Sponsored by

VGoodiez 420EDC
  • Welcome to VaporAsylum! Please take a moment to read our RULES and introduce yourself here.
  • Need help navigating the forum? Find out how to use our features here.
  • Did you know we have lots of smilies for you to use?

Law California

@bulllee - check it out...also addresses AZ

Personally, I'm not a Medmen fan at all. I have been in one of their stores in L.V. and was not impressed with the "we're too cool for school" vibe and IMO lousy product.

I also objected to them looking to scarf up dispensaries here in MD using the loophole workaround of "management contracts" which are complete and total BS and which undermines the intention of the legal and regulatory restrictions on selling licenses. Was kind of glad to see these deals fall through after they hit the skids recently.



More hurdles for marijuana MSO MedMen in Arizona, California – and in court



Bad news continues to pile up for California-based MedMen Enterprises.


After the multistate operator’s founders stepped down from leadership roles in January, their replacements have continued to struggle to right the ship, and just last month, MedMen lost a medical marijuana business license in Virginia.


Recently, MedMen has been further hit with:


  • A lawsuit filed in May that so far has resulted in at least the temporary closure of two MedMen-branded Arizona stores, in Tempe and Scottsdale.
  • The potential loss of a retail license in Pasadena, California.
  • A new demand for $600,000 in legal fees from former Chief Financial Officer James Parker, who’s demanding the payment in an ongoing lawsuit he filed against MedMen in January 2019.




Combined, the three new hurdles could easily cost the company millions, not to mention the costs associated with keeping two formerly operational stores in Arizona shuttered while the litigation plays out.



A MedMen spokesman declined to comment for this story. But in an email to Marijuana Business Daily, he cited a recent company news release touting plans for a “financial restructuring and turnaround plan,” which includes deferring $32 million in financial commitments for a year.


“Implementing our turnaround plan is the best way to ensure that MedMen continues on its path to building the leading cannabis retailer in the U.S.,” MedMen interim CEO Tom Lynch said in the release.


But Mike Regan, an equity analyst and managing member of Denver-based MJResearchCo, pointed out the potential hurdles facing MedMen’s plans for recovery.


“Losing the Pasadena license would be a negative compared to MedMen’s restructuring plan, since Pasadena is a planned opening in the next 12 months,” he noted. “A license that cannot be transferred even internally isn’t worth much to an investor or creditor.


“MedMen planned to sell the Arizona dispensaries as part of the restructuring plan, so the question is if the lawsuit has delayed this process. The receipt of $10 million on July 2 for a future sale of a single unspecified non-California license may be related to this issue.”


Arizona


The Arizona case began in May when the original owners of two licensed Arizona MMJ dispensaries – CSI in Scottsdale and Kannaboost in Tempe – filed suit against MedMen for not paying $12 million still owed from an acquisition deal struck in February 2019, according to court filings.


MedMen originally agreed to pay $15 million to purchase both licenses, with a $3 million down payment made last August, according to the lawsuit.


In its own court filings, MedMen noted that it’s paid $33 million for the two shops.


The remaining $12 million, plus interest, was due in February.


But the company was not able to make that payment, and the deadline was extended multiple times, until the original license owners filed suit against MedMen, according to court records.


MedMen has countered in court filings that it has until the end of the year to pay the debt under an agreement it says was solidified between the parties.


The case is ongoing, but the two stores appear to have been at least temporarily shuttered.


According to MedMen’s website, one Arizona location is still operational, in Scottsdale.


California


In Pasadena, MedMen might lose a retail license it won last year because of executive turnover at the company, according to local news outlet Pasadena Now.


The Pasadena city manager’s office notified MedMen on July 1 that its application might no longer be valid because of the departure of at least seven company officials.


Pasadena Now noted the officials – which it did not identify – were “listed in MedMen’s initial January 2019 application as owners or key staff.”


According to Pasadena officials, that amounts to a “change in control” of the company and, therefore, the license, which is prohibited under the city’s marijuana licensing rules.


The city gave MedMen 10 days to prove “it remains under the control of the people listed on its application,” Pasadena Now reported.


Given the high turnover at MedMen – including the departures of former CEO Adam Bierman and ex-President Andrew Modlin – that appears unlikely.


Parker


To add to MedMen’s potential financial burdens, former CFO Parker is asking a judge to order the company to pay $600,000 in legal fees he claims he’s owed under his original employment contract. MedMen has hotly disputed that claim.


According to Law360, MedMen has responded that Parker himself violated the terms of his contract by departing without a required 90-day notice, which nullifies the company’s obligation to pay his legal bills.


MedMen trades on the Canadian Securities Exchange under the ticker symbol MMEN and on the U.S. over-the-counter markets as MMNFF.

Medmen came in here like gangbusters. Not so much anymore. I agree with you bad product all the way around. I think they left the valley, although there could be one in Scottsdale. JaJaJa Scottsdale is where they charge you twice as much because your in Scottsdale. Way overpriced Imo.
 
Medmen came in here like gangbusters. Not so much anymore. I agree with you bad product all the way around. I think they left the valley, although there could be one in Scottsdale. JaJaJa Scottsdale is where they charge you twice as much because your in Scottsdale. Way overpriced Imo.
$40 / 14 grams flower
$20 / gram rosin

getting lower all the time in Southern California.
Beer is still expensive?
 
Nah, just greed :biggrin: . By law it has to be grown and or processed in state. When it comes to weed were still in the wild west. Some places will show test results while others will laugh at you if you ask. There is really no oversight . The dispensaries get away with murder. LOL But do we care?
When I lived a wild feral life in HAWAII before UNIVERSITY marijuana was free for grower’s.
Cop’s drive around the ISLAND to buy pound’s of the crop of nature. (One hour)
70’s were a late culture wise, however no seed’s was standard.
Outdoor super cropping and letting the grass grow taller than the COLAS.
Crossing MAUI + AFAGANI + DURBAN creativity with nature was the goal.
Those a historical moment’s of a life worth living!
 
Oh yes, let's wrap ourselves up in the flag of "oh, the childrent" on MJ but these are perfectly fine:

Riversurf-Bitburger-Bier-620x350.jpg


And this certainly doesn't put a sheen on drinking for underage males, right?

1596216476293.png


and this certainly can't be glamorizing drinking liquor, right?

1596216610467.png


California should ban marijuana advertising to protect children and teens


t’s one thing to decriminalize cannabis, but it’s another to encourage use with marketing and advertising that reaches kids.

And that’s the problem: Almost all commercial advertising makes its way to the eyes and ears of children. If we care about public health, we should ban all cannabis ads.

San Diego banned cannabis billboards within 1,000 feet of schools, public parks, playgrounds and daycare centers. But kids in cars go everywhere, especially teenagers, which means marijuana messaging is still seeping into young minds, associating pot smoking with fun activities like rollerblading.

