On April 2nd, the Massachusetts Cannabis Commission opened its licensing application process for cannabis businesses, marking Massachusetts’ official entry into the legal cannabis industry. Despite the relatively strict criteria that applicants must meet in order to qualify for the first round of licensing, the Boston Globe reports that almost 200 prospective cannabis operators have started their applications within the first day of the system’s opening, a definite sign that interest is high.
For the time being, applications are only open for “Priority Applicants,” a group consisting of Registered Marijuana Dispensaries – existing retail businesses which already have a certificate of registration and are in good standing with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health – and Economic Empowerment Applicants. The latter category is analogous to the Social Equity Program in the Oakland and Los Angeles cannabis licensing processes: Granting priority to certain business operators is intended as a restorative measure to benefit communities, demographics, and individuals who have been disproportionately punished by cannabis laws in the past.
According to the Massachusetts regulations on the Adult Use of Marijuana, to qualify as an Economic Empowerment Applicant, a prospective cannabis operator must meet three or more of the following criteria:
- A majority of ownership belongs to people who have lived for five of the preceding ten years in an area of disproportionate impact, as determined by the Commission;
- A majority of ownership has held one or more previous positions where the primary population served were disproportionately impacted, or where primary responsibilities included economic education, resource provision or empowerment to disproportionately impacted individuals or communities;
- At least 51% of current employees or subcontractors reside in areas of disproportionate impact and by the first day of business, the ratio will meet or exceed 75%;
- At least 51% or employees or subcontractors have drug-related CORI and are otherwise legally employable in cannabis enterprises;
- A majority of the ownership is made up of individuals from Black, African American, Hispanic or Latino descent;
- Other significant articulable demonstration of past experience in or business practices that promote economic empowerment in areas of disproportionate impact.
If a cannabis operator is certified as a Priority Applicant, they’ll be eligible to submit a state licensing application for all activities on April 17th. Businesses that don’t receive this priority will have to wait: Open applications for Cultivation, Microbusiness, Craft Cooperatives, Independent Testing Labs, and Lab Agents are scheduled to begin on May 1st, while applications for Retail, Product Manufacturers, and Transport businesses won’t open until June 1st. Given that the state has slated retail sales to begin on July 1st, this means that, if Massachusetts sticks to the current deadlines, applications are likely to be a very competitive, time-sensitive process.
Even if they don’t qualify as priority applicants, prospective cannabis operators should study state and local regulations to ensure that their applications are in order – as Massachusetts is still in the early stages of the cannabis licensing process, many deadlines and regulations are still subject to change. For more information on Massachusetts’ cannabis regulations, follow this blog or contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
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.
Last week, despite controversy, criticism from both sides of the aisle, and talk of a veto, President Trump agreed to sign the federal government’s omnibus spending bill for 2018. To the relief of many in the legal cannabis industry, the spending bill retains a provision known as the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer (or Rohrabacher-Farr) amendment, which provides limited protection from federal prosecution for state-level legal cannabis activity.
Given both Trump’s and Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ tough talk on drugs and threats to crack down on the cannabis industry, the continued presence of this amendment is a silver lining for those anxious about the future of legal cannabis. While this won’t mean a change in the federal treatment of marijuana – the amendment has been included in every spending bill since 2014 – it does indicate that the government intends to keep on its current course with regard to cannabis, as the provision has to be renewed every year to remain in effect.
Likewise, though the actual protections afforded by the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer amendment are limited, its being signed into law was, and remains, an important indication of the federal government’s shift in attitude regarding cannabis: as the LA Times reported following the provision’s first inclusion in the spending bill, “Congress for years had resisted calls to allow states to chart their own path on pot. The marijuana measure, which forbids the federal government from using any of its resources to impede state medical marijuana laws, was previously rejected half a dozen times.” In this light, the amendment was a notable pivot from a top-down to a state-level approach to cannabis regulation.
California cannabis consumers and business owners shouldn’t get too comfortable, though: not only does the amendment not change anything about the federal government’s cannabis policy in and of itself, its terms only apply to medical marijuana, not recreational cannabis. So far, the government has rejected proposed amendments that would grant recreational cannabis operations the same protection from federal intervention. For the time being, California cannabis business owners’ best bet is to stay in full compliance with state and local law as the federal situation develops.
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 email@example.com 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 recreational “adult-use” cannabis is officially legalized across California, cannabis taxation is more important than ever for legal cannabis operators. Our Los Angeles Cannabis attorneys are often asked about the new state tax system and what is new since January 1, 2018. As of a few months ago, the BOE became the CDTFA. For California, there are three different state-level taxes on cannabis business: the Cultivation Tax, the Cannabis Excise Tax, and the Sales and Use Tax. The new state tax agency has released an educational series to explain the new tax regime. Cannabis manufacturers and distributors need to become familiar with the resale certificate. As its name implies, a resale certificate relates to the Sales and Use tax.
The Sales and Use Tax applies to sales of cannabis or cannabis products (flowers, plants, hash, bud, vape pens, edibles, oils, etc.) to consumers – in other words, the “final sale” of cannabis before the product is used/consumed. However, there are circumstances in the cannabis supply chain where these products are sold to a cannabis business for resale, rather than to a consumer. For instance, if a licensed distributor sells cannabis to a licensed retailer, they’re making a sale, but the purchaser doesn’t intend to use or consume the product themselves. In order to prevent the distributor from being liable for taxation on this type of sale, the retailer can give the distributor a resale certificate. If timely and valid, this certifies that the purchaser intends to resell the product and therefore exempts the distributor from the tax.
