The short answer is yes, for now. Until the law changes, you need to operate as a nonprofit. You should also prepare yourself for for-profit operation so that your business is not caught off guard when the law does change. There is a great deal of misinformation and misunderstanding about how cannabis businesses are allowed to be organized in California. California Health & Safety Code § 11362.765 is the law of the land, stating in part: “nor shall anything in this section authorize any individual or group to cultivate or distribute cannabis for profit.” Note that this section was not repealed or replaced by any provisions in SB 94 (our Guide to SB94 is available here). Appellate decisions have interpreted this language to mean that all cannabis cultivation and distribution in the state is required to be conducted on a non-profit basis, and that anyone cultivating or distributing cannabis “for profit" is subject to criminal sanctions (currently a misdemeanor in most cases, with potential jail time and fines).
While there has been much debate over LA’s recent Draft Regulations, not much has been stated clearly about how to prepare for the LA license application process. You can read more about the draft regulations here, here, and here. Below is some guidance from our Los Angeles Cannabis Attorneys. As you know from our previous posts on SB 94, you will need City or County authorization in order to apply for a State License. The areas you can start preparing for fall into a few main categories: real estate, taxes, corporate documents and financial planning.
Now that California is set to give licenses to cannabis operators, you may be wondering -- can cannabis companies get trademarks yet? The answer is more complicated than you may expect.
Your instincts are right; it’s time to start planning for the future. And to do that, you need to develop a brand that you can protect and your consumers can depend upon.
Yet the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has expressly, and repeatedly, affirmed that that it will deny registration of any “marijuana” or “cannabis” related goods or services. You can read that decision here. The basis for this policy is the Controlled Substances Act; so long as the sale of marijuana is classified as federally illegal, the USPTO considers the use of such marks in commerce as “not lawful” and thus not entitled to protection. Proposition 64 and California’s medical marijuana laws, as changes in state law, do not affect the Board’s policy regarding federal registration. That means that properly licensed cannabis companies that sell cannabis-related goods and services in 100% compliance with California law are still not engaging in a “lawful” use in commerce according to the USPTO. Cannabis companies seeking protection from California run into the same problem as Sacramento has decided to follow the USPTO’s policy.
However, there are still ways for a cannabusiness owner to protect their intellectual property assets. One emerging strategy is to trademark a number of other goods and services that use your mark, but do not use or primarily facilitate use of the federally banned substance itself. These types of goods can range from t-shirts to oils – anything that does not constitute “drug paraphernalia” that “is primarily intended or designed for use in manufacturing, compounding, converting, concealing, producing, processing, preparing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body a controlled substance, possession of which is unlawful under the CSA.” Registering trademarks for these ancillary goods and services puts the owner in a better strategic position for the future; when federal restrictions finally lift, the owner will have a strong claim to the mark as residing in their “natural zone of expansion.” This tactic puts the trademark owner on the offensive, putting any would-be pirates and infringers on notice.
There is reason to keep an eye on the California Legislature, too. Soon enough, owners may be able to use the state trademark registration process. Though state trademarks will not convey national-level protection, they will cover the state of California. Recently, the California Legislature has considered adding statutory language in AB-64 that would provide new trademark classes in California for:
- (500): for goods that are cannabis or cannabis products, including medicinal cannabis or medicinal cannabis products.
- (501): for services related to cannabis or cannabis products, including medicinal cannabis or medicinal cannabis products.
We are doing a series of posts on cannabis trademarks and cannabis IP. Check back for more next week.
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.
On September 22, 2017, the City of Los Angeles released Revised Draft Requirements for Commercial Cannabis Activity in the City. Our LA cannabis lawyers have analyzed the regulations and compared them to the June 2017 draft, and there are drastic differences that will affect large portions of the thousands of cannabis operators within the City.
The major change is that only dispensaries will be allowed to apply first - under Priority licensing - to the City. Originally, cultivators and manufacturers that could prove they had been operating since before January 1, 2016, were going to be able to apply along with dispensaries who had a 2016 or 2017 business tax registration certificate from the City (BTRC). Now, all cultivators and manufacturers will apply in the Social Equity or General Processing round, which will be held at the same time.