When I would fly to Palm Springs for work — as I did routinely before the pandemic — the first thing I saw when I get off the plane was a large, shiny, well-lit picture of cannabis buds advertising the name, address and phone number of a nearby dispensary. Only a few feet later, I saw a similar sign advertising cannabis tours.

At the baggage claim, all eyes were on a large sign for the Cannabis Consumption Lounge: “Smoke It. Eat It. Drink It. Enjoy It.” Cannabis advertising is everywhere these days, just like the pot shops themselves, including the rather baffling drive-through dispensary I saw on my last trip to the Golden State, and the cannabis delivery services that have surged in popularity amid the pandemic.

In Colorado, cannabis companies are forbidden to buy billboards. So, instead, they are “adopting highways” to get their brands on roadway signs throughout the state. This is to be expected with commercialized cannabis. Companies are driven by profit, and profits require more people to use, and existing users to use more. Cannabis companies are incentivized to market in every way possible, which inevitably affects public health.

We don’t need to see cannabis ads on TV, in newspapers or magazines or online. We don’t need to hear ads on the radio or drive by cannabis signs and billboards. If people want to find cannabis, they can look it up easily enough. Let’s not allow corporations to target people and drive even more use.

We already know from many studies that advertising is a risk factor for substance use, with several also showing that more exposure to advertising increases consumption. One recent study found that one in three youth engaged with cannabis promotions on social media and that adolescents who engaged with such promotions had five times higher odds of cannabis use.

Another new study found that exposure to alcohol advertising changes teens’ attitudes about alcohol and can cause them to start drinking. A 2012 Surgeon General’s Report reached a similar conclusion regarding tobacco ads. Indeed, significant restrictions on tobacco marketing — starting with the 1971 ban on TV and radio ads — have helped improve public health. Yet a new study of all 539 California cities and counties found that few have adopted lessons from tobacco control in devising their cannabis regulations.

The entire point of advertising is to motivate people to want, and then purchase, a product, and to shape public perceptions about the product. We also know companies that market addictive substances benefit from reaching young people. The younger that people begin using, the more they purchase over a lifetime, the more profits they generate, and — unfortunately — the greater their risk for developing addiction.

In the end, people with substance use disorders buy the most. For example, a small minority of the population —people who consume 10 or more drinks a day on average — buy the lion’s share of alcohol in the United States.

We don’t need cannabis ads on our billboards. If anything, we need cannabis warnings.
 
Oh yes, let's wrap ourselves up in the flag of "oh, the childrent" on MJ but these are perfectly fine:

Riversurf-Bitburger-Bier-620x350.jpg


And this certainly doesn't put a sheen on drinking for underage males, right?

View attachment 20179

and this certainly can't be glamorizing drinking liquor, right?

View attachment 20180

California should ban marijuana advertising to protect children and teens


t’s one thing to decriminalize cannabis, but it’s another to encourage use with marketing and advertising that reaches kids.

And that’s the problem: Almost all commercial advertising makes its way to the eyes and ears of children. If we care about public health, we should ban all cannabis ads.

San Diego banned cannabis billboards within 1,000 feet of schools, public parks, playgrounds and daycare centers. But kids in cars go everywhere, especially teenagers, which means marijuana messaging is still seeping into young minds, associating pot smoking with fun activities like rollerblading.

When I would fly to Palm Springs for work — as I did routinely before the pandemic — the first thing I saw when I get off the plane was a large, shiny, well-lit picture of cannabis buds advertising the name, address and phone number of a nearby dispensary. Only a few feet later, I saw a similar sign advertising cannabis tours.

At the baggage claim, all eyes were on a large sign for the Cannabis Consumption Lounge: “Smoke It. Eat It. Drink It. Enjoy It.” Cannabis advertising is everywhere these days, just like the pot shops themselves, including the rather baffling drive-through dispensary I saw on my last trip to the Golden State, and the cannabis delivery services that have surged in popularity amid the pandemic.

In Colorado, cannabis companies are forbidden to buy billboards. So, instead, they are “adopting highways” to get their brands on roadway signs throughout the state. This is to be expected with commercialized cannabis. Companies are driven by profit, and profits require more people to use, and existing users to use more. Cannabis companies are incentivized to market in every way possible, which inevitably affects public health.

We don’t need to see cannabis ads on TV, in newspapers or magazines or online. We don’t need to hear ads on the radio or drive by cannabis signs and billboards. If people want to find cannabis, they can look it up easily enough. Let’s not allow corporations to target people and drive even more use.

We already know from many studies that advertising is a risk factor for substance use, with several also showing that more exposure to advertising increases consumption. One recent study found that one in three youth engaged with cannabis promotions on social media and that adolescents who engaged with such promotions had five times higher odds of cannabis use.

Another new study found that exposure to alcohol advertising changes teens’ attitudes about alcohol and can cause them to start drinking. A 2012 Surgeon General’s Report reached a similar conclusion regarding tobacco ads. Indeed, significant restrictions on tobacco marketing — starting with the 1971 ban on TV and radio ads — have helped improve public health. Yet a new study of all 539 California cities and counties found that few have adopted lessons from tobacco control in devising their cannabis regulations.

The entire point of advertising is to motivate people to want, and then purchase, a product, and to shape public perceptions about the product. We also know companies that market addictive substances benefit from reaching young people. The younger that people begin using, the more they purchase over a lifetime, the more profits they generate, and — unfortunately — the greater their risk for developing addiction.

In the end, people with substance use disorders buy the most. For example, a small minority of the population —people who consume 10 or more drinks a day on average — buy the lion’s share of alcohol in the United States.

We don’t need cannabis ads on our billboards. If anything, we need cannabis warnings.
Hypocrisy!
 
California Bill Would Give Banks A Safe Harbor For Cannabis Business

Banking institutions and accountants offering services to cannabis businesses would have a safe harbor in California law under one of the weed-related bills awaiting state lawmakers’ action when they return to Sacramento this week.

One measure (A.B. 1525) says financial services, including public accounting firms, don’t commit a crime under any California law “solely by virtue of the fact that the person receiving the benefit of any of those services engages in commercial cannabis activity as a licensee” under state law.

The bill would permit, with the cannabis business license holder’s permission, a state or local licensing authority, state or local agency, or joint powers authority to share regulatory and financial information with a financial institution to facilitate commercial banking.

The California Credit Union League supports the bill, which the Assembly passed 68 to 1, and is scheduled for an Aug. 11 hearing in the Senate Banking and Financial Institutions Committee.

“It’s such a fluid situation right now that we’re not 100% sure what bills are moving, if it’s Covid-19 related or not,” said Robert Wilson, California Credit Union League vice president of state government affairs. “If this were a non-Covid year I’d say there was a very high likelihood it would pass.”

Consumers, businesses, and law enforcement have long been concerned about the lack of banking access for cannabis‐related businesses that primarily deal in cash, said Manuel P. Alvarez, California Department of Business Oversight commissioner. The department last October released risk guidance to help banks and credit unions that serve cannabis‐related businesses.

