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

Gee...between the new regs, license stacking by big corps, and very high taxes...well, all I can say is "they're surprised by this????"



California's marijuana black market ramps back up

California’s move to open up its cannabis market to recreational users has had an unexpected result: A growing segment of the industry may be moving back into the shadows.

Thousands of manufacturers, growers and retailers have lost their licenses amid tighter regulations on marijuana and more oversight from local authorities, some of which aren’t too keen on the plant. The cannabis companies that still operate legally face a dizzying array of new taxes.

“Industry insiders have been referring to this as the moment of reckoning,” said Kenny Morrison, president of the California Cannabis Manufacturers Association. “Some people are going to be left flat footed, and others are going to expand their market share.”

The next hurdle is a July 1 deadline for laboratories to certify that legally sold marijuana products are free of mold and dangerous pesticides. Lab testing was delayed from the start of the year to give producers time to comply.

The new rules implement a 2016 voter-approved referendum, Proposition 64, that expanded legal cannabis sales from medical patients to all adults. Under the old rules, it had been easy for anyone seeking a prescription for marijuana products to obtain one -- and with little oversight, the market exploded.

Now, it’s shrinking again -- at least by the official count. With years of operating outside of the law, many in the industry are simply retreating away from the open market instead of dealing with the new rules.

Outnumbered
“The illicit market outnumbers us by five to one,” Morrison said. “You can go to a random city and find four legal stores and 20 illegal stores. What’s worse, those four legal stores are charging two and and three times the price of the illegal stores.”

Local authorities can now opt to ban cannabis businesses if they wish -- even those that operated legally under the old rules. Alex Traverso, spokesman for the state Bureau of Cannabis Control, said 70 percent of jurisdictions have done exactly that.

As a result, the number of licensed retailers has plunged to 410, according to the state. That’s down from about 1,100 under the old rules, according to research firm BDS Analytics. State licensed delivery services have dropped to 116, versus a BDS estimate of about 2,000 historically.

Growers face a similar shake out. About half the state’s 50,000 to 60,000 cannabis farms have been driven out of business by the new rules, and many are reverting to the black market, said Hezekiah Allen, executive director of the California Growers Association. The smallest growers are having the hardest time making the transition, he said.

The state has issued 3,693 active grower licenses as of June 18, said Steve Lyle, a spokesman for the California Department of Food and Agriculture. The largest growers hold multiple licenses, putting the actual number of legal farms closer to 1,700, Allen said.

Story Continues Below



Public companies have been tripped up by the California changes as well, which were put in place largely to protect consumers. The rapid shift burned Scotts Miracle-Gro, which gets more than 20 percent of sales from the cannabis industry. Excluding acquisitions, Scotts expects sales at its Hawthorne Gardening unit, which supplies marijuana growers with products such as fertilizers and lights, to drop this year, a reversal from November when it had forecast a gain of at least 10 percent. The weaker outlook has helped send Scotts shares tumbling about 24 percent this year.

490x-1.png

And Scotts’ woes may not be over. The July deadline for producing clean cannabis “is going to be a very disruptive event,” Allen said. Retailers are clearing out non-compliant products with fire-sale prices, and there’s no guarantee there will enough lab-cleared marijuana to replenish shelves.

‘Troubling Number’
Only about half of the marijuana products coming through Cannalysis Labs in Santa Ana pass the new pesticide standards, said Chief Scientific Officer Swetha Kaul.

“We are seeing a troubling number of failures,” Kaul said.

She’s concerned that contaminated cannabis will simply shift to the black market. Many cannabis dispensaries now operate without a license, letting them undercut legal operators that play by the rules and pay taxes.

Cannabis Control has sent more than 1,800 cease-and-desist letters to unlicensed retailers and the bureau is evaluating its next steps for those “that seem to have no intention of ever getting a license,” said Traverso, the agency’s spokesman. Governor Jerry Brown proposed a $14 million program to crack down on illicit marijuana, only to be rejected this month by the legislature in a funding dispute, according to the Los Angeles Times.

The disappearance of legal industry players is hurting business at Coastal Analytical, which has cannabis-testing labs in San Diego and Vista, said president Samuel Z. David. Licensed labs, growers, distributors and retailers can only do business with other licensed businesses.

“It’s a tough situation to muddle through,” David said. “We have bigger customers and their invoices are higher, but there are fewer of them. It kind of sucks for us.”

Oregon’s Example
David remains hopeful that California’s legal market will take off after the current rough patch. BDS Analytics says there’s reason to believe it will.

The best indicator of California’s future is Oregon, where there was similar disruption to the cannabis market during its shift to recreational, lab-tested products, said Greg Shoenfeld, BDS vice president for operations. Oregon saw shortages, spiking prices and businesses going under before the trend started to reverse after about five months, he said.

Higher prices in California would be “scary” because the heavily taxed legal market already has a hard time competing with the state’s entrenched black market, Shoenfeld said. Local taxes can be as high as 20 percent of gross receipts on top of a 15 percent state excise tax, plus sales taxes as high as 10.25 percent and a state cultivation tax of $9.25 per ounce, according to a report from Fitch Ratings.

BDS this week is cutting its 2018 forecast for California’s legal pot sales to $2.9 billion, down from as high as $3.7 billion previously, due to the slow pace of licensing and the start of lab testing, Shoenfeld said. That’s still higher than BDS estimates for the next biggest states: $1.5 billion in Colorado, $1 billion in Washington and $500 million in Oregon.

Total legal U.S. sales should rise to $11 billion this year, from $8.5 billion, according to a report by Arcview Market Research and BDS.

Product Compliance
Alex Zafrin, who manufactures marijuana-infused ice cream, has been required to overhaul his business because his products -- flavors such as Coffee Pot and Vanilla Kush -- didn’t comply with the new rules.

But he’s not abandoning California. Half a year tinkering in the kitchen has yielded a new line of dosed sweets, like Chocolate Trip cookies and Twisted and True pretzel bark, which are compliant with the new rules that regulate edibles’ potency, packaging and ingredients. And his Fully Baked Brands, which he runs with partner Rekka Nicholson, signed a licensing deal to bring their banned ice creams to Canada’s newly legal market.

“We had to start over,” Zafrin said. “Everyone in the industry is kind of scratching their heads thinking, ‘What the hell went wrong here?”’
 
And mess in CA continues

Local corruption becoming hurdle for marijuana license seekers in California


Allegations of corruption during competitive bidding for marijuana business licenses is far from a new phenomenon, especially in California, where tales of backdoor wheeling-and-dealing between companies and public officials have been circulating for years.

But the state’s newly regulated market, launched in January, has brought the issue even more to the forefront, as illustrated by at least four different cases that have garnered media attention in recent months. The FBI even got involved in one instance.

Stories of corruption will continue to emerge, sources say, largely because local licenses are a prerequisite to obtaining a state permit.

That puts local officials in a position of power over entrepreneurs who may be desperate to find a path into the industry.


“In the legal market, they’re going to continue to have corruption issues, because local folks are easier to bribe and corrupt than state bureaucrats,” said Matt Kumin, a longtime cannabis industry attorney based in San Francisco.
“You see allegations like this all over the place, because the state decided it was more important to give locals control than to have a uniform and less-corruptible process statewide.”

Illustrating the problem

A few examples that highlight California’s cannabis corruption issues:

  • In February 2017, in Huntington Park, eight medical marijuana dispensary applicants sued the Los Angeles suburb in federal court. The suit alleges several officials – including the mayor, vice mayor and a City Council member – conspired with private companies to award the city’s three dispensary permits to predetermined companies, essentially defrauding subsequent bidders of their $5,000 application fees.
  • In January, one licensed retailer filed suit against the city and county of San Francisco, alleging the local board of supervisors passed over the company for a license but later granted one to a competitor that had contributed thousands of dollars to several board members’ political campaigns.
  • In May, FBI officials raided the mayor of Adelanto‘s home and executed search warrants there, at city hall and at an MJ retailer in the city northeast of L.A. The nature of the investigation has not been disclosed, but the incident follows the 2017 arrest of Adelanto’s vice mayor, who stands accused of taking bribes to “fast-track a marijuana business,” according to the Los Angeles Times.
  • Also in May, a Humboldt County Planning and Building Department inspector was arrested on bribery charges, and is alleged to have defrauded various companies, including some in the cannabis sector.
None of these cases has fully run its course, and both lawsuits are still active.

But what they illustrate is an immediate hurdle for California businesses still attempting to get licenses.

Ed Muramoto, one of the lead attorneys for the Huntington Park plaintiffs, told Marijuana Business Daily his firm is investigating “a handful” of other jurisdictions and may file parallel corruption lawsuits by the end of the year.

“We hear about this all the time,” he said. “Adelanto is the most recent example, but there’s going to be many, many examples like this.”

He’s not the only cannabis industry stakeholder to express such concerns.

“In every jurisdiction there is a different shakedown,” said Sacramento-based consultant Jackie McGowan.

“Whether it’s from a planner, a council member, a consultant or a landlord, there is a consistent expectation that cannabis companies must pay to play.

“I ask myself often, ‘Am I just naive? Is this the way the world works in other industries?’ I don’t know the answer to this yet.”

‘Money runs the show’

The situation also brings to the forefront how the lines between legal lobbying by business interests and outright corruption can be blurred.

“There’s going to be a lot that gets uncovered, but then there’s also these fine lines of, what is and isn’t corruption?” said Amanda Ostrowitz, CEO of CannaRegs, which tracks local regulatory developments across California.

“When people call corruption because they correlate the timing of a donation (from a business) to a certain city or certain council member and then that business gets what they want, that’s an area where people really need to tread lightly, because that’s how this world operates. Money runs the show.”

The key is whether companies are dealing legally and transparently with public officials.

“Are you doing it within the confines of lobbying and general campaign contributions, or are you directing it as a bribe?” Ostrowitz said. “The differences between those two isn’t as obvious as one may think.”

Ostrowitz emphasized that the “vast majority” of local officials are “trying to do right” by the cannabis industry, and it’s not as though every municipality and county is trying to elicit bribes from marijuana executives.

Kumin agreed, saying there’s a “spectrum” of corruption that occurs in nearly every American industry, not just the cannabis space.

Recourse for entrepreneurs

It’s often difficult for unsuccessful license applicants to know if they’ve fallen victim to law-breaking city officials, have a case that’s worth filing suit over, or should just cut their losses and attempt to get business permit in another municipality.

Muramoto, the attorney, suggests companies that suspect the law has been broken regarding the licensing process use the “reasonable man standard.”

“I know it when I see it. If it looks bad, if it smells bad, if it sounds bad, it’s probably bad,” he added.

Filing suit over alleged corruption is a possible recourse, albeit a time-consuming one.

Just ask Muramoto.

He received a ruling from a federal judge in mid-June that found a portion of Huntington Park’s MMJ ordinance to be unconstitutional. Muramoto believes the city will have to reissue its three dispensary permits since the licensees have not yet received state licenses and, thus, are not operational.

But the judge has yet to issue a formal order in the 17-month-old case, and there’s no guarantee any of the plaintiffs will ultimately win a business permit in Huntington Park.

To Kumin, the issue belies a larger problem: the tendency for local California governments to limit the number of cannabis business licenses in their jurisdictions.

“The more caps you see … the more rife the possibilities for corruption,” he surmised.
 
And I bet a LOT more of it is still there and will end up in the black market.


California's 'marijuanapocalypse' saw roughly $350 million worth of cannabis products destroyed

An estimated $350 million worth of cannabis products were destroyed in California yesterday in an event that has been called the Marijuanapocalypse of 2018, writes Calvin Hughes.

When California passed a bill that legalized recreational cannabis for adult use in 2016, they also implemented rigorous production standards that had to be met by any products being sold in a the newly established legal market. For the first 6 months, however, dispensaries and producers were given a grace period, allowing them to get up and running quickly and begin to transfer over to the new regulations as time progressed. That grace period ended yesterday.

"Sacramento is seeing possibly up to 8,000 pounds of product that will need to be destroyed," Josh Drayton, spokesperson for the California Cannabis Industry Association told WIRED ahead of the Marijuanapocalypse. This will be the fate of many more thousands of pounds of cannabis across the state, as any product that is not up to code must now be disposed of. Millions of dollars worth of cannabis will be taken off the shelves of dispensaries across California and simply thrown out.

"Non-compliant flower and pre-rolls will be composted," Eliot Dobris—spokesperson for the San Francisco dispensary Apothecarium—said prior to July 1. "Non-compliant cartridges will be rendered unusable with a hammer and then will be put in the landfill bin."

And as if that wasn't bad enough, owners of non-compliant products also had to film themselves destroying their banned products.

"[W]e have to do all of this on video," Dobris added, “so if there's ever a question, the state can have access to that video."

Many dispensaries across California ran massive blowout sales last week to mitigate the loss of income that follow the 'Marijuanapocalypse.' And the destruction doesn't end with dispensaries either. Businesses further up the supply chain have to grapple with this reality, too.

"We have product that has not made its way through our processing system that is still OK," explained Cate Powers of Flow Kana—a company that tests and processes cannabis from Northern California farmers—said ahead of the deadline. Despite their best efforts, Flow Kana was unable to process much of the non-compliant cannabis before the July 1. "So the majority of our inventory is fine. It's only the stuff that was packaged and processed under the previous standards that is at risk."

Drayton admitted this has been a bumpy road, but he hopes it will lead to a better cannabis industry in the end.

"We have to remember that yes, that is going to be a growing pain we are going to have to deal with," says Drayton. "But ultimately Prop 64 [California's cannabis legalization legislation] passed through wanting to prioritize public safety and public health."

Still, the Marijuanapocalypse isn't the end of legal cannabis in California for ever, but a temporary hold up in what is an ever expanding industry.
 
Stacking was allowed by the CA state administrative bureaucracy and not by legislation and completely counter to the law passed by referendum. I hope they sue them, sue them again, and sue them until their nipples fall off. What is happening out there is a travesty of democracy, IMO.


California cannabis farmers sue the state for favoring big-moneyed growers

California has granted 20% of the state’s cultivation licenses to just 12 growers.

The California Growers Association (CalGrowers) is suing California’s Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) for a legal cannabis licensing scheme that allows a small number of moneyed companies to dominate the state’s cannabis industry.

CalGrowers, a statewide cannabis advocacy organization in California, asserts that California’s licensing program contains a loophole that allows large corporations to acquire multiple licenses for individual cultivation sites. If these companies put these “individual” cannabis farms side-by-side, they effectively can become a combined cultivation site that spans millions of square feet.

This acquisition of multiple licenses is known as “stacking,” and runs contrary to the text of the state’s legal cannabis measure, Proposition 64, which claims that it “ensures the nonmedical marijuana industry in California will be built around small and medium-sized businesses.” The legislation is even supposed to give small and medium-sized farmers a headstart by holding off on issuing large-scale business licenses for five years. But in many cases, it’s left smaller farmers behind as they struggle to navigate the high costs and bureaucracy of transitioning to the legal market.

CA-farmers-sue-as-20-of-licenses-were-granted-to-12-cultivators1-800x400.jpg


CalGrowers Board of Directors meeting.

The CDFA recently implemented the new regulations which give these larger businesses a loophole to start acquiring licenses now. They negate the previously included 1-acre limit on cannabis cultivation sites by allowing a single company to apply for multiple smaller permits, which CalGrowers has petitioned the agency to change.

A Marijuana Business Daily analysis previously found that 20% of the state’s cultivation licenses were owned by just 12 companies. Since roughly 3,500 cultivation licenses have been issued in the state, but there are only about 1,600 license holders, this means that the average legal cannabis business owns at least two licenses. The 10 companies with the most licenses in the state own an average of 65 each, according to Marijuana Business Daily.

CA-farmers-sue-as-20-of-licenses-were-granted-to-12-cultivators2-800x400.png


Photo courtesy of California’s Department of Food and Agriculture (Processors and nurseries excluded from licensing data)

The largest license holder, Organic Green Farms, reportedly owns 147 licenses, allowing for 1.5 million square feet of growing space. This means that Organic Green Farms will have roughly more than 60 times the amount of cannabis cultivation space as the average grower in the state.

CalGrowers says that it generally approves of the work the CDFA is doing to roll out the state’s legal cannabis legislation, but this one loophole could have a potentially significant impact on what the future of the state’s cannabis industry looks like.

CalGrowers represents over 1,000 cannabis cultivators and businesses in California and claims to have met with Governor Jerry Brown’s office and other state lawmakers over the past few months before filing a civil litigation in the Sacramento County Superior Court.
 



California agencies release proposed permanent marijuana rules

Last Friday, July 13, 2018, all three agencies overseeing California’s implementation of the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (“MAUCRSA“) dropped proposed permanent regulations that will eventually replace the readopted emergency regulations that are active now.

For the text of those proposed regulations go here, here, and here. Importantly, these regulations are just proposed; they are not in effect and they won’t be in effect until after the 45-day public comment period so long as the agencies move to adopt them without changes.

The proposed rules don’t make massive changes to the existing regime. In fact, many of these rule additions and clarifications should have already been in the mix as fundamental, common sense standards for operation in line with former federal enforcement priorities. More than anything else, these proposed rules represent technical fixes to pretty large gaps in the existing emergency rules.

All three California agencies tasked with regulating cannabis are now finally on the same page about the disclosure and vetting of “owners” versus “financial interest holders” and, importantly, if an “owner” is an entity only “the chief executive officer and members of the board of directors of the entity shall be considered owners.” In addition, the agencies clarified that none of them will issue temporary licenses after December 31, 2018.

This was already in MAUCRSA, but the agencies clarified that temporary licenses with an expiration date after January 1, 2019, will be valid only through that date with no additional 90 day extensions. This is significant since a temporary license is the only way licensees can operate post-local approval but before receiving their annual license.

Further, all three agencies are addressing issues regarding CEQA compliance prior to licensure and responses to disaster relief, and medicinal and adult-use licensees can still do business with each other to get product to market. Each agency has also upped the required details on annual licensing submissions relative to standard operating procedures (SOPs) and plans.

The highlights of the more specific significant changes/additions/clarifications from the three agencies are:
1. Department of Food and Agriculture, CalCannabis Cultivation Licensing (oversees cultivators and processors):
  • Individuals and entities will still only be allowed to have one Type 3 medium license, and there’s still no limit on the number of Type 1 or 2 cultivation licenses anyone can have (other than those limitations set forth by cities and counties, if any).
  • Outdoor licensees won’t be able to use use any light deprivation techniques.
  • Licensees are prohibited from accepting returns of cannabis plants or nonmanufactured cannabis products after transferring possession of cannabis plants or nonmanufactured cannabis to another licensee after testing is performed.
  • Nurseries can now develop and maintain dedicated R&D areas in their facilities.
2. Department of Public Health, Manufactured Cannabis Safety Branch (oversees manufacturers):
  • CDPH-MCSB implemented some notable changes to their definitions of certain cannabis terms. For example, the term “concentrate” would now include inhaled products (such as shatter, dab, or wax) and “edible cannabis product” and would include “a cannabis product that resembles traditional foods or beverages and cannabis products that dissolve or disintegrate in the mouth.” They’ve also proposed the terms “infused pre-roll,” which would mean “a pre-roll into which cannabis concentrate or other ingredients have been incorporated” and “orally-consumed concentrate” to mean “cannabis concentrates that are consumed by mouth and are not otherwise considered edibles.”
  • You can’t manufacture, prepare, package, or label any products other than cannabis products at a licensed premises. “Cannabis products” also includes packaged cannabis, pre-rolls, and products that do not contain cannabis, but are otherwise identical to the cannabis-containing product, and are intended for use as samples.
  • You can’t manufacture, prepare, package, or label cannabis products in a location operating as a retail food establishment or as a processed food registrant, and you can’t do the same in any location licensed by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.
  • Edible potency limitations are staying the same (no more than 10 mg of THC per serving and no more than 100 mg per package), but “orally-dissolving” edibles can have up to 500 milligrams THC per package, if: (1) The cannabis product consists of discrete servings of no more than 10 milligrams THC per piece; (2) The cannabis product is labeled “FOR MEDICAL USE ONLY;” and (3) The cannabis product is only available for sale to a medicinal-use customer.
  • Use of the word organic (or any variation of that word) on any product label is now going to be false or misleading unless the National Organic Program (the federal regulatory program governing organic food) “authorizes organic designation and certification for cannabis and the cannabis or cannabis product meets the requirements for such designation and certification.”
  • There are now increased packaging and labeling requirements for pre rolls and dried flower, and the labeling requirements generally for all products have increased.
  • Child-resistant packaging would be eliminated, but tamper-evident packaging would still be required for cannabis products.
3. Bureau of Cannabis Control (oversees retailers, delivery only retail, microbusinesses, distributors, and labs):
  • Making up your own SOPs would no longer be a requirement for the annual license. Instead, the state would have you input all of your SOP information into pre-established forms.
  • You won’t be able to pump in the smell of cannabis to your licensed premises via a vaporizer device or diffuser.
  • The state is cracking down on cannabis giveaways and generally getting stricter on licensee advertising attractive to children.
  • “Limited access area” security now applies to all licensees, not to just retailers.
  • On rejections and returns, licensees now have to reject whole shipments and they can’t just pick and choose inventory they want to keep from those shipments.
  • Distributors are receiving more clarity in their rules such that they can now package prerolls but can’t store live plants, they can transport tested product to more than one retailer, distributor, or microbusiness, and they can perform just quality assurance reviews of product if another distributor has already had that product tested.
  • Retail exit packaging has to be resealable, child-resistant, and opaque.
  • Statewide delivery would be permitted regardless of jurisdiction. The specific rule states that “A delivery employee may deliver to any jurisdiction within the State of California.” Given the hostility of some cities and counties to any form of commercial cannabis activity, or those cities that require you to have local approval to deliver (like Los Angeles), this is bound to cause conflict between the state and the locals.
The 45-day comment period has begun, so get your comments in now or forever hold your peace in California as the regulatory landscape continues to shift slowly but surely.
 


California agencies release proposed permanent marijuana rules

Last Friday, July 13, 2018, all three agencies overseeing California’s implementation of the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (“MAUCRSA“) dropped proposed permanent regulations that will eventually replace the readopted emergency regulations that are active now.

For the text of those proposed regulations go here, here, and here. Importantly, these regulations are just proposed; they are not in effect and they won’t be in effect until after the 45-day public comment period so long as the agencies move to adopt them without changes.

The proposed rules don’t make massive changes to the existing regime. In fact, many of these rule additions and clarifications should have already been in the mix as fundamental, common sense standards for operation in line with former federal enforcement priorities. More than anything else, these proposed rules represent technical fixes to pretty large gaps in the existing emergency rules.

All three California agencies tasked with regulating cannabis are now finally on the same page about the disclosure and vetting of “owners” versus “financial interest holders” and, importantly, if an “owner” is an entity only “the chief executive officer and members of the board of directors of the entity shall be considered owners.” In addition, the agencies clarified that none of them will issue temporary licenses after December 31, 2018.

This was already in MAUCRSA, but the agencies clarified that temporary licenses with an expiration date after January 1, 2019, will be valid only through that date with no additional 90 day extensions. This is significant since a temporary license is the only way licensees can operate post-local approval but before receiving their annual license.

Further, all three agencies are addressing issues regarding CEQA compliance prior to licensure and responses to disaster relief, and medicinal and adult-use licensees can still do business with each other to get product to market. Each agency has also upped the required details on annual licensing submissions relative to standard operating procedures (SOPs) and plans.

The highlights of the more specific significant changes/additions/clarifications from the three agencies are:
1. Department of Food and Agriculture, CalCannabis Cultivation Licensing (oversees cultivators and processors):
  • Individuals and entities will still only be allowed to have one Type 3 medium license, and there’s still no limit on the number of Type 1 or 2 cultivation licenses anyone can have (other than those limitations set forth by cities and counties, if any).
  • Outdoor licensees won’t be able to use use any light deprivation techniques.
  • Licensees are prohibited from accepting returns of cannabis plants or nonmanufactured cannabis products after transferring possession of cannabis plants or nonmanufactured cannabis to another licensee after testing is performed.
  • Nurseries can now develop and maintain dedicated R&D areas in their facilities.
2. Department of Public Health, Manufactured Cannabis Safety Branch (oversees manufacturers):
  • CDPH-MCSB implemented some notable changes to their definitions of certain cannabis terms. For example, the term “concentrate” would now include inhaled products (such as shatter, dab, or wax) and “edible cannabis product” and would include “a cannabis product that resembles traditional foods or beverages and cannabis products that dissolve or disintegrate in the mouth.” They’ve also proposed the terms “infused pre-roll,” which would mean “a pre-roll into which cannabis concentrate or other ingredients have been incorporated” and “orally-consumed concentrate” to mean “cannabis concentrates that are consumed by mouth and are not otherwise considered edibles.”
  • You can’t manufacture, prepare, package, or label any products other than cannabis products at a licensed premises. “Cannabis products” also includes packaged cannabis, pre-rolls, and products that do not contain cannabis, but are otherwise identical to the cannabis-containing product, and are intended for use as samples.
  • You can’t manufacture, prepare, package, or label cannabis products in a location operating as a retail food establishment or as a processed food registrant, and you can’t do the same in any location licensed by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.
  • Edible potency limitations are staying the same (no more than 10 mg of THC per serving and no more than 100 mg per package), but “orally-dissolving” edibles can have up to 500 milligrams THC per package, if: (1) The cannabis product consists of discrete servings of no more than 10 milligrams THC per piece; (2) The cannabis product is labeled “FOR MEDICAL USE ONLY;” and (3) The cannabis product is only available for sale to a medicinal-use customer.
  • Use of the word organic (or any variation of that word) on any product label is now going to be false or misleading unless the National Organic Program (the federal regulatory program governing organic food) “authorizes organic designation and certification for cannabis and the cannabis or cannabis product meets the requirements for such designation and certification.”
  • There are now increased packaging and labeling requirements for pre rolls and dried flower, and the labeling requirements generally for all products have increased.
  • Child-resistant packaging would be eliminated, but tamper-evident packaging would still be required for cannabis products.
3. Bureau of Cannabis Control (oversees retailers, delivery only retail, microbusinesses, distributors, and labs):
  • Making up your own SOPs would no longer be a requirement for the annual license. Instead, the state would have you input all of your SOP information into pre-established forms.
  • You won’t be able to pump in the smell of cannabis to your licensed premises via a vaporizer device or diffuser.
  • The state is cracking down on cannabis giveaways and generally getting stricter on licensee advertising attractive to children.
  • “Limited access area” security now applies to all licensees, not to just retailers.
  • On rejections and returns, licensees now have to reject whole shipments and they can’t just pick and choose inventory they want to keep from those shipments.
  • Distributors are receiving more clarity in their rules such that they can now package prerolls but can’t store live plants, they can transport tested product to more than one retailer, distributor, or microbusiness, and they can perform just quality assurance reviews of product if another distributor has already had that product tested.
  • Retail exit packaging has to be resealable, child-resistant, and opaque.
  • Statewide delivery would be permitted regardless of jurisdiction. The specific rule states that “A delivery employee may deliver to any jurisdiction within the State of California.” Given the hostility of some cities and counties to any form of commercial cannabis activity, or those cities that require you to have local approval to deliver (like Los Angeles), this is bound to cause conflict between the state and the locals.
The 45-day comment period has begun, so get your comments in now or forever hold your peace in California as the regulatory landscape continues to shift slowly but surely.
Growing makes perfect sense.
 
Once again, government brings us stuff that so incredibly STUPID that that thunking noise you hear when reading it is your jaw dropping and hitting your desk.

What a bunch of double talk.



California bans hemp-derived CBD from all food products

California health authorities dealt a blow to the burgeoning CBD industry by banning preparations of CBD derived from industrial hemp rather than psychoactive cannabis. The decree adds to the legal confusion around the cannabinoid and highlights the need for greater clarity from authorities at both the state and federal level.

Despite the fact it has received little media attention, a recent decision from Sacramento bureaucrats has potentially far-reaching implications for the cannabis industry — and for patients who have come to rely on CBD to treat a wide range of ailments.

On July 6, the California Department of Public Health issued a memo making it clear that CBD oil derived from hemp was banned in the state. The memo asserts that CBD oil derived from hemp is not under the purview of the state’s cannabis regulations.

According to the memo, the public health department’s Food and Drug Branch (FDB) “has received numerous inquiries from food processors and retailers who are interested in using industrial hemp-derived cannabidiol (CBD) oil or CBD products in food since the legalization of medicinal and adult-use marijuana (cannabis) in California.”

The memo makes clear that the public health department’s Manufactured Cannabis Safety Branch (MCSB) “regulates medicinal and adult-use manufactured cannabis products,” while “food products derived from industrial hemp are not covered by MCSB regulations. Instead, these products fall under the jurisdiction of CDPH-FDB.”

Interestingly, the memo argues that while California is willing to challenge the federal government’s authority when it comes to legalizing cannabis, it’s not willing to challenge the federal government when it comes to hemp. The memo states: “Although California currently allows the manufacturing and sales of cannabis products (including edibles), the use of industrial hemp as the source of CBD to be added to food products is prohibited. Until the FDA rules that industrial hemp-derived CBD oil and CBD products can be used as a food or California makes a determination that they are safe to use for human and animal consumption, CBD products are not an approved food, food ingredient, food additive, or dietary supplement.”

This memo will most likely add to the confusion about the legal status of CBD, and the difference between what the memo terms “hemp” and “cannabis.”

Further explanation is in order. The difference between psychoactive cannabis (“marijuana,” by the increasingly disfavored traditional term) and hemp is a question of THC content — and legal classification. The federal government defines hemp as cannabis with 0.3 percent THC or less in terms of dry weight. The 2014 federal Farm Bill legalized state pilot programs for hemp, and 40 of the 50 states now have defined industrial hemp as distinct from cannabis and removed barriers to its production — including California. However, California’s hemp pilot program is overseen by the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) — not either the CDPH or Bureau of Cannabis Control.

Earlier this year, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the DEA’s classification of CBD as a controlled substance, regardless of whether it is derived from hemp or psychoactive cannabis.

The CDPH memo adds to the confusion by drawing a distinction between “hemp” and “cannabis” — even though hemp is a form of cannabis. If it weren’t, you wouldn’t be able to derive CBD from it. Avoiding this confusion is part of the case for not purging the word “marijuana” from the English language, despite the stigma increasingly associated with the word.

Now, while CBD derived from hemp or psychoactive cannabis (“marijuana”) is chemically identical, there may be reasons other than legal concerns to make the distinction. If the hemp in question is low in CBD as well as THC, it may take exponentially more hemp than marijuana to produce the same amount of CBD. So this raises concerns about concentrates of pesticides and other contaminants getting into CBD oil made from hemp — especially hemp that has traditionally been grown for industrial purposes, and under standards developed with that in mind. In the case of places like China, even those standards may be too lax or not enforced at all.

In any case, California’s decision to ban CBD oil from hemp seems like it may be informed more by legalistic hair-splitting. And to illustrate how finely that hair is split, recall that CBD is a controlled substance under federal law, regardless of what it is derived from. Yet federal policy is also contradictory. The FDA’s recent approval of the CBD medicine Epidiolex comes despite the fact that the DEA considers CBD a Schedule I substance, with no medical applications. A DEA rescheduling or de-scheduling of CBD would go a long way toward resolving these questions — and is coming in the next three months.
 
California considers legalizing cannabis delivery to towns that have banned dispensaries

Currently, cannabis businesses are only permitted to operate in roughly 144 out of 482 cities in the state.

In California, newly proposed regulations would finally provide cannabis access for those living in a county or city with cannabis bans in place.

Currently, cannabis businesses are only permitted to operate in roughly 144 out of 482 cities, and 18 out of 58 counties in California—less than one in every three cities and counties. And in April, one analysis found that cannabis dispensary licenses had only been issued in one in seven cities in the state. This means that while California officially legalized recreational cannabis on January 1st, in reality, it’s only accessible in a small portion of the state.

But newly proposed regulations in the state’s draft of final cannabis industry regulations would allow retailers to deliver cannabis into these cities and counties regardless of local bans on brick and mortars.

Up until now, the state’s cannabis businesses have been following “emergency rules,” a set of temporary regulations which are used by state governments in times of rapid change, until permanent regulations can be put in place. Regulators are hoping that the newly proposed rules can be enacted by year’s end.

In addition to changes to the state’s cannabis delivery policies, these proposed new rules would increase qualified medical patients’ access to higher-potency cannabis edibles, add more regulations for cannabis advertising, and relax current child-resistant packaging requirements.

The cannabis industry is celebrating some of these new rules. Under the new rules, for example, medical cannabis patients would be able to purchase certain types of edibles that contain up to 500 milligrams of THC. Previously, the highest amount of THC that patients could find in legally sold edibles was 100 milligrams per package.

Cannabis-delivery-edibles-and-ads-could-change-under-new-permanent-state-regulations-body.jpg

An airplane descends to land at Los Angeles International Airport above a billboard advertising the marijuana delivery service Eaze on July 12, 2018 in Los Angeles, California. A number of marijuana delivery apps are available in the state. Recreational use of marijuana became legal in California on January 1.

And while the state previously planned to require that all products come in child-resistant packaging before they’re allowed to be sold, the new rules simply mandate that retailers put products in a “resealable child-resistant opaque exit package” before customers leave the store. In other words, the child-resistant bag regulations will only apply to the post-purchase bags that are used to hold a customer’s products.

However, some of the proposed new rules will also make things more challenging for cannabis businesses, such as those that further restrict cannabis advertising.

Cannabis businesses, for example, will only be able to advertise in places where they’ve determined that at least 71.6% of the people viewing the advertisement are expected to be at least 21-years-old. This determination must be made based on “reliable up-to-date audience composition data.”

There will also be a ban on giveaways and promotions such as “buy one, get one free” sales or customer loyalty programs.

There will be a 45-day public comment period before the new regulations go into effect. Some experts have indicated that they expect the current rules to be tweaked again, following public commentary and lobbying efforts, before they’re made official
 
I don't live in CA, but some CA brands are legendary and I'm glad to see some of them in the list like Utopia (grower) and Moxie (extractor). But where is Crockett Family Farms and the Russian Assassin Boyz (dunno why, but I love that name)? Who else isn't on the list? I'm not all that familiar with CA brands.

The Era of Clean Cannabis Has Come to California. Here Are the Surviving Brands


In the old days, you just had to grow bud to sell it. Then you had to grow good bud. Now—you have to grow clean, good bud.

The California cannabis industry had a hard reset July 1, when testing regulations wiped everything but the cleanest, most pure and consistent products from the state’s retail shelves.

It’s going to be months for most brands to clean up their act, get it packaged correctly and get in line for testing on the way back to retail store. Still, some brands planned ahead and were ready on Day 1 with tested, compliant product.

Here is the list of brands surviving the California #weedapocalypse of 2018, according to our best sources. Call ahead to your local retailer to ensure your brand is in stock. This list will expand as we hear more. (Email your compliant brands to david.downs@leafly.com)

Compliant Cannabis Flower Brands

Mmm, Gelato.
  • Sherbinskis
  • Garrison Lane
  • IC Collective
  • 3 Bros Grow
  • Cali Cans
  • Korova
  • ButterBrand
  • FlowKana
  • UpNorth
  • Northern Emeralds
  • Gold Seal
  • True Humboldt
  • Cannacruz
  • Jaydens Juice
  • Floracal
  • Humboldt Native Farms
Humboldt Sungrowers Guild
  • Cannatique
  • Canndescent
  • Lemon Tree

  • Lit House
  • Cali Cans
  • Autumn Brands
  • Occidental Hills
  • KINDRD
  • Connected Cannabis Co.
  • Dolja & Ganga
  • West Coast Sunrise
  • Bloom Farms Flower
  • Caliva
  • Marley Natural
  • Madrone
  • Utopia
  • CRU Cannabis
  • Team Elite Genetics
  • PHENIX Cannabis
  • JAHnetics
  • Agris Farms
  • Willie’s Reserve flower
Find them at:
Compliant Cannabis Extract Brands

Select vape carts can be found across California post-July 1. (Courtesy of Elite)
  • Nasha Extracts
  • Gold Drop
  • Legion of Bloom
  • dosist
  • dompen
  • Select carts and Pax Era Pods
  • 710 Labs
  • Artisan
  • Chemistry
  • Bloom Farms carts and Pax Era Pods
  • 710 King Pens
  • Absolute Extracts
  • Beezle Extracts
  • Brite Labs (both pods and cartridges)
  • Care By Design
  • Chill
  • CWG BOTANICALS
  • Dabbalicious
  • Disposable Vape by GoldDrop
  • Guild
  • Island – PAX
  • James Henry Vapor Cartridges
  • Level
  • Moxie Extracts
  • NUG
  • Peak Oil
  • Space Gems

  • Himalaya Vapor
  • HGH (Haters Gonna Hate)
  • Creme De Canna extracts
Find them at:
Compliant Cannabis Edibles Brands
  • Big Pete’s Treats
  • Kikoko
  • Dr. Norm’s
  • PLUS Gummies
  • Sunsetconnect and ingestibles Spirulinex
  • Kaneh Co
  • Kiva
  • Satori
  • Bhang
  • District Edibles
  • Fiddlers Green
  • Kin Slips
  • Kind Medicine
  • Venice Cookie Company
Find them at:
Compliant Cannabis Topicals Brands

Intimate topical maker Foria is surviving lab scrutiny for purity. (Courtesy of Foria)
  • Om Body
  • Foria
  • Papa & Barkley
Find them at:
Distributors Carrying Compliant Product
  • 12/12 Distribution
  • The Cohong
  • CWG Botanicals
  • Rise Distribution
  • Bloom Distribution
Find them at:
 
Los Angeles moves to license pot growers after long delay

Los Angeles began accepting license applications from marijuana growers, manufacturers and testing companies Wednesday, after months of delays that left many businesses in the state's largest legal marketplace struggling to survive.

The start of the process arrived with a mix of relief and anxiety from businesses that have been waiting since Jan. 1, when California broadly legalized cannabis for adults, to enter the legal economy.

"We've been hanging on by the skin of our teeth," said retailer and cultivator Donnie Anderson, who has been paying thousands of dollars of rent for months on commercial space he hasn't been able to use without a cultivation license.

Los Angeles was once expected to be a showcase for the state's legal pot economy, but it has moved cautiously with licensing and its market has developed more slowly than in San Diego, Oakland and other major cities.

So far, LA has only licensed about 150 retail shops, with the rest of the supply chain in limbo.

Across the state, the effort to transform the long-established pot industry, much of it illegal, into a multibillion-dollar, regulated marketplace has been uneven at best. Illegal sales continue to flourish, undercutting legal shops, while there are widespread complaints about hefty taxes on purchases and growing.

Local governments are permitted to outlaw commercial cannabis activity, so the availability of legal pot depends on where a customer is trying to make a purchase. Initial tax collections by the state fell far short of initial projections.

It's also not clear when the first cultivation licenses for recreational pot will be issued by the city. LA's top pot regulator, Cat Packer, said last month the city didn't want to commit to a timeline because rules continue to change as the new system is refined.

Industry insiders have warned that delays in licensing threaten the marijuana supply chain, which could collapse and leave store shelves depleted.

Cannabis industry attorney Aaron Lachant said the slow pace of licensing has crimped supplies, leaving a relatively small number of cultivators and manufacturers supplying storefronts across the state.

In Los Angeles, retailers have turned to Northern and Central California to bring in products from licensed operators. Under state law, licensed retailers can only do business with other licensed companies.

Without licensed growers and manufacturers in LA, "the retailers have had to figure out new supply relationships with licensees across the state," Lachant said.
 
Los Angeles moves to license pot growers after long delay

Los Angeles began accepting license applications from marijuana growers, manufacturers and testing companies Wednesday, after months of delays that left many businesses in the state's largest legal marketplace struggling to survive.

The start of the process arrived with a mix of relief and anxiety from businesses that have been waiting since Jan. 1, when California broadly legalized cannabis for adults, to enter the legal economy licensees across the state," Lachant said.
@Baron23 thank U!
I GOT SOME DUTCH TREAT FROM HOLLAND HOWEVER GROWN ON THE CENTRAL COAST OF THE STATE!
$100/oz?

Very medicating?
From my delivery service?
Taste great?
Dam effect is strong?
@Kellya86 U tried DUTCH TREAT?
@momofthegoons have U?
 

great price...is this flower bought under the new regulatory system from a licensed dispensary or gray market. That's probably what it cost to grow the stuff...or less:yikes:!
 
I have not..... and haven't seen it around this area.

I'll keep an eye out for it now though.....I've never 'met' a stain I didn't want to try. :biggrin:
I've tried so many however I have my favorites:
GSC 20% thc or higher (next harvest)
DUTCH TREAT 25% thc (now)
GDP super purple (tastes amazing) COLAS 29% thc $280 per oz (spendy however decent)!
Jar mixed with many strain's (only at night)
2 hit's dry on the "M" = A+ DT

In CA their R more!
My BUD TENDER gave me direction's.
@Baron23 sorry 2 hijack this tread (so high?)
 
Last edited:
"California’s burdensome regulatory system is forcing more than half of cannabis consumers back to the black market, costing the state more than three-quarters of its predicted revenue from the cannabis trade."

Ah, government at work once again. Hopefully a lesson to other states who think they have hit the jackpot of revenue to redistribute and also jacked up the tax structure well beyond what people will bear.


How California overplayed their hand in the cannabis market


The North American Marijuana Index rose again on Wednesday, with pot stocks gaining on both sides of the North American border despite news of more tax woes out of California. According to reports, California’s burdensome regulatory system is forcing more than half of cannabis consumers back to the black market, costing the state more than three-quarters of its predicted revenue from the cannabis trade. The Index rose 2.41 points, or 1.07 percent, to end the day at 228.10.

The United States Marijuana Index rose 0.69 points, or 0.76 percent, while the Canadian Marijuana Index gained 5.79 points, or 1.11 percent on Wednesday.

Due to burdensome taxes, California residents continue to purchase cannabis off the black market, despite the drug being made legal at the turn of the new year.

In fact, California has imposed such high taxes on cannabis sales that about 20 percent of Californians go the illegal route. A new report from Eaze Insights showed that in the last three months one-fifth of Californians polled purchased cannabis on the black market. Eighty-four percent said they would do it again because the black market has no taxes and cheaper products. (The term “black market” encompasses both illegal street sales and shops).

Legal Cannabis Is Just Too Expensive

Consumers report that they would like to purchase marijuana on the legal market, but it is just too expensive. In fact, California charges a 15 percent excise tax, and the taxes are a major concern for consumers who are watching their wallets.

The Eaze report goes on to say that approximately 85 percent of Californians have at one time or another purchased cannabis from unlicensed producers, due to no taxes and lower prices. Others said that it is very difficult and time-consuming to find and identify licensed cannabis businesses in California and that it is simply easier to purchase on the black market.

[Read More: A Look Inside Planet Earth's Largest Cannabis Dispensary]

It is not good news for state finances and regulators who are depending on tax income to fund California’s government programs. The state may be looking into cutting taxes to encourage and incentivize people to purchase cannabis legally. Proposals are floating around to cut taxes by five percent, which would hopefully incentivize consumers towards the legal market.

A Five Percent Reduction Would Double Income
Some experts estimate that a five percent reduction would double the number of people who would purchase only from licensed cannabis businesses. If for some reason California were to theoretically increase the tax by five percent, to a total of 20 percent, it would double the number of Californians who purchase cannabis on the black market.

Indeed, some savvy California towns caught on early; Berkeley for instance already cut its city tax in half—from ten percent down to five percent. It is no big secret—consumers care about fair cannabis pricing just as they would any traditional purchase.

California’s theory about what would happen with legalized recreational marijuana isn’t coming through to fruition quite as the powers that be had hoped. The premise was to legalize recreational cannabis, then regulate and tax it. After that, California’s state, city, and county governments would be overflowing in money from those tax revenues. Legalization would have the added effect of stamping out the illicit black market because people would buy the legal product. And with California representing the world’s largest recreational market, what could go wrong?


Less Revenue Than Expected

In January 2018, California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office estimated $175 million in annual revenue from the excise tax. However, the state has only collected $34 million in taxes during Q1—well below the revenue that was projected.

Unfortunately, the compounded effect of high product markups and even higher taxes, as well as local red tape, has hampered legal sales in the state. Licensed producers markup their products to recoup costs from paying for things like pesticide testing and worker protection laws. The state enacted stricter regulations which went into effect in July, forcing consumers to pay for the more rigid safety standards on pesticides.

Meanwhile on Wall Street
A mixed day on the markets was caused by falling oil prices and the return of investor panic of trade war fears. China struck back against the United States on Wednesday, hitting $16 billion worth of goods with 25 percent tariffs, the latest salvo in the back and forth maneuvering between Beijing and The White House.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 45.16 points, or 0.18 percent, closing out the day at 25,583.75, while the S&P 500 fell 0.75 points, or 0.03 percent, ending Wednesday at 2,857.7. Meanwhile, the Nasdaq Composite gained 4.66 points, or 0.06 percent, to finish off the day at 7,888.33.
 

California marijuana testing labs say product recalls unlikely to be a major concern

A pair of voluntary California cannabis product recalls in late July sparked concerns in the industry that other companies would be put in similar situations – and end up spending time and money to ensure their products arrived on retail shelves.

Three testing lab executives told Marijuana Business Daily that such fears are likely overblown and that recalls will become less of a risk once the state’s Metrc track-and-trace system gets up and running and MJ regulations take shape.

“Recalls at this stage … are more due to a misunderstanding of the regulations right now,” said Zach Eisenberg, vice president at San Francisco-based Anresco Laboratories, which tested the pre-rolls involved in one of the recalls.

Here’s what you need to know about the situation:

1. Latest recalls were exceptions and not the norm.


Eisenberg said the two July recalls were outliers amid thousands of MJ products that have been tested, passed and subsequently sent to retailers.
Eisenberg noted that regulators aren’t really enforcing testing mandates for any products, adding there likely won’t be any mandated product recalls in the near future.

“People shouldn’t be overly concerned that all their products are going to be recalled because the Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC) is getting different reports from labs,” he said. “That’s not the case. At least not right now, because they’re not doing any auditing of results.”

Eisenberg and executives from two other labs noted that the recalls were voluntary, as opposed to having been ordered by regulators – meaning the companies were taking extra precautions to avoid future trouble with their supply chains or a potential public relations nightmare, or both.

Details surrounding the recalls remain murky.

BCC spokesman Alex Traverso said the agency is still investigating the circumstances involving both companies, which voluntarily announced their products had failed testing and somehow made it to retail shelves.

Traverso declined further comment, so there’s no clarity on when or under what circumstances the state may begin mandating recalls.

2. Significant gatekeeper policies are in place to avert potential recalls.

Sam David, president of Coastal Analytical in San Diego, said one reason companies shouldn’t be concerned is because procedures already in place require licensed distributors to have all products tested by labs and obtain a passing grade before shipping those products to retailers.

That should act as enough of a gatekeeper, he said.

“Basically the supply chain controls it. So a distributor won’t move product from a supplier to a retailer if it doesn’t have the correct lab results,” David said. “The only way that a recall would have to happen is if there’s some reason to believe that the analysis – the initial release – was not accurate.”

That is apparently what happened with Anresco in one of the July recalls, according to David Elias, the CEO of Lowell Herb Co.

Lowell recalled pre-rolls after Anresco apparently changed the status of two stock-keeping units (SKUs) to “fail” after passing them two weeks earlier.

But Anresco’s Eisenberg said contractual obligations with Lowell prevented him from disclosing exactly what happened, and Elias declined to comment further for this story.

But Swetha Kaul, chief scientific officer for Santa Ana-based Cannalysis Labs, said she expects more product recalls in part because there are licensed distributors that have a stake in skirting the rules.

“I don’t think this is the last recall,” observed Kaul, who also co-chairs the California Cannabis Industry Association’s quality control committee.

“The truth of the matter is even though we’re testing as a lab, we as a lab are not quarantining (products). It’s in a distribution facility. And if the distributor is vertically integrated and has a retail storefront, it’s very easy for them to pass (product) on to retail without necessarily getting the OK of a lab.”

3. Regulatory issues are still being worked out – and labeling requirements could prove costly.

All three lab executives agreed regulatory holes must be ironed out, and the two product recalls are mostly an indication of systemic flaws.

For instance, Eisenberg said, regulations from the BCC and the state Department of Public Health – which oversees edibles makers and concentrate producers – “don’t work in tandem. It makes it essentially impossible for a manufactured product to get a passing result for potency.”

That’s because, he said, manufacturers are required to pre-label edibles and concentrates with both THC and CBD percentages before sending to distributors.

When a distributor sends those products to a lab, BCC regulations require that all results be within 10% of whatever percentage is on the label. If the lab results are outside that margin of error, the product technically fails and must be relabeled.

That regulation has been a headache for producers, especially those that have very low to little CBD.

For instance, plenty of cannabis products have less than 1% CBD. That means if a product is labeled as 0.1% CBD but the test finds there’s actually 0.3%, that falls outside the 10% margin for error and means the producer will have to pay for a new label.

“For all these manufactured products, that’s a huge issue,” Eisenberg said, “because on one hand, they’re required to label before they’re tested, and on the other, they know their labels are probably going to be different from the test results.

“The double-label is costing money. It’s costing time, and there’s no real public health benefit that’s resulting from all of this.”

4. Standardized testing in flux with labs following different procedures.

California has no universal testing standards or methods, meaning testing practices often differ among the state’s 33 licensed labs.

Many are using methods suggested by companies that manufacture the testing equipment purchased by those labs, or the labs have been developing – and closely guarding – their own testing procedures, said Coastal Analytical’s David.

But that’s arguably a Band-Aid until the state can figure out universal procedures for labs to use, Cannalysis’ Kaul said.

Kaul also raised questions about sampling methods that vary from labs to distributors to producers that are getting testing done during their R&D phases, differences between how the various phases of testing are performed, and other systemic issues due to ongoing fluidity of changing regulations.

“Right now, there’s this definite feeling that the regulations may have gone a touch too far and not let us catch up to what the regulations demand, and that’s definitely one of the reasons (these recalls) happened,” Kaul said.

5. Words from the wise to avoid product recalls.

Asked what their best advice for other California companies would be on how to avoid recalls, here’s what Eisenberg, David and Kaul suggested:

  • Test multiple times during the production phase to get as clear a picture as possible before sending product to distributors.
  • Don’t shop around at different labs looking for the same results. Instead, develop a close relationship with one lab and get to know its procedures.
  • Use the same lab for testing during research and development and later for compliance; this means checking beforehand with a distributor to see which lab it will use for compliance testing.
  • Keep detailed records of every test and step taken in the production process, so as to streamline production and ensure a replicable outcome each time.
 
California marijuana testing labs say product recalls unlikely to be a major concern

A pair of voluntary California cannabis product recalls in late July sparked concerns in the industry that other companies would be put in similar situations – and end up spending time and money to ensure their products arrived on retail shelves.

Three testing lab executives told Marijuana Business Daily that such fears are likely overblown and that recalls will become less of a risk once the state’s Metrc track-and-trace system gets up and running and MJ regulations take shape.

“Recalls at this stage … are more due to a misunderstanding of the regulations right now,” said Zach Eisenberg, vice president at San Francisco-based Anresco Laboratories, which tested the pre-rolls involved in one of the recalls.

Here’s what you need to know about the situation:

1. Latest recalls were exceptions and not the norm.


Eisenberg said the two July recalls were outliers amid thousands of MJ products that have been tested, passed and subsequently sent to retailers.
Eisenberg noted that regulators aren’t really enforcing testing mandates for any products, adding there likely won’t be any mandated product recalls in the near future.

“People shouldn’t be overly concerned that all their products are going to be recalled because the Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC) is getting different reports from labs,” he said. “That’s not the case. At least not right now, because they’re not doing any auditing of results.”

Eisenberg and executives from two other labs noted that the recalls were voluntary, as opposed to having been ordered by regulators – meaning the companies were taking extra precautions to avoid future trouble with their supply chains or a potential public relations nightmare, or both.

Details surrounding the recalls remain murky.

BCC spokesman Alex Traverso said the agency is still investigating the circumstances involving both companies, which voluntarily announced their products had failed testing and somehow made it to retail shelves.

Traverso declined further comment, so there’s no clarity on when or under what circumstances the state may begin mandating recalls.

2. Significant gatekeeper policies are in place to avert potential recalls.

Sam David, president of Coastal Analytical in San Diego, said one reason companies shouldn’t be concerned is because procedures already in place require licensed distributors to have all products tested by labs and obtain a passing grade before shipping those products to retailers.

That should act as enough of a gatekeeper, he said.

“Basically the supply chain controls it. So a distributor won’t move product from a supplier to a retailer if it doesn’t have the correct lab results,” David said. “The only way that a recall would have to happen is if there’s some reason to believe that the analysis – the initial release – was not accurate.”

That is apparently what happened with Anresco in one of the July recalls, according to David Elias, the CEO of Lowell Herb Co.

Lowell recalled pre-rolls after Anresco apparently changed the status of two stock-keeping units (SKUs) to “fail” after passing them two weeks earlier.

But Anresco’s Eisenberg said contractual obligations with Lowell prevented him from disclosing exactly what happened, and Elias declined to comment further for this story.

But Swetha Kaul, chief scientific officer for Santa Ana-based Cannalysis Labs, said she expects more product recalls in part because there are licensed distributors that have a stake in skirting the rules.

“I don’t think this is the last recall,” observed Kaul, who also co-chairs the California Cannabis Industry Association’s quality control committee.

“The truth of the matter is even though we’re testing as a lab, we as a lab are not quarantining (products). It’s in a distribution facility. And if the distributor is vertically integrated and has a retail storefront, it’s very easy for them to pass (product) on to retail without necessarily getting the OK of a lab.”

3. Regulatory issues are still being worked out – and labeling requirements could prove costly.

All three lab executives agreed regulatory holes must be ironed out, and the two product recalls are mostly an indication of systemic flaws.

For instance, Eisenberg said, regulations from the BCC and the state Department of Public Health – which oversees edibles makers and concentrate producers – “don’t work in tandem. It makes it essentially impossible for a manufactured product to get a passing result for potency.”

That’s because, he said, manufacturers are required to pre-label edibles and concentrates with both THC and CBD percentages before sending to distributors.

When a distributor sends those products to a lab, BCC regulations require that all results be within 10% of whatever percentage is on the label. If the lab results are outside that margin of error, the product technically fails and must be relabeled.

That regulation has been a headache for producers, especially those that have very low to little CBD.

For instance, plenty of cannabis products have less than 1% CBD. That means if a product is labeled as 0.1% CBD but the test finds there’s actually 0.3%, that falls outside the 10% margin for error and means the producer will have to pay for a new label.

“For all these manufactured products, that’s a huge issue,” Eisenberg said, “because on one hand, they’re required to label before they’re tested, and on the other, they know their labels are probably going to be different from the test results.

“The double-label is costing money. It’s costing time, and there’s no real public health benefit that’s resulting from all of this.”

4. Standardized testing in flux with labs following different procedures.

California has no universal testing standards or methods, meaning testing practices often differ among the state’s 33 licensed labs.

Many are using methods suggested by companies that manufacture the testing equipment purchased by those labs, or the labs have been developing – and closely guarding – their own testing procedures, said Coastal Analytical’s David.

But that’s arguably a Band-Aid until the state can figure out universal procedures for labs to use, Cannalysis’ Kaul said.

Kaul also raised questions about sampling methods that vary from labs to distributors to producers that are getting testing done during their R&D phases, differences between how the various phases of testing are performed, and other systemic issues due to ongoing fluidity of changing regulations.

“Right now, there’s this definite feeling that the regulations may have gone a touch too far and not let us catch up to what the regulations demand, and that’s definitely one of the reasons (these recalls) happened,” Kaul said.

5. Words from the wise to avoid product recalls.

Asked what their best advice for other California companies would be on how to avoid recalls, here’s what Eisenberg, David and Kaul suggested:

  • Test multiple times during the production phase to get as clear a picture as possible before sending product to distributors.
  • Don’t shop around at different labs looking for the same results. Instead, develop a close relationship with one lab and get to know its procedures.
  • Use the same lab for testing during research and development and later for compliance; this means checking beforehand with a distributor to see which lab it will use for compliance testing.
  • Keep detailed records of every test and step taken in the production process, so as to streamline production and ensure a replicable outcome each time.
Grow it!
12 plants is enough?
DUTCH CRUNCH, GSC, GRAPEFRUIT, PAPAYA = CIVILIZED (sativas, Indicas, hybryd's)
We have DESERT'S in SOUTHERN CAL? (MORE THAN JUST NORTH!)
$120/28 grams 4 now? (Next year = free after materail 2 grow)!
GDP x 2 plant's as well!
 
What a complete and utter cock-up. Government at work once again.

Marijuana is not really legal in California if residents don't have a reasonable way to buy it


California law allows adults to buy marijuana. It allows licensed businesses to deliver marijuana to customers, and it says specifically that cities and counties cannot prevent delivery services from traveling on public roads. Yet even though cities can’t stop deliveries traveling through their jurisdiction, many cities currently ban deliveries to their jurisdiction.

That means that unlike deliveries of virtually every other legal, adult-use product — including alcohol and cigarettes, which can be ordered over the internet in California — marijuana deliveries are barred.

The practical effect is that residents in some places have little to no access to legal medical or recreational cannabis products because of local regulations — which seems contrary to the intent of Proposition 64. Roughly half of Californians live in cities or counties that prohibit marijuana stores and delivery services form opening in their jurisdictions. An analysis by the Sacramento Bee earlier this year found residents in 40% of the state had to drive 60 miles or more to find a licensed dispensary to buy legal marijuana — medical or recreational.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that residents in those so-called pot deserts can’t get their hands on marijuana. They just can’t get legal cannabis products that are regulated and taxed. No wonder California’s ample black market is still thriving. At last count, the state has sent more than 2,500 cease-and-desist letters to illegal pot businesses.

Now California’s Bureau of Cannabis Control wants to clarify the law. Draft regulationsreleased by the agency last month would make it clear that marijuana businesses may deliver to any private address in the state — regardless of whether the city or county permits actual brick-and-mortar pot shops in the jurisdiction.

Delivery employees would still need to confirm the identity and age of the buyer, and the delivery would have to be made to a private physical address — no pot drops on public property would be allowed. The intent is to ensure that adults in California have access to legal marijuana no matter where they live.

The League of California Cities and other groups oppose the proposed regulations, arguing that Proposition 64 gave local governments the right to ban commercial cannabis activity. That’s true, up to a point. Cities can — and should — be able to decide whether they want to take on the responsibility of permitting pot shops, marijuana farms and other cannabis businesses within their boundaries. Many cities have taken a wait-and-see approach, given the complexities and potential enforcement headaches with licensing a new industry.

But why should a city be able to prohibit an individual from buying a legal product from a licensed business that is located outside their boundaries? We don’t give cities the ability to ban deliveries by other permitted businesses and other legal products. And at what point do local regulations supersede the intent of Proposition 64, which was to allow adults to buy legal marijuana? (After all, the law allows individuals to grow their own marijuana even in cities that ban pot shops and other cannabis businesses. And it allows them to bring marijuana in from other parts of the state. So why ban deliveries?)

Of course, marijuana is different from other products and California is still navigating the intricacies of legalizing a drug that is prohibited under federal law. So, yes, it’s understandable that some cities and counties want to move extra cautiously on marijuana regulations.

The regulations themselves are a work in progress, too. There is debate over how much marijuana a delivery employee may carry — the proposed limit is $10,000 worth of product — and whether that poses a public safety risk of theft. There’s also concern over whether the delivery rule would allow businesses to get around local rules on labor practices and taxes. Those are legitimate issues that need to be ironed out.

The problem, however, is that too much caution and too many bans on commercial sales undermine one of the key goals of legalization, which was to transform the uncontrolled black market for marijuana into a legal, regulated market for adults. The more California cities prohibit legitimate marijuana businesses, the more likely medical and recreational pot consumers will rely on unlicensed sellers. That’s the reality of the marketplace.
 



California could reshape pot rules as legal market struggles



2LDABYE75QI6RI65FIMZD4DV2U.jpg

FILE - In this April 21, 2018, file photo a bud tender displays a jar of cannabis at the High Times 420 SoCal Cannabis Cup in San Bernardino, Calif. California cities on Monday, Aug. 13, 2018, objected to a proposed change in state rules that they say would allow unchecked home marijuana deliveries in places that have banned local pot sales. (Richard Vogel, File/Associated Press)
by Michael R. Blood | AP August 14 at 10:23 PM


LOS ANGELES — The nation’s largest legal marijuana market is struggling.

Illicit sales continue to thrive. A shaky supply chain has customers looking at barren shelves in some shops. There are testing problems. And a proposal to allow home marijuana deliveries in cities that have banned pot sales could lead to a courtroom fight.

A Los Angeles hearing Tuesday provided a window into the state’s emerging cannabis economy, in which early enthusiasm for broad legal sales has been followed by anxiety and frustration across a swath of the industry.

The state’s top marijuana regulator, Lori Ajax, said after the hearing that the state remains in a challenging transition period as it attempts to transform what was once a largely illegal market into a multibillion-dollar, regulated economy.

“Unfortunately, there is confusion out there,” Ajax said.

California kicked off broad legal sales on Jan. 1, and since then temporary rules have governed sales, growing and manufacturing of everything from pot-spiked munchies to infused lotions and balms. The state is now considering changes to those rules, though it’s likely to take months before any revisions go into effect.

At the hearing, dozens of marijuana business owners, industry lawyers, activists and consumers each got 90 seconds to tell Ajax what needed to be done to create a more orderly, fair and, hopefully, prosperous marketplace.

Over two hours, she heard complaints about big business threatening mom-and-pop shops, a shortage of licenses and various suggestions for revamping testing rules that are intended to ensure the quality of products that reach store shelves.

Others complained about shifting rules for packaging.

A string of speakers focused on a proposed change in state rules that the League of California Cities says would allow unchecked home marijuana deliveries in places that have banned local pot sales.

To its critics, the change would create an unruly world of shady sales, but supporters say too many Californians are cut off from legal pot, even in a state where voters overwhelmingly approved it.

The fledgling legal system has created a patchwork of local laws, with some cities and counties embracing legal cannabis while others have limited sales or outlawed all commercial pot activity. That’s created so-called pot deserts, where sales are forbidden.

Mina Layba, from the Los Angeles suburb of Thousand Oaks, said the proposal would conflict with a local law that bans deliveries. If approved, she said it would undercut licensed shops.

“Who then gets the benefit of taxes from deliveries?” she asked.

The state Bureau of Cannabis Control has said it is merely clarifying what has always been the case: that a licensed pot delivery can be made to “any jurisdiction within the state.”

But others said the sickly and frail can’t travel to make a cannabis purchase, making home delivery essential, especially in places that don’t offer legal shops nearby.

“The patients are citizens too. They have rights and they have needs,” said Sarah Armstrong of Americans for Safe Access, an advocacy group.
 

Sponsored by

VGoodiez 420EDC
Back
Top