The number of dispensaries that will qualify for priority has been expanded to include dispensaries in compliance with the current medical marijuana laws that have a 2015 or later BTRC, in addition to those that have a 2016 or 2017 BTRC (the original group that would receive priority). You can read more about the prior draft here.
Additionally, cultivators and manufacturers who could prove operation before 2016 under the June regulations were going to be able to receive certificates of compliance that allowed them to continue operating. This is no longer the case. Only dispensaries that are preexisting and meet the criteria will be authorized to continue operations under the current draft.
Under California’s SB-94 (aka MAUCRSA), the retail sale of marijuana products to consumers is only legal if the business owner holds a license for cannabis distribution. Since this covers all sales of cannabis products, from marijuana proper to derivatives like hash oil and CBD, these licenses are in high demand. Many clients often ask our cannabis lawyers what happened to the Transportation license. This was a license type under the MCRSA but that provision was repealed in SB 94 and the activities covered by the old Transportation license have now been merged into the Distribution license. So, the state license is now for the same activity but under a different name.
In order to qualify for the state license, your business must first hold a local license (or local authorization), which can only be granted by the municipality the business intends to operate in. For those eager to enter the world of cannabis distribution, the question is: which cities are giving out these licenses? Here are a few cities that have distribution in their ordinance and are either already issuing distribution licenses or are on the road towards doing so:
- California City
- Cathedral City
- Desert Hot Springs
- Long Beach
- Los Angeles (expected* but we will have to wait for the Ordinance to be sure)
- Nevada City
An ordinance does not necessarily mean that it will be easy to secure a license. Many cities put heavy restrictions on how many distribution licenses will be granted, and the regulations that must be complied with are robust.
Regarding Los Angeles, all indications appear that LA will allow this cannabis activity. However, the City has until September 30th to promulgate an ordinance, and we will not know for sure until we see the final version. The fact that they have included distribution in the draft location ordinance (which you can read more about here and here) and in the operating requirements suggests that they will. Stay tuned for updates from our LA cannabis attorneys as the City’s local regulations take shape.
One of the hot topics within the LA cannabis community is priority licensing. In this post, our LA cannabis attorneys will explain what priority licensing is within the city’s licensing schema, and who qualifies for it. A recently released survey from the State Department of Agriculture found that there were 2,718 cannabis operators in LA County interested in obtaining licensing for their business. Of course, the County of LA still has a ban in place on all cannabis activity which applies to unincorporated areas. For those operators who are located within the City, you may qualify for priority licensing if you were conducting cultivation or manufacturing within the city limits before January 1, 2016 and can prove it; or, if you are a dispensary and can show a valid 2016 or 2017 BTRC for your place of business. You can read more about what evidence you can use to qualify for priority here and more about LA's zoning requirements here. In other words, you don't have to have been around for centuries, as long as you can show continuous operation from the past 21 months and meet the City's other requirements.
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.
Cannabis, via a wide variety of consumption methods and in a myriad of forms, has a long history of use as a pain reliever. In this post, our los angeles cannabis lawyers tackle the topicals and Type 6 non-volatile cannabis manufacturing licenses.
Yesterday the City of Los Angeles released new zoning for cannabis businesses. The blue and pink maps released in June have been updated. We now have zoning for volatile manufacturing and mixed light cultivation, which is a departure from the prior draft ordinance released in June. We predicted the City was leaning towards volatile manufacturing after they released a letter earlier this month, which you can read about here. Additional areas have been added to the permitted zones for commercial cannabis activity.
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.
Los Angeles cannabis lawyer Allison Margolin spoke at the State of Marijuana conference this past weekend. In this video clip, she gives an overview of the cannabis licensing process in California. If you haven't heard, you need to get local authorization (which can mean a license or something less official like local government officials signing off on your project to the state) in order to apply for a California cannabis license when it becomes available January 1, 2018. Our cannabis attorneys are familiar with local jurisdictions statewide and are actively advising our clients on the nuances and complexities of zoning, the application process, and compliance with local ordinances.