Pot is lucrative in California, with sales last year of $2.96 billion. The market is expected to reach $3.7 billion in sales this year and $7.13 billion in 2024, according to a forecast by BDSA, a cannabis market analytics company. Worldwide pot sales last year totaled $14.9 billion.

Another pending cannabis bills (S.B. 67) would limit appellations of origin, or specific geographic designations, on labeling where cannabis is grown to weed that’s “planted in the ground, in open air, with no artificial light during the flowering stage of cultivation until harvest.”

The bill addresses the hot issue of terroir, the distinctive soil and climate conditions in a geographic area that impart flavor and depth often associated with wine. Proponents argue that weed grown in a greenhouse lacks the characteristics of that grown in the open. The bill is set for an Aug. 10 hearing in the Assembly Business and Professions Committee.

Other cannabis legislation:
  • A measure (S.B. 793) that would ban all flavored tobacco products and cannabis vaping products. The state Senate passed the bill 33 to 4, and it is scheduled for a hearing Aug. 4 in the Assembly Health Committee.
  • A bill (S.B. 1244) that would make it easier for local law enforcement and prosecutors to send pot samples for testing, and is aimed at the illicit market. The state Senate passed the measure 30 to 0, and set an Aug. 10 hearing in the Assembly Business and Professions Committee.
 
DEA Reveals Details Of Investigation Into California Marijuana Companies With Latest Court Filing

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) revealed additional details about their investigation into certain California marijuana businesses on Wednesday.

The federal agency, which is involved in an ongoing legal battle with the state’s cannabis regulatory body, said in a new filing in the case that it issued subpoenas for records on three marijuana companies and three individuals earlier this year as part of an investigation into possible illegal importation and transportation of marijuana oil from Mexico by certain licensees.

Prior to the new admission, it was unclear why DEA was seeking the records. The state Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC) said in its own brief last week in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California that it did not comply with the federal subpoenas because the agency failed to adequately explain the relevance to an investigation and because state privacy laws prevent them from sharing the documents.

DEA disagreed, stating in the latest filing that “DEA explained to the BCC why it was requesting the documents.”

“Specifically, the DEA told the BCC that it was looking into the possible importation/transportation of a controlled substance from Mexico by specific licensees,” the agency said, adding that it was attaching a redacted copy of the relevant correspondence to the public filing. “The BCC has thus known from the outset that the documents requested in the Subpoena are relevant to an ongoing DEA investigation.”

Each new filing in the case has unveiled a trickle of additional information about what the federal government is looking into. In the state’s last response, it offered some clarification about the scope of DEA’s investigation, with a footnote saying that “the records sought by the subpoena in this matter pertained to distributor license applicants/holders.” That suggested that other licensed cannabis businesses such as cultivators, manufacturers, retailers and testing laboratories are not the immediate focus of the DEA investigation.

DEA is seeking “unredacted cannabis license(s), unredacted cannabis license application(s), and unredacted shipping manifest(s)” for three cannabis business entities and three individuals from January 2018 to January 2020. The targeted cannabis businesses and owners still have not been named in documents that have been publicly released in the case.

This legal dispute comes weeks after a DOJ whistleblower accused Attorney General William Barr of directing investigations into 10 cannabis firm mergers because of the top prosecutor’s alleged personal animus for the industry.

That said, a top department official said in a letter to Congress that those actions are better understood as helping to ensure consumers have affordable access to products in a competitive cannabis market—a curious position for the federal government to take.

Read the new filing from DEA on its marijuana investigation in California by following title link and scrolling to the bottom of the article.
 
San Diego County Declines To End Cannabis Ban

San Diego County cannabis activists have set their sights on the upcoming election as their next chance to affect change.

The San Diego County Board of Supervisors declined to take action on a proposal that would end a ban on cannabis businesses in unincorporated areas of the county and establish the framework for a social equity program in a regulated marijuana industry. The motion to approve the proposal from Supervisor Nathan Fletcher died a quick death at a meeting on Wednesday when it failed to receive a second from any of his colleagues on the board.

Fletcher’s proposal would have ended a ban on commercial cannabis activity enacted by the board in 2017. Under that ban, no recreational cannabis businesses are permitted to operate in the unincorporated areas of California’s southwestern-most county. Additionally, five medical marijuana dispensaries currently operating would be forced to close by 2022.

After the meeting, Fletcher issued a statement expressing his disappointment in his fellow board members, calling out one vocal cannabis opponent by name and noting that the proposal enjoyed support from many civic leaders in the county.

“Our proposal would have allowed for the development of a cannabis industry that is safe, regulated, and legal. Instead, led by Supervisor Kristin Gaspar, the Board doubled down on an outdated and out-of-touch view of legal cannabis,” Fletcher said in an email. “By saying no to creating a regulated market, they have opened the floodgates for more illegal shops, more criminal activity, and substantial losses in tax revenue to our county.”

“They not only rejected a bi-partisan coalition of elected officials, vital agricultural leaders like the San Diego County Farm Bureau, but they also rejected our veterans and seniors who rely on cannabis for the medical treatment of chronic pain,” he continued. “I can only hope a future Board of Supervisors will allow us to advance common-sense cannabis policy that puts social justice squarely at the front.”

Activists Look To November

With the failure of Fletcher’s plan, San Diego County cannabis activists have set their sights on the upcoming election as their next chance to affect change. With two open seats due to term limits and Gaspar vying for reelection, the makeup of the board is sure to change after the election. Tara Lawson-Remer, a candidate running against Gaspar for her seat in November, said that she was disappointed by the board’s rejection of the proposal.

“We need a commonsense approach to cannabis policy,” she wrote in a statement to High Times. “The most effective way to eliminate illicit cannabis operations, expand the tax base, and support our regional economy is licensed and regulated operations to facilitate safe, regulated, and legal cannabis use.”
https://hightimes.com/news/joe-bidens-new-cannabis-policy-proposals-met-criticism-disappointment/
Fletcher’s proposal was supported by a strong majority of those who posted public comments online before the meeting and via telephone while it was being held. Activists also staged a press conference on Tuesday afternoon, calling on the board of supervisors to adopt the proposal, which included social equity provisions that would have helped members of underrepresented communities participate in the legal cannabis industry.

Ebonāy Lee of Paving Great Futures, a community group that advocates for inclusion in the legal cannabis industry, said in an email Thursday morning that the board’s inaction represents a missed opportunity.

“What we witnessed yesterday could and should have been history in the making. To finally see the board of supervisors get it right under Nathan Fletcher’s leadership would have been amazing,” said Lee. “But it’s disheartening to have had our issues once again be ignored and delayed.”

However, not all San Diego County cannabis activists disagree with the board of supervisors’ decision to keep the ban in place, believing that Fletcher’s proposal did not go far enough. Sapphire Blackwood of Blackwood Consulting Professionals told High Times in an email that true social equity will not be possible until licensing requirements are no longer linked to land use ordinances and that a new regulatory regime is needed.

