The History of Cannabis by Margolin & Lawrence

Posted by Margolin & Lawrence on April 20, 2018

Cannabis Compliance: Operating Legally in California in 2018

Posted by Margolin & Lawrence on April 10, 2018

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?


Culver city status update

Posted by Margolin & Lawrence on April 4, 2018

Only a week is left until Culver City starts accepting applications for cannabis business
permits - except storefront retail, which is scheduled to open by May. With delays in the City of LA's application process, the City's original slogan,"All Roads Lead to Culver City" is beginning to ring true for many cannabis businesses. 

Current Status of San Francisco City Cannabis Licensing

Posted by Margolin & Lawrence on March 29, 2018

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 Provisionof 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 Citys 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 zones 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 Citys 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 Franciscos 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.

Federal Cannabis Update: 2018 Spending Bill Keeps Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment

Posted by Margolin & Lawrence on March 27, 2018

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.

Will California Lower the Cannabis Tax Rates?

Posted by Margolin & Lawrence on March 23, 2018

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.

Ask a Cannabis Lawyer: What Is The Legal Status of CBD? (Part 1 of our CBD Series)

Posted by Margolin & Lawrence on September 6, 2017

Our marijuana lawyers are frequently being asked about one particular cannabis derivative: cannabidiol, also known as CBD. The popularity of cannabidiol as used in CBD-only products, which do not contain THC and are non-intoxicating by design, has surged in recent years in the wellness community. In Los Angeles, CBD products aren't just found at dispensaries, but can be bought over the counter at health shops and even a few high-end grocery stores. Given this wide acceptance, our clients often ask: “Do I need a license to sell CBD?” The answer may surprise you.

CBD can be derived from hemp as well as cannabis plants. It is a common misconception that because hemp is non-psychoactive, its derivatives are therefore non-regulated, or that because CBD isn't an intoxicant, its sale isn't subject to existing marijuana laws. In fact, both of these assumptions are wrong: Hemp and CBD are regulated by federal, state, and local law (though few local jurisdictions are currently regulating hemp). In California, the SB-94 bill does not cover hemp; instead, it's regulated by the Food and Agriculture Code, which defers to federal law under the 2014 Farm Bill. For now, the Farm Bill only allows for the cultivation of hemp for research, and also requires registration with the state.

Under federal law, the DEA has issued multiple statements to clarify that, as a cannabis derivative, CBD qualifies as a Schedule I controlled substance, the same as cannabis itself. However, this doesn't mean that CBD is without advocates beyond the state level: the FDA has determined that CBD has beneficial effects, and the World Health Organization is also evaluating the potential health benefits of CBD. You can play a role in shaping CBD policy by participating in the FDA and World Health Organization’s request for comment on CBD by September 13, 2017.

This request was made in the hopes of gaining information on the “abuse liability and diversion” of a number of drugs – in other words, how easy it is for the use of these substances to become dangerous. The official notice listed 17 drugs, with a breakdown of their specific effects and uses. Of those substances, only CBD was deemed by the FDA to have positive qualities. The WHO’s judgment about the potential benefits of this marijuana derivative, informed by the FDA's text and submitted comments, will inform the organization’s recommendations about whether CBD should have international restrictions placed on its use.

In its own way, though, the FDA’s statement may inform drug policy and cannabis law here in America. Stay tuned for part 2 of our Regulating CBD series next week.

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.