In a letter published today, the Los Angeles City Council’s Rules, Elections, and Intergovernmental Relations Committee (Rules Committee) advised the City Planning Department that they support the allowance of Type 7 (so called "volatile") manufacturing within the City of LA. The letter represents a signficant policy shift on the City's part, since the Draft Operating Requirements released in June only allowed for non-volatile. Our Los Angeles cannabis attorneys are often asked what the difference is - any extraction process that uses flammable substances (including CO2) is considered "volatile" and would require a Type 7 license from the state. These labs are also subject to stringent safety requirements, which are discussed further in our prior post on volatile manufacturing.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org to speak with one of our Los Angeles cannabis lawyers.
In addition to the City of Los Angeles Public Comment hearing on Measure M last night, Bellflower's City Council held a meeting this week. On Monday night, the main room where the night's public discussion was scheduled was filled to capacity. The crowd was drawn to the meeting by one of the subjects on the city council's agenda for that night: Bellflower's approach to cannabis. As one of only three cities in LA county (along with Long Beach and Maywood) that have passed a cannabis ordinance and are either issuing licensing or about to, there's clearly no shortage of interest in Bellflower's path toward legalization. We were among the many cannabis lawyers, entrepreneurs, and business owners, in attendance, and we left the meeting with the new information you need about Bellflower.
Bellflower’s mayor made it clear that the city will only be issuing 12 permits for cannabis-related business activities. The mayor did not specify exactly how many of these permits will be allotted to each type of activity. However, it's clear that applications will be made available for dispensary, cultivation, distribution, and manufacturing. The application fee is a whopping, non-refundable $25,000. Furthermore, this fee will be levied annually in addition to standard business taxes. The application will open September 27, 2017, and applicants will be required to submit both a Conditional Use Permit Application and a Cannabis Business Permit Application.
Each application will be evaluated on its merits, and the strongest applications will receive licenses. The City made it clear that there is not an explicit criteria or point system to rate each application. However, in order to be considered for a license, companies must have at least $400,000 in liquid funds, as well as either ownership of the property they are operating out of or a long-term lease of at least 10 years. The City made it clear that businesses which have operated continuously are preferred, and that companies may not submit one application for multiple types of business activities. (For example, a company interested in both cultivation and distribution must apply for the two licenses separately.)
One additonal bright spot of the meeting was the city’s promise to grandfather in all compliant medicinal license holders once recreational sales licenses become available.
Check back with us for regular updates - this is a fast-moving time for cannabis licensing in Los Angeles County.
One of the questions any Los Angeles cannabis lawyer encounters most frequently is: what about the banking issue? Cannabis remains a largely unbanked industry. And while you are still required to pay all of your federal, state, and local taxes, that often means dealing with large amounts of cash, which creates security and accounting risks for legal cannabis businesses. A stateside bank that services legal cannabis businesses could close some of these gaps, but still faces the risk of federal asset forfeiture.
On August 10th, the Cannabis Banking Working Group (CBWG) and California State Treasurer John Chiang held the last of six meetings in Los Angeles to address these concerns, as well as how a public bank that services legal cannabis businesses could generate revenue for the state. Since California is the world’s sixth largest economy, the way the state implements a banking system will be a bellwether for other states that have implemented medical marijuana regulations, as well as a game changer for legal cannabis operators in general.
Kevin Klowden, economist and Executive Director of the Milken Institute, stated that in order for public banks to operate, they would need to generate a depository system that is specifically designated to cannabis businesses, creating a “safe alternative to an all-catch operation” which would be separate from the federal government. This public bank model would allow for small- and medium-sized deposits, turning them into targeted loans which could be used to make money. In order to do so, a public bank would require a master account number, similar to a routing number, which would assist in identifying the sources of funds and entities. This master account number would also allow for basic bank services, such as check deposits and transferring of funds. With federal oversight, the government would have the ability to oversee and approve such transactions. If money is coming from an institution that they have flagged as suspicious, e.g. cannabis businesses, they have the ability to block such transactions. To avoid this, the state would need to create a situation where the federal government cannot interfere with small deposits. The structure of such deposits must be separated and clearly distinct between any chartered public bank.