“The zoning ordinances are good for business (lawyers, lobbyists, architects), but at what cost?” she asked. “Given that the law enforcement unions are a big lobbying component of most if not all of the cannabis ordinances in this state, I would be shocked if any jurisdiction approved a truly equitable law allowing for a free market, automatic expungements, taxes going to research and development and underserved youth, and no more cannabis arrests.”
 
California weighs steep new fines to combat illegal cannabis sellers
An L.A. County sheriff's deputy carries bags of evidence after raiding an illegal cannabis dispensary in Compton in 2018.

A Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputy loads evidence bags into a van after raiding an illegal cannabis dispensary in Compton in 2018. State lawmakers are considering new fines for landlords and advertisers that aid illegal pot shops.
(Jae C. Hong / Associated Press)
By PATRICK MCGREEVYSTAFF WRITER
JULY 20, 2020
5 AM
SACRAMENTO —

Alarmed that unlicensed cannabis sellers continue to dominate California’s pot market, state lawmakers are moving toward imposing steep new fines on businesses that provide building space, advertising platforms and other aid to illicit operations.
Those who provide assistance to illegal pot sellers would face civil fines of up to $30,000 per day under legislation approved unanimously by the state Assembly that is now pending in the Senate. A final vote on the proposal is expected sometime after lawmakers return to Sacramento this month.

Assemblywoman Blanca Rubio (D-Baldwin Park) said she introduced the bill out of concern that as much as 80% of the cannabis sold in California comes from the illicit market, despite voters approving legal and licensed sales that began in 2018.
“Despite some success during the first two years of legalized cannabis sales, the illicit market has flourished,” Rubio said. “In addition to dwindling tax revenues, the underground market presents public safety and health threats to California.”
But the proposal has divided advocates for legal marijuana. The United Cannabis Business Assn., which represents licensed firms, asked Rubio to introduce Assembly Bill 2122, saying it “brings much-needed support in enforcement.”

Licensed retailers have struggled as many Californians continue to buy from the illicit market sellers, who charge lower prices because they do not pay state taxes or abide by costly state regulations, including testing and security requirements.
“The illicit cannabis market must be shut down to ensure that legal operators can see an increase of patients and consumers which creates union jobs while we contribute to local and the State of California’s tax revenues,” the UCBA said in a letter to legislators.
However, the measure is opposed by the California chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, also known as NORML, which argues the bill is overbroad and heavy-handed.


“In general we would rather see ‘carrots’ to assist people in securing commercial licenses by lowering the barriers to entry, rather than ‘sticks,’ be they criminal or civil,” said Ellen Komp, deputy director of California NORML.
The group supports an existing law requiring advertising for cannabis businesses to include a state license number. NORML officials said many illicit operators display fake licenses to fool those they do business with, so it is not always easy to ascertain whether a cannabis business has a license.
 
San Diego County Declines To End Cannabis Ban

San Diego County cannabis activists have set their sights on the upcoming election as their next chance to affect change.

The San Diego County Board of Supervisors declined to take action on a proposal that would end a ban on cannabis businesses in unincorporated areas of the county and establish the framework for a social equity program in a regulated marijuana industry. The motion to approve the proposal from Supervisor Nathan Fletcher died a quick death at a meeting on Wednesday when it failed to receive a second from any of his colleagues on the board.

Fletcher’s proposal would have ended a ban on commercial cannabis activity enacted by the board in 2017. Under that ban, no recreational cannabis businesses are permitted to operate in the unincorporated areas of California’s southwestern-most county. Additionally, five medical marijuana dispensaries currently operating would be forced to close by 2022.

After the meeting, Fletcher issued a statement expressing his disappointment in his fellow board members, calling out one vocal cannabis opponent by name and noting that the proposal enjoyed support from many civic leaders in the county.

“Our proposal would have allowed for the development of a cannabis industry that is safe, regulated, and legal. Instead, led by Supervisor Kristin Gaspar, the Board doubled down on an outdated and out-of-touch view of legal cannabis,” Fletcher said in an email. “By saying no to creating a regulated market, they have opened the floodgates for more illegal shops, more criminal activity, and substantial losses in tax revenue to our county.”

“They not only rejected a bi-partisan coalition of elected officials, vital agricultural leaders like the San Diego County Farm Bureau, but they also rejected our veterans and seniors who rely on cannabis for the medical treatment of chronic pain,” he continued. “I can only hope a future Board of Supervisors will allow us to advance common-sense cannabis policy that puts social justice squarely at the front.”

Activists Look To November

With the failure of Fletcher’s plan, San Diego County cannabis activists have set their sights on the upcoming election as their next chance to affect change. With two open seats due to term limits and Gaspar vying for reelection, the makeup of the board is sure to change after the election. Tara Lawson-Remer, a candidate running against Gaspar for her seat in November, said that she was disappointed by the board’s rejection of the proposal.

“We need a commonsense approach to cannabis policy,” she wrote in a statement to High Times. “The most effective way to eliminate illicit cannabis operations, expand the tax base, and support our regional economy is licensed and regulated operations to facilitate safe, regulated, and legal cannabis use.”
https://hightimes.com/news/joe-bidens-new-cannabis-policy-proposals-met-criticism-disappointment/
Fletcher’s proposal was supported by a strong majority of those who posted public comments online before the meeting and via telephone while it was being held. Activists also staged a press conference on Tuesday afternoon, calling on the board of supervisors to adopt the proposal, which included social equity provisions that would have helped members of underrepresented communities participate in the legal cannabis industry.

Ebonāy Lee of Paving Great Futures, a community group that advocates for inclusion in the legal cannabis industry, said in an email Thursday morning that the board’s inaction represents a missed opportunity.

“What we witnessed yesterday could and should have been history in the making. To finally see the board of supervisors get it right under Nathan Fletcher’s leadership would have been amazing,” said Lee. “But it’s disheartening to have had our issues once again be ignored and delayed.”

However, not all San Diego County cannabis activists disagree with the board of supervisors’ decision to keep the ban in place, believing that Fletcher’s proposal did not go far enough. Sapphire Blackwood of Blackwood Consulting Professionals told High Times in an email that true social equity will not be possible until licensing requirements are no longer linked to land use ordinances and that a new regulatory regime is needed.

“The zoning ordinances are good for business (lawyers, lobbyists, architects), but at what cost?” she asked. “Given that the law enforcement unions are a big lobbying component of most if not all of the cannabis ordinances in this state, I would be shocked if any jurisdiction approved a truly equitable law allowing for a free market, automatic expungements, taxes going to research and development and underserved youth, and no more cannabis arrests.”
I want 2 say I love CALIFORNIA however we’re a Huge COUNTRY?
Be safe and love the one your with?
 
California Cities Bring Forth Lawsuit Over Home Delivery Rule


Some California communities are upset about the statewide rule that allows home delivery, and are taking the state to court to see if they can ban home delivery in their areas.