Without a resale certificate, both the seller and the purchaser are liable for Sales and Use Tax. In the example above, the distributor would need to pay it for their sale to the retailer, while the retailer would need to pay it for the sale they make to the final consumer. The same goes for other sales of cannabis between licensed cannabis businesses. For instance, when a cultivator sells cannabis flower to a manufacturer, the cultivator is liable for a Sales and Use Tax unless the manufacturer gives them a resale certificate for the purchase.
One important thing for distributors to keep in mind is the distinction between “transport” and “sale”. If one licensed cannabis business purchases cannabis products directly from another, e.g. a retailer buying flowers from a cultivator, the distributor who is contracted to transport the products from the cultivator’s operation to the retailer’s isn’t making a sale, and therefore doesn’t need to pay a Sales and Use Tax, regardless of whether they’re given a resale certificate.
Even if all their business’ sales are for resale and exempt from Sales and Use Tax, all cannabis operators are still responsible for filing a tax return and reporting their activities to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. Remember, a resale certificate only applies to the Sales and Use Tax, not the Cultivation or Excise taxes.
Market volatility sent many investors reeling yesterday, with the dow plunging over 1,000 points. Cryptocurrency, a digital asset that is popular with cannabis entrepreneurs, was not spared. As of today, Bitcoin is trading at $7,049 per USD, down from over $18,000 a few weeks ago. Those familiar with cryptocurrency know that Bitcoin is only one type of asset, and that in fact there are multiple currencies available. One in particular, may be a potential solution to the cannabis industry’s banking crisis: PotCoin. Our Los Angeles cannabis attorneys are following developments in cryptocurrency closely and monitoring progress as regulations catch up with technology, and the state works towards a banking solution for cannabis operators. In fact, just this week, the U.S. Senate in conjunction with the SEC and the CFTC held a discussion titled “Virtual Currencies: The Oversight Role of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission.” We will cover the results of this discussion in a future post.
One of the first cryptocurrencies to ever enter the market as a cannabis coin, PotCoin, was launched on January 21st, 2014. Back then, cryptocurrencies and their applications were widely regarded by the public as a space that catered to the underground, illicit economy of the world. Potcoin describes itself as “the first digital currency created to facilitate transactions within the legalized cannabis industry.” Established around the same time as cannabis legalization in Colorado, PotCoin positioned itself as an alternative to banking, even going so as far as to installing PotCoin ATM machines at a few locations. Now that the marijuana revolution in our country has garnered more support than ever, these cannabis cryptocurrencies will undoubtedly be brought up for legitimate discussion once again. Currently, PotCoin is valued much lower than Bitcoin at $0.129 USD at the time of publishing this article.
How does PotCoin differ from Bitcoin? PotCoin runs on a “proof of stake” system, as opposed to Bitcoin, which runs on a “proof of work” system. This means that the individual or entity mining for PotCoin does not need an all-powerful computer with intense graphics cards, but a certain stake or ownership of the currency to mine it. This eliminates all the expensive hardware associated with the “proof of work” system, and validates the blockchain more efficiently. Through blockchain technology, PotCoins are verified while still efficiently eliminating the double-spending problem. The largest issue that PotCoin faces is one of network scalability and transaction speeds. These are both issues that the development team for PotCoin are fervently trying to solve. Whether or not PotCoin will make its mark on the economy of cannabis is contingent on how the development team addresses these key issues.
With a multitude of states on the path towards the legalization of cannabis, it will be interesting to see whether or not the cannabis industry will adopt PotCoin as a potential solution to the banking quandary and certainly the development issues above will be determinative of whether PotCoin is up to the challenge.
This past Monday, the Los Angeles City Council held an open meeting of its Rules, Elections, and Intergovernmental Relations Committee on the subject of the city’s cannabis regulations. Our LA cannabis lawyers were present to comment on the new draft and urge the City to take a reasonable, fair, and business-oriented approach to regulation. To the disappointment of many of Los Angeles' cannabis stakeholders, the city has not yet drafted its final cannabis ordinance, and has yet to even set a date for the completion of said ordinance. Though under Measure M this was supposed to pass by September 30, that deadline is about to come and go.
As the LA Times reported, the current situation and the new draft regulations leave the city’s existing marijuana businesses (particularly existing cultivators and manufacturers) in a precarious situation. Without a clear path toward legally sanctioned operations under the new cannabis ordinance, their businesses could be forced to shut down to avoid violating the law. Beyond the obvious financial hardship, inconvenience, and legal risk, this unclear state of affairs for marijuana activity presents a business hazard: With real estate prices in Los Angeles at record levels, a property that’s zoned for cannabis activity, but not allowed to operate, can quickly become a white elephant with overhead expenses large enough to drive its owner out of business.
Council members responded to the concerns of those in attendance, saying that, although they had not made an official recommendation to the city on how to proceed, they hoped to find a solution that satisfied the existing industry’s needs. Politically, the situation is a difficult one: While it makes sense to give marijuana operators priority in licensing commensurate with their compliance with previous laws, detractors argue that this could be interpreted as rewarding grey-market or outright illegal activity. Either way, some constituents are bound to be unhappy. Moreover, the situation is characterized by pervasive uncertainty: this regulation is still a draft, and there could be still more changes on the way before a final ordinance is passed.
For Los Angeles to pave the way for a sustainable legal cannabis industry, the council members will have to respond to these concerns – and do so quickly, before the uncertainty of the current situation takes its toll on existing cannabis businesses.