The Bank of North Dakota (BND), the only public state-owned bank in the country, has created a similar business loan program. The deposits made into BND are insured by the state, as opposed to the FDIC. Because BND has control over their institution, their default rate has been extremely low. As such, BND’s public bank model has proven to be effective and profitable. A program fitting this model, if adopted in Californiam could provide services to legal cannabis businesses. That said, as long as cannabis is classified as a Schedule I drug, the federal government can still intervene at any time. Nevertheless, implementing an alternative route for cannabis businesses to deposit their funds creates a “safe haven” for these businesses.
Public banking systems would create security plus opportunity, predictability, and sustainability for the primary stakeholders in California’s transition to a “new cannabis economy.” Unless the state of California handles cannabis currency first, private banks will continue to be reluctant to do so. The only “magic bullet” here, as Chiang mentioned in his opening remarks, is to remove cannabis from being classified as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act altogther. However, that change seems to be a long way off. In the interim, though it will be complicated, there is growing momentum and consensus behind the need for a public bank that services legal cannabis businesses in California, and we’ve already seen that it is possible to create such a bank in another state.
As of this Monday, the resort community of Palm Springs, California has begun accepting permit applications for a full range of adult-use cannabis businesses. Like several other cities in the Inland Empire and Coachella Valley, Palm Springs already allows for marijuana cultivation and medical marijuana dispensaries. However, the city’s new regulations go a step further toward opening the region up to the full range of the California cannabis industry. In particular, the sections of City Ordinance 1933 which deal with adult-use cannabis suggest that Palm Springs plans on alleviating its restrictions on the type and number of marijuana businesses permitted to operate. This has the potential to significantly expand the region’s marijuana industry.
Until the passage of this ordinance, Palm Springs had firm restrictions on the distribution sector of the cannabis industry: the previous regulations only allowed medical cannabis collectives to operate dispensaries, and, of these collectives, only allowed a maximum of six operations to hold permits at any one time. Though it isn’t clear how many businesses will be granted permits to distribute adult-use cannabis in the future, the new ordinance notably doesn’t include an analogous restriction on the maximum allowable number of adult-use distribution permits, which may indicate that the city won’t extend these limits in its future approach to cannabis licensing.
The other major change introduced in the ordinance is the expansion of licensing to the other sectors of the marijuana industry, as described in our blog post on California's types of cannabis licenses. While marijuana permits were previously limited to distribution and cultivation, the new regulations allow for licenses in manufacturing, testing, and transportation to be granted for both medicinal and adult-use cannabis. This change would allow for the entire cannabis industry to be represented in Palm Springs – not only growing marijuana plants and the sale of the finished product, but also all the steps in between.
Of course, as is often the case in California marijuana law, none of the changes described in the ordinance will take place in the imminent future. The city will have to pass a ballot measure this November establishing the taxation regulations for cannabis businesses before any of these licenses are actually given out, and no adult-use cannabis licenses will go into effect before 2018. Still, these new regulations suggest that Palm Springs is taking an active role in embracing the ongoing process of marijuana legalization.
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 email@example.com.
Under S.B. 94, the 482 Cities and and 58 Counties within California have authority to regulate land use and zoning within their jurisdictions. The zoning for cannabis businesses depends on the activity - for example, dispensaries often have different zoning than cannabis manufacturing businesses. Our cannabis lawyers have found that many jurisdictions and ordinances allow for light industrial as one of the more popular zones for cannabis businesses, but it is important to check your local ordinance as it is a location-specific analysis for each city/county. (Moreover, counties or cities that have bans on cannabis activity in place will not provide any zoning information because they have not updated their municipal or county codes to do so).
The City of Los Angeles introduced a Draft Location Ordinance in June 2017. The Draft Location Ordinance specifies the zones where cannabis businesses will be allowed to operate, by activity. Cannabis cultivation (indoor) and manufacturing will be allowed in limited commercial and industrial zones within the City of Los Angeles. There will also be designated special zones for cannabis businesses such as the Sports and Entertainment Specific Plan Zone and the Los Angeles International Airport Specific Plan Zone.
Retailers or cannabis dispensaries will be properly zoned if they are in the limited commercial and industrial zones in Los Angeles, and are also 800 ft. from recognized existing medical marijuana dispensaries, school, park, public library, rehab center, etc.
Note that for Delivery Operators who exclusively use a building for delivery, sensitive use distancing and buffer zones are not required.
Without the proper zoning, obtaining approval for your building is a non-starter.