So far, however, the judge has sided temporarily with the state when it comes to whether or not these cities have a leg to stand on in their case. Although the cities have banned recreational sales, they don’t have any specific ordinances in place that would ban delivery, which would need to be the case for them to move forward.
“The League of California Cities and police chiefs had complained that unrestricted home deliveries would create a chaotic market of largely hidden pot transactions, while undercutting local control guaranteed in the 2016 law that broadly legalized marijuana sales in the state,” stated an article by the Star Tribune. “The dispute between the state and 25 of its local governments raises a foundational question in the legal marijuana economy: Who is in charge, the state bureaucracy that oversees the marketplace, or local governments where pot is grown and sold?”
So far, a group of municipalities have filed a lawsuit as of April 2019 hoping to get home delivery banned from their areas. This includes Beverly Hills, Riverside and Santa Cruz County, and the cities of Agoura Hills, Angels Camp, Arcadia, Atwater, Ceres, Clovis, Covina, Dixon, Downey, McFarland, Newman, Oakdale, Palmdale, Patterson, Riverbank, San Pablo, Sonora, Tehachapi, Temecula, Tracy, Turlock, and Vacaville.
On the other hand, many have pushed for home delivery in California specifically for the reason that so many areas have banned cannabis sales in localities. Home delivery helps get patients with limited mobility access to medicine they may otherwise not have, and is a huge step towards growing the industry.
Could These Cities Win Their Case?
In order to make the case that cannabis delivery should be banned in their area, it’s not enough for cities to simply state that businesses are not allowed to operate within their borders, or that they prefer not to have home delivery if given the choice. They have to prove there is actually a ban against home delivery dating back to before this new law, which is a tricky thing to do. Currently, there is concern from those who will decide the ruling that there may not even be a case. If no places already had restrictions against delivery, they cannot legally make that claim now.
About 400 dispensaries in California currently deliver, and the new delivery rule was implemented to clarify any conflicting regulations about delivery. A 2016 law said local governments could ban businesses in their locales if they wanted to. However, the state business and professions code specifies that governments “shall not prevent delivery of cannabis or cannabis products on public roads” by a licensed operator.
However, as contentious as this issue is to many California residents, it will not be decided yet. The next hearing on the matter is scheduled for November. Until then, the unhappy municipalities will have to deal with delivery in their areas.
 
California’s Local Marijuana Bans Keep Illicit Market Alive, Study Shows
By
Ben Walker
-
Aug 19, 2020
124

While it’s nice to think that every state that legalizes weed has suddenly been transformed into a magical marijuana paradise, the truth of the matter is a bit different. In reality, states that have legalized have left it to local authorities at the municipal level to determine whether legal weed is right for their area. Many areas of states we might assume to be “all in” on legalization have eschewed the legal stuff — and that’s caused an illicit market to thrive. A study confirms what the era of alcohol prohibition should have taught us long ago: local marijuana bans spur alternative means to procure pot. This has financial consequences, too.
Although there remains controversy around some bills that have legalized commercial weed while prohibiting growing for personal use, there’s also the eternal debate of whether a plant should be regulated and taxed. Legalization efforts for years stalled, in part because advocates were resolute in simply flipping the “legal” switch, without many of the provisions we’ve seen passed in the last 20 years. Many states have happily implemented testing and taxing regimens for pot producers and sellers, and the dollar signs have helped push legalization in several states.
California tax receipts

It can be expensive to start an operation, of course. Becoming and staying a legal weed producer or distributor means not only paying taxes, but in some cases a business owner must add in testing costs, licensing costs, and the overhead of a physical establishment that meets specific criteria. These expenses are passed on to consumers, which means there’s likely an illicit market everywhere. But it also means in places where weed is legal the alternatives are lower-quality products or even harmful ones, as we’ve seen with counterfeit cartridges.
The study shows that some areas of California have been dragging their feet when it comes to licensing legal weed shops. As just one example, Stockton, which just implemented its own tax and licensing structure last year (at 5%), could see nearly $4 million in tax revenues on the high end. On the low end, revenues could be over $800,000. At a time when cities are suffering due to a pandemic that is dragging the economy down with it, those sorts of tax revenues could really help.
Cannabis Sales Per Capita vs other states

And yet, another case study was San Bruno, which has no legal weed operators. The city has put a ballot measure for a 10% tax up for a November vote, but the city has yet to realize any revenue because of its delay. It could rake in over a million dollars on the high end, says the study. It’s possible that those tax revenues would go up over time, too, as more stores open up and more people become used to it.
Even so, it’s not like those cities are devoid of weed sales. The government just isn’t involved, and no taxes are being collected. While the debate rages on whether marijuana should be taxed at all, for now California cities would be wise to employ any revenue generators they can. It’s inevitable that they’ll jump on board at some point, but it’ll take enough people to demand it before that happens.
 
California Legislature still weighing significant marijuana and hemp bills in final days of session
Published August 27, 2020 | By John Schroyer

With only a few days left in the 2020 legislative session, California state lawmakers are still considering three significant bills related to both marijuana and hemp that could yet become law.

The measures include:

  • Assembly Bill 1525, which would make it easier for legal marijuana companies to obtain banking services.
  • Assembly Bill 2028, which would establish new hemp industry regulations if an amendment is formally adopted. The legislation in effect would impose stricter regulation on hemp and CBD products.
  • Senate Bill 827, which would forestall state-level marijuana tax increases for a year.



Time is short: California lawmakers have until Monday, Aug. 31, to approve bills – though it’s possible they could have more time.


Rumors have swirled about the possibility of a special session to make up for lost time, but even if one were called it’s uncertain whether any marijuana or hemp legislation would be considered.

Many marijuana industry priorities were sidelined earlier this year when the Legislature took an extended recess because of the coronavirus crisis.

If the session does end Monday, Gov. Gavin Newsom would have until the end of September to sign or veto any bills that have passed.

The banking bill has divided those in the industry over what some say is a “data grab” by local governments and financial institutions.

The hemp measure is drawing fire from hemp farmers who say it would impose unnecessarily burdensome regulations on their businesses, while those in the marijuana industry argue the rules would put hemp companies on par with what they already have to deal with.

The tax measure, meanwhile, falls short of what some say the marijuana industry truly needs – a rollback of state tax rates.

Here’s where each stands.

Assembly Bill 1525

This banking measure was sponsored by a longtime cannabis industry champion, Assembly Member Reggie Jones-Sawyer, a Los Angeles Democrat.

The measure would protect financial institutions under state law if they consent to working with marijuana businesses, but it would also allow banks to require additional information from businesses, on a voluntary basis.

“My district is home to a number of financial institutions that would love to provide financial services to cannabis businesses but feel there is too much risk without assistance from the state,” Jones-Sawyer said via an emailed statement.

“AB 1525 responds to those concerns by providing additional access to financial services for cannabis businesses in a manner that protects proprietary business information.”

But the industry is divided over the issue, and the L.A.-based United Cannabis Business Association (UCBA) has been rallying members to oppose it. The group argues that the bill gives too much access to sensitive business data to local governments and public agencies known as “joint powers authorities” in exchange for too little.

“It’s not worth giving up all of our privacy for a supposed banking bill that doesn’t guarantee us a bank at all,” said UCBA President Jerred Kiloh, who pledged his organization would seek to derail the bill.

Kiloh said that, under the terms of the bill, “these joint powers authorities could pre-collect all the data, including point-of-sale data, which includes your customers’ names, how much they bought, which farmer produced the product, which distributor touched it, what your wholesale price is, what your retail price is.

“I don’t know that I trust the county to have all that information,” he said.

That stands in contrast to the support for the bill from several other industry trade groups, including the California Cannabis Industry Association (CCIA), the Humboldt County-based International Cannabis Farmers Association and the L.A.-based Southern California Coalition.

The Southern California Coalition’s executive director, Adam Spiker, said the UCBA’s concerns are essentially a “misnomer” and that all Jones-Sawyer’s bill would do is grease the skids for cannabis companies trying to obtain banking services by giving up information on a voluntary basis.

“What it’s trying to do is give licensed operators the ability to give written consent, whether to a state agency or a joint powers authority, to disclose financial information to a banking institution. It’s all voluntary,” Spiker said.

Assembly Bill 2028

The hemp-related measure was hastily amended Monday – to the surprise of several stakeholders – to include 66 pages of hemp industry regulations.

California is the No. 3 hemp producer in the nation by acreage, according to the recently released 2020 U.S. Hemp Harvest Outlook produced by Hemp Industry Daily and the Hemp Industries Association.

From a macro level, the bill would put the hemp industry more on par with marijuana businesses in terms of strict state governmental oversight and rules.

The amendment was the “product of extensive negotiations with a broad coalition and the administration” of Gov. Gavin Newsom, lobbyist Amy Jenkins wrote in an email.

Jenkins, who works on behalf of the CCIA and marijuana businesses, said the bill would establish “a robust framework to allow hemp CBD and other derivatives to be safely and legally manufactured in California and rigorous consumer safety protocols.

“We also successfully negotiated testing parity between (marijuana) and hemp products, as well as language to mandate that the licensing authorities consider the incorporation of hemp into the cannabis supply chain.”

But the proposed regulations in the amendment have frustrated many California hemp farmers, said Josh Schneider, CEO of San Diego-based Cultivaris Hemp.

“There are conflicts inherent in the hemp versus THC production, and right now, it appears the THC industry wants these excessive regulations on hemp to level the playing field, regulatorily speaking,” Schneider said.

He warned that if AB 2028 makes it into law with the new amendments, “it will dramatically chill the growth of the hemp industry in California.”

“It’s already too difficult and confusing to navigate the rules as they stand, but adding a bunch of contradictory new rules … is a real problem,” Schneider said, adding that many California hemp farmers didn’t even plant crops this year after having a hard time turning a profit in 2019.

Senate Bill 827

The governor’s trailer bill – and the only one of these three measures that observers believe is sure to be signed into law – would freeze for one year the ability of the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) to increase the markup rate upon which the state marijuana excise tax is based.

The measure would also bar the CDTFA from changing the state marijuana cultivation tax rate for inflation unless that rate is less than zero.

The issue came up after the agency raised the markup rate in 2019 – effective in January 2020 – and effectively increased state marijuana taxes at a time when the entire industry had been clamoring for tax relief.

The California Cannabis Industry Association wrote a letter of support for the change and said the Legislature needs to act because the CDTFA is required by state law to recalculate the tax rates every six months.

While no one in the industry opposes such a move, Kiloh and Spiker hoped to see more significant tax relief this year.

“The reality is, that’s just so little,” Kiloh said. “‘We’re going to freeze your costs of doing business during a pandemic.'”

Spiker added, “This isn’t what we want, but at least we’re getting something.”

Still, Spiker noted, the legal industry continues to struggle in the face of illicit-market competition, which undercuts legal retailers on prices because illegal retailers don’t pay any taxes.

And if that systemic issue is not eventually addressed, Spiker warned, it’ll be to the detriment of the entire state.

“I want us to keep up pressure on the state,” he said. “We have a robust illicit industry undercutting everything.”

John Schroyer can be reached at johns@mjbizdaily.com
 
California Must Turn Over Marijuana Documents To DEA, Federal Court Rules

A federal court has ruled that California regulators must comply with a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) subpoena demanding information about marijuana businesses.

DEA initially asked for unredacted documents concerning three licensed cannabis distributors and people associated with the businesses last year. But when officials with the California Bureau of Cannabis Control didn’t turn them over, the federal agency issued the subpoena in January. The state declined to comply, prompting the feds to take the dispute to court.

California officials argued that DEA failed to adequately explain the relevance to an investigation and providing the documents would violate state privacy laws. In response, the agency disclosed in a court filing last month that it the materials were relevant to an ongoing investigation into possible illegal importation and transportation of marijuana oil from Mexico by certain licensees.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Linda Lopez sided with DEA on Monday, finding that the agency’s subpoena met the requirements for an enforceable request.

“The Court finds that the United States has sufficiently established the relevancy of the subpoena to meet the ‘not especially constraining’ standard,” the judge wrote in an order. “The Court does not find that the subpoena is too indefinite or broad.”

“The Court finds that the records sought in the subpoena—’all documents including unredacted cannabis license(s), unredacted cannabis license application(s), and unredacted shipping manifest(s)’—are relevant to an investigation into importation or transportation of marijuana ‘crude oil’ from Mexico by specific licensees. The Court thus finds that the subpoena and the communication between the agencies together are sufficient to establish the relevance of the requested records to the investigation.”

It’s not clear if the state will appeal the decision.

The targeted cannabis businesses and owners have not been named in documents that have been publicly released in the case.

This latest development in the legal dispute comes three months after a Justice Department whistleblower accused Attorney General William Barr of directing investigations into 10 cannabis firm mergers because of the top prosecutor’s alleged personal animus for the industry.

That said, a top department official said in a letter to Congress that those actions are better understood as helping to ensure consumers have affordable access to products in a competitive cannabis market—a curious position for the federal government to take.

In a separate recent legal proceeding, a federal appeals court last month denied a request from DEA to dismiss a lawsuit challenging marijuana’s current classification under federal law.

To read the federal court’s response to the DEA and California cannabis case, follow title link and scroll to the bottom of the article.

 
As California Legislative Session Ends, Lawmakers Advance Some Marijuana Bills But Stall On CBD

As California’s legislative session drew to a close this week, lawmakers approved measures to reform marijuana taxes, expand industry access to banking and launch a state-regulated appellation program to help identify where cannabis is grown. A hotly contested proposal to regulate hemp and CBD, however, failed to make the cut.

