Law California

[ataxian]

The shit in CA just keeps on rolling out...sigh.


California cities sue state over home deliveries of pot

In the first significant challenge to California’s open cannabis market, 24 cities that restrict pot sales sued Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration Thursday, arguing that by allowing home deliveries in their city limits, the state is violating 2016’s Proposition 64, which legalized recreational marijuana.

The lawsuit, which was filed in Fresno County Superior Court against the California Bureau of Cannabis Control and its chief, Lori Ajax, comes in response to a regulation adopted by the agency in January that permits state-licensed firms to deliver cannabis in cities that have banned pot shops. Officials from cities with prohibitions on pot sales objected to the rules, voicing concerns that home deliveries of cannabis would lead to robberies of cash-laden vans and an influx of illegal sellers blending in with licensed delivery fleets.

To avoid opposition from city leaders and police chiefs, backers of Proposition 64 offered assurances in 2016 that the measure would preserve local control of pot sales. The lawsuit notes that the measure’s introduction said that it “safeguards local control, allowing local governments to regulate marijuana-related activities…”

The cities behind the suit contend that the bureau lacks legal authority to allow deliveries in conflict with local ordinances because Proposition 64 and a law signed by then-Gov. Jerry Brown guarantee local governments veto power over pot sales in their jurisdictions.

Read the lawsuit 24 cities filed against California over home delivery of cannabis »
“We don’t want deliveries in our city because of the concern over criminal activity,” said Walter Allen III, a city councilman in Covina and retired police officer. “The problem we have is the state has taken it upon itself to bypass Proposition 64 and supersede our local ordinances, and we are really upset about that.”

Plaintiffs including the cities of Covina, Downey, Riverside and Beverly Hills are among the 80% of California’s 482 municipalities that have banned stores selling cannabis for recreational purposes. Other cities that have joined the lawsuit allow retail stores but want to ensure that only businesses they have screened and licensed are able to make home deliveries within their city limits.

Beverly Hills bans cannabis stores, while limiting deliveries to medical marijuana provided to patients. But the state rule means recreational cannabis can also be delivered, said Mayor John Mirisch, who called the state’s interpretation of Proposition 64 a “bait and switch.”

One year of legal pot sales and California doesn’t have the bustling industry it expected. Here’s why »
Riverside Mayor Pro Tem Mike Soubirous said his city should be able to regulate when deliveries are made and who makes the deliveries, but said he believes the state rule has rendered him powerless to make those decisions.

“The council should be able to run interference for the residents and protect their quality of life,” said Soubirous, a former lieutenant commander in the California Highway Patrol.

The lawsuit could jeopardize ongoing state efforts to expand cannabis sales as delivery services compete with retail storefronts in California over a legal market estimated last year to be valued at nearly $1 billion.

Proposition 64 provided for state licensing of marijuana growers and sellers, allowing purchase and possession of up to 28.5 grams of cannabis by adults 21 and older for recreational use. With supporters of legalization arguing home delivery is important to providing safe access to the legalized drug, the state cannabis bureau said its regulation is in keeping with the intent of the ballot measure as long as deliveries are handled by state-licensed firms.

The lawsuit asks the court to rule that the state regulation is invalid “because it is inconsistent with the statutory authority of local jurisdictions to regulate or prohibit the delivery of commercial marijuana to a physical address within their boundaries.” The cities behind the lawsuit said they are not opposed to deliveries in cities where they are welcomed.

In approving home delivery in all cities, Ajax cited a provision of a law approved by the Legislature that says: “A local jurisdiction shall not prevent delivery of cannabis or cannabis products on public roads” by a state licensee.

Police chiefs warn of increased crime if California allows pot deliveries statewide »
The lawsuit, which also includes Santa Cruz County as a plaintiff, argues that provision does not allow deliveries to the doorsteps of private homes, citing a memo from the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

“Driving through a local jurisdiction on a public road, as the Legislative Analyst noted, is not the same as conducting a recreational marijuana transaction in the doorway of someone’s house,” the lawsuit says.

The cities’ legal challenge notes that the official voter information guide for Proposition 64 said the initiative would create a governing system that allows local governments to regulate marijuana-related activities. A 2016 report on the initiative by the Legislative Analyst’s Office also told voters that the ballot measure allowed cities and counties to completely ban pot businesses.

“The promise to the voters and to the cities and counties who went neutral on Prop. 64 was that they would be able to decide what types of commercial cannabis would be available within their community,” said Douglas L. White, an attorney for the cities. “And we now have a state agency effectively undermining and breaking that promise that was made.”

The lawsuit is supported by the League of California Cities, which said in a statement that the home-delivery rule “undermines the voters’ intent.”

California is awash in cannabis cash. Some is being used to bribe public officials »
A representative for Ajax said the bureau chief declined to comment.

Khurshid Khoja, vice chairman of the National Cannabis Industry Assn., said the cities are “overreaching” with a lawsuit.

“They’re trying to redefine the constitutional rights of individual adult consumers to engage in activity that is customary, traditional and incidental to being in a residential zone,” said Khoja, a Sacramento attorney who represents licensed cannabis retailers. “They are couching this power grab as a reasonable restriction on commercial businesses, but they can’t ban all deliveries without affecting individual rights now guaranteed under Prop. 64.”

Those that stand to benefit from the state rules allowing home deliveries include 311 state-licensed delivery firms, as well as companies such as Weedmaps, which help consumers find and evaluate delivery businesses.

Eaze, an online platform that arranges deliveries, has a database of 450,000 cannabis consumers. Licensed retail firms working with Eaze have made deliveries to just under half of all cities in California since Jan. 1, 2018, said Elizabeth Ashford, a spokeswoman for the company.

“There's a clear appetite for legal cannabis in jurisdictions that won't zone businesses,” Ashford said. “But make no mistake, without access to legal delivery in these places, these consumers will turn to the illegal market.”

There are still more storefront sellers in California — 915 have been licensed so far — than firms that hold delivery licenses.

Assemblyman Ken Cooley (R-Rancho Cordova) has introduced legislation that would clarify that cities have veto power over home deliveries.

“[The home delivery rule] is contrary to the language of Proposition 64. It’s a unilateral act in violation of law,” said Cooley, a former mayor of the city of Rancho Cordova near Sacramento.

City officials, he said “are the ones who are most attuned to what will add to the community’s quality of life.”

Downey Mayor Rick Rodriguez said residents in his city are concerned that pot businesses will be a magnet for crime.

“We don’t want marijuana in our city. Our residents are clear about that,” he said. “This skirts that original agreement in Prop. 64. We feel lied to. It’s a broken promise.

There is no reason 4 this!
Why is alcohol OK?

 

[Baron23]

70 tons!! 140,000 lbs? This must be stalk, roots and all.....but wow, the fact that there is 70 tons of grow in Riverside in a state that is full rec legal just goes to how badly CA has utterly fucked up rollout of full legal.

Want a hot mess....just leave it to government and politicians. sigh


70 Tons of Weed Buried in Landfill After Seizures at Over 100 Illegal Grows in Anza Valley

Roughly 70 tons of marijuana seized during raids at more than 100 illegal growing operations across the Anza Valley this week was promptly buried at a landfill in Beaumont, officials said Friday.

The sweep was conducted Wednesday, with about 700 law enforcement officials serving search warrants at 118 locations throughout the area, the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department said in a news release.

Eight people were ultimately arrested and 17 firearms were seized — along with 140,877 marijuana plants and 3,037 pounds of processed pot, authorities said.

The plants carried an estimated street value of $189 million.

All 70 tons of the weed plants were buried at the Lamb Canyon Landfill in Beaumont, where officials worked past 11 p.m. to dispose of the cannabis, Department of Waste Resources staff said Friday.

Officials say other refuse was immediately piled on top of the cannabis.

The raids were conducted in response to concerns community members expressed about the growing operations, sheriff’s officials said.

 

[Baron23]

Call me old fashioned but this Appeals Court decision strikes me as being moronic. There are a lot of things legal to those good citizens who follow the law and are free. There are a lot of things that are administratively denied to inmates as part of the price they pay for their crimes. I mean, for example, its legal to own a gun...but not for a prisoner in prison, right?

So now the prisons in CA are going to be as unmanageable as apparently the streets are in major CA cities. Its astounding to me.

California inmates can now possess marijuana in their prison cells – with one catch

A California appeals court ruled this week inmates can legally possess marijuana in prison – they just can't do anything with it.

The 3rd District Court of Appeal’s 20-page ruling says the state’s voters legalized recreational possession of less than an ounce of cannabis in 2016, with no exception -- even for those behind bars. The decision Tuesday overturned the Sacramento County convictions of five inmates who'd been found with marijuana in their prison cells.

“According to the plain language of...Proposition 64, possession of less than an ounce of cannabis in prison is no longer a felony,” a three-judge panel wrote in the ruling. “Smoking or ingesting cannabis in prison remains a felony.”

Marijuana plants in a grow room using green lights during their night cycle in Gardena, Calif. (AP)

The panel rejected the state’s argument that guards will lose control over prisons if inmates are free to possess small quantities of marijuana, noting possession can still be punished as a rules violation. Such punishments, The Mercury News says, could include having good behavior credits revoked.

POT AND TEENS -- I'M A DOCTOR, AND THIS IS WHAT I TELL MY CHILDREN

Assistant Public Defender David Lynch told the Associated Press “this ruling will prevent inmates from having years added to their sentences for simple possession, reducing overcrowding and saving $50,000-75,000 a year in unnecessary costs.”

But not everyone is pleased with the decision.

"It creates confusion," Dan Olsen, a defense attorney, told FOX40. "If it's illegal to take it in, it's illegal to use it but now it's not illegal to have it. It's sort of like: what's the point of making it not illegal to have it?"

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Attorney General Xavier Becerra’s office said it is reviewing the ruling and did not say if he will appeal it.

Becerra’s office argued the court’s reading of the law was absurd because it in effect allows controlled substances into prisons. But the court noted that it previously ruled that it’s not illegal for inmates to have properly prescribed medications or medical marijuana behind bars — though it may be against the rules.

 

[Baron23]

California doesn’t plan to raise marijuana excise tax in July

Although the California cannabis industry probably won’t see any state-level tax relief anytime soon, at least the excise tax won’t go up in July.

The state Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) confirmed in an email to Marijuana Business Daily that the 60% markup rate that provides the basis for California’s 15% excise tax will remain unchanged as of July 1, despite the agency’s mandate to recalculate the markup rate every six months.

CDTFA Director Nicolas Maduros had raised the possibility of a tax rate change, explaining during an industry conference in March that the excise tax is based on a markup rate combined with the average wholesale market price of cannabis.

He suggested at the time that California’s track-and-trace system may lead to such a change once it’s utilized by more licensed companies because the information provided could better inform the average market wholesale price.
A CDTFA spokesman didn’t reply to an MJBizDaily request for clarification on the agency’s decision to leave the current markup rate as-is, so it’s unclear why the rate won’t change.

The system as currently structured also leaves the door open to a future tax rate increase or a decrