of other factors for compliance. “Substantial compliance” has not yet been defined by the city. Note that it is expected the City of LA will put a cap on the number of dispensary licenses granted. This number is not established in the draft regulations, but will likely be decided upon in the next 50 days, through discussions with Angelenos in the public comment period.
For existing medical marijuana businesses (EMMBs) which are not dispensaries (i.e. cultivators and manufacturers), the rules are similar. If an EMMB is located within the correct zoning, hasn't violated earlier regulations, and has been operating from a consistent location since January 1, 2016 or earlier, they qualify as “compliant.”
If an existing cannabis business that meets the above requirements applies for a license within 30 days of the applications opening, it'll have a chance to receive a compliance certification – which not only puts them in the first round of applications, but also allows their business to continue operating while its license is being processed. Any organization which isn't an EMMD or EMMB must wait until after they're licensed to begin operating.
The second round after “priority processing” will be the Social Equity round, which we will discuss in our next post. For more information about marijuana licensing, consult our blog post on Gov. Jerry Brown's recent changes to licensing restrictions, our guide to California marijuana laws, or email us at firstname.lastname@example.org.