The handful of successful bills, some of which weren’t decided until the legislature’s final hours Monday night, now head to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) desk. With his signature, they’ll shape the next phase of one of the nation’s most dynamic marijuana markets.

Most of the changes are more modest than industry advocates had hoped for when the year began, said Amy Jenkins, a lobbyist and senior policy director for the California Cannabis Industry Association (CCIA).

“We at CCIA were looking at this as a potentially transformative year,” she told Marijuana Moment in an interview on Tuesday, with many businesses hoping the state would consolidate a number of regulatory departments. “All of that really came to a halt in March, with the COVID pandemic and need to essentially shelter in place and mostly shut down business as usual.”

“We went from, as an industry, talking about these really exciting, transformative reform concepts to really post-pandemic preservation,” she added.

Perhaps the biggest victory for the industry in 2020, Jenkins said, had nothing to do with the legislature at all: As the pandemic set in, regulators deemed the marijuana industry essential, allowing businesses to continue operating. “Really progressive areas, like San Francisco, were poised to shut down,” she said. “I think a lot of people discount the significance of that.”

Some of the newly passed bills that will make their way to Newsom’s desk, such as those involving banking and appellations, result from years-long efforts by advocates. Others, such as tax and testing changes, represent more mechanical adjustments to the market.

Here’s a quick rundown of the measures passed by lawmakers:

Appellations
Senate Bill 67 would help establish a long-awaited appellation program to allow producers to designate the physical origin of their marijuana, much like how wine regions are regulated. It would also prevent companies from misrepresenting where cannabis is grown, for example by misleadingly using the popular names of Humboldt or Mendocino counties in advertising and labeling. Under the bill, marijuana must be grown—either indoors or outdoors—in a designated city or county in order to qualify to use that name.

“People were really excited about this bill, because I think it solved two issues,” Jenkins said. “From the craft, sun-grown cultivator’s perspective, this kind of preserved the integrity of terroir, which is something that is really really meaningful to them, factoring in the sun and the soil and the topography.” At the same time, she said, it allows growers in regions less conducive to outdoor cultivation—Jenkins pointed to Los Angeles and the Coachella Valley as examples—to still represent and capitalize on their respective regions.

“I was so pleased to see this bill pass last night and that it’s heading to the governor’s desk,” Jenkins said Tuesday. “All indications are that he’ll sign it.”

Tax Relief
California marijuana businesses have been complaining about taxes, which in parts of the state are among the highest in the nation, since the plant first became legal. While reforms in Assembly Bill 1872 are more restrained than many in the industry had pushed for, Jenkins at CCIA still describes them as a win. Among other changes, the bill essentially freezes potential increases on tax rates on marijuana, which lawmakers have said is an acknowledgement of the pandemic’s financial effects—and the fact that cannabis businesses don’t qualify for federal relief.

“We thought it was important to give these companies tax certainty over this next year because they are not getting much of the relief that other small businesses are getting through the federal government,” Assemblymember Phil Ting (D), chair of the chamber’s Budget Committee, said in an interview with Cannabis Wire.

Banking
Another thorny industry issue has been access to financial services. Many big banks, being federally regulated, have avoided working with marijuana operators due to cumbersome regulations about doing business with clients engaged in what remains federally illegal activity. While California lawmakers can’t change the federal landscape, Assembly Bill 1525removes state penalties for working with marijuana clients.

“This bill would provide that an entity, as defined, that receives deposits, extends credit, conducts fund transfers, transports cash or financial instruments, or provides other financial services, including public accounting, as provided, does not commit a crime under any California law solely by virtue of the fact that the person receiving the benefit of any of those services engages in commercial cannabis activity as a licensee,” a Legislative Counsel Digest description of the bill says.

Advocates are hopeful the bill’s adoption by California lawmakers will send a message to Congress about the need for federal reform. Beyond that symbolic support, Jenkins at CCIA said the bill’s passage is meant to reassure financial institutions that work or are considering doing work with the marijuana industry.

“We talked to the banking community, and they said they wanted this and needed this,” Jenkins said. “If that bill can serve to encourage more banks to bank the industry, then that was something we wanted to take very seriously.”

On the federal level, talks about marijuana banking are ongoing. A vote on federal descheduling expected this month could open the door to financial services for the entire legal industry if the bill is enacted into law. The House passed a standalone cannabis banking measure last year and included the reform in its latest version of a federal COVID relief bill, but so far the Senate has not adopted the change.

Testing
Lawmakers sent along a few product-testing tweaks for the governor’s approval, including a measure that would allow manufacturers to submit unpackaged product—rather than a product in its final retail packaging—to testing labs. Industry advocates said the change will remove a needless expense for producers, making state-mandated testing more affordable. Another bill would require more precise measurement of THC content in edibles, while a third would allow state-licensed cannabis testing labs to provide testing services to local law enforcement or prosecuting agencies. That law enforcement work wouldn’t be considered “commercial cannabis activity” overseen by the Bureau of Cannabis Control.

Hemp CBD Regs Fall Short
One widely anticipated piece of legislation that didn’t clear the finish line this legislative session had to do with hemp-derived CBD. For the second consecutive year, an effort to pass a bill that would regulate hemp CBD in food, beverages, cosmetics and dietary supplements was scuttled at the last minute as stakeholders failed to reach an agreement before the legislative deadline. A proposal still being hammered out in the session’s final weeks would have finally regulated CBD in food and beverages, which have been sold for years amid legal uncertainty.

A pervasive sticking point, however, was the draft versions’ proposed ban on CBD products intended for smoking and vaping. Jenkins said she and CCIA repeatedly attempted to strike smoking and vaping products from the suggested ban, though she acknowledged the matter is a “controversial issue” from both a political and industry standpoint.

Another industry group, the U.S. Hemp Roundtable, was frank in its disappointment about the failure to cross the finish line. “This weekend, our political system let us down,” the organization said in an email newsletter. “Due to intra-party fights that had nothing to do with our legislation, the state Senate leadership refused to allow a vote on our legislative language.”

While legislation action will have to wait for future sessions, Jenkins at CCIA said, work on the proposal is expected to continue with urgency. “The conversation is not going away,” she said, “and I think there’s going to be additional stakeholder discussions that will inevitably occur throughout the fall.”

All in all, Jenkins said, California’s 2020 legislative session was one of “modest wins” for the industry, which isn’t too bad given COVID’s abrupt halt to regularly scheduled programming. “We went from about 36 bills down to about ten. That was the lowest number of bills I’ve seen since I’ve become a cannabis lobbyist” in 2015, she said.

Still, Jenkins said, the results are heartening in terms of signaling the normalization of an industry long regarded as politically taboo. Of the bills that passed, she noted, many sailed through on unanimous or near-unanimous votes.

“I think that’s a great testament to everything the industry has been doing to educate the legislature,” she said. “They passed overwhelmingly with bipartisan support, and I think that is something that we shouldn’t overlook. It’s a testament to how far we’ve come.”
 
POLITICS
State Of California Officially Promotes Marijuana Industry With New Campaign

Published
7 hours ago
on
September 3, 2020
The state of California is launching an educational outreach campaign meant to promote the marijuana industry and provide resources to help farmers secure and maintain cannabis cultivation licenses.
The California Department of Food and Agriculture’s (CDFA) CalCannabis Cultivation Licensing division is spearheading the “This is California Cannabis” campaign, which involves community events and workshops to inform residents about licensing opportunities within the market and technical assistance they provide.
“CDFA is committed to the success of our state’s commercial cannabis cultivators,” Karen Ross, the secretary of the department, said in a press release. “’This is California Cannabis’ celebrates the passion and hard work of licensed cannabis growers and highlights how we’re all working together to protect and promote the health, safety and quality of the industry.”


Another part of the outreach effort is a quarterly newsletter that will feature profiles of licensed cultivators, policy updates and tips. The department started by publishing three profiles of farmers based in Humboldt County, Santa Barbara County and Monterey County.
They also released several companion videos showcasing the farmers and highlighting how CDFA supports the industry and works with businesses to ensure that they’re in compliance.

“To live in Humboldt and to grow weed, it’s an amazing life,” CaliGardens owner Spencer Sanborn is shown saying in one of the state-funded videos. “We care about the people around us. If that can make it through, I’ll feel like I have succeeded.”

“You get to be a whole company. To be able to build out a whole team because you’re not trying to hide things is massive,” Christina DiPaci of Caliber Farms out of Monterey County said.

“We’re proud of California’s vibrant cannabis cultivator community,” Richard Parrott, director of CDFA’s CalCannabis Cultivation Licensing Division, said. “California is known for growing the best cannabis in the world and our licensed cultivators are leading the way with innovative practices and environmental sustainability.”
What makes the campaign unique is that it’s a state body not just providing resources to regulate the marijuana market but proactively reaching out and promoting the industry.
During California’s legislative session that ended this week, lawmakers approved bills to reform cannabis tax policy, promote marijuana business access to the banking system and create a state-regulated appellation program that’s designed to clarify where cannabis products are cultivated. A proposal to regulate hemp and CBD failed, however.
Meanwhile, a federal court recently ruled that California regulators must comply with a Drug Enforcement Administration subpoena demanding information about certain marijuana businesses as part of its investigation into potential illegal distribution of cannabis oil from Mexico.
 
Last edited:
California Must Share Cannabis Licensee Records With Feds



n an inevitable conclusion, the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) and Department of Justice (“DOJ”) won their federal court case against the California Bureau of Cannabis Control (“BCC”) pursuant to which the BCC must now comply with a recent DEA subpoena regarding alleged criminal activity by certain state-licensed distributors hailing out of (what’s probably) San Diego (based on the court filings). Namely, it sounds like certain Southern California licensed distributors are (allegedly) moving cannabis oil out of Mexico into California.


This summer, the DOJ and the DEA sued the BCC because the BCC refused to comply with a DEA subpoena about the alleged extracurricular drug trafficking above. The DOJ’s July 20th court petition filing states that the DEA and the DOJ are seeking specific information from the BCC about six “entities” (which really means three corporations and each corporation’s “presumed owner”) that hold BCC licenses where the feds are conducting a criminal investigation (for violations of the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”)). The BCC has refused to provide that information to the DEA.






At the end of last year, the DEA served an administrative subpoena on the BCC (which it later withdrew and then re-issued an identical subpoena in January of this year) requesting unredacted cannabis licenses, cannabis license applications, and shipping manifests for these licensees from January 1, 2018 (when licensing began in California) through January 9, 2020. In the January subpoena (which is standard and boilerplate), the DEA wrote that “the information sought . . . is relevant and material to a legitimate law enforcement inquiry . . .” and nothing else.


In response, the BCC responded (via letter) that it wouldn’t produce the desired documents because the subpoena “does not specify the relevancy of the subpoena” and because the requested information is “confidential, protected, and part of pending licensing investigations.” The DEA then, for a matter of months, tried to persuade and negotiate with the BCC and the California Attorney General to cooperate, but the BCC wouldn’t budge (even though the DEA revealed in these “negotiations” more factual and legal details about its investigation into these licensees). So, the feds took the matter to federal court for enforcement of the subpoena against the BCC.


In its July filing, the feds relied on their compliance with their subpoena power and authority to investigate pursuant to the CSA, and adherence to procedural requirements. The feds argued that all of this was in line with the Fourth Amendment (which institutes a “reasonableness” requirement based on relevancy and scope of the subpoena, itself). The feds also used the Supremacy Clause in their arguments to bypass the application of any California cannabis or privacy laws or regulations previously touted by the BCC in its letter earlier this year.


In response to the DOJ/DEA petition, at the end of July (as first reported by Marijuana Moment with a copy of the filing), while skipping any attack about procedural compliance and without challenging federal authority to investigate pursuant to the CSA, the California Attorney General argued that the DEA/DOJ failed to prove either the relevance or reasonableness of the subpoena.


On Monday, August 31, the federal court ruled in favor of the feds (which is no surprise, and we predicted this result in a previous post). Specifically, the federal court noted in its ruling that because the BCC didn’t attack federal authority to investigate or the feds’ compliance with required procedure, the only issue left to decide was whether the feds failed to show that the subpoenaed records were relevant to any investigation.


It is well established law that the relevancy standard is a very low bar and the court’s legal review is incredibly narrow. The relevancy standard is always met unless “the subpoena is plainly incompetent or irrelevant to any lawful purpose of the agency.” At the same time, the court opined that the subpoena actually doesn’t satisfy the relevancy requirement on its face (the court found it to be conclusory in that the DEA only stated that it sought documents relevant to a legitimate law enforcement inquiry based on alleged violations of the CSA and nothing else). According to the court, the ultimate savior for the feds is the fact that the DEA shed more light on, and facts about, their criminal investigation with the BCC in the DEA’s dialogue with the agency before suing. Translation: the subpoena plus the more detailed conversations between the BCC and the DEA meet the required relevancy standard under federal law.


The federal court also found that the subpoena was not overly broad or indefinite where it seeks three specific kinds of documents about three individuals/entities over a two year period. And regarding the BCC’s arguments about protecting privacy rights of the licensees, the federal court refused to impose any additional restrictions as existing federal privacy laws already limit what the DEA can do with the subpoenaed records (and the court reminds us that, if California privacy laws conflict with the CSA, the CSA preempts those protections).


This case is a solid reminder to all licensees that the states are not in ultimate control when it comes to cannabis, and that the feds can and do look at licensees whether the states cooperate or not regarding information sharing. This case also tells us (to a certain extent) that the feds are still paying attention primarily to allegedly black market drug trafficking that violates the rescinded 2013 Cole Memo principles. Finally, and as always, state law compliance still reigns supreme when it comes to federal enforcement priorities.
 

Sponsored by

VGoodiez 420EDC
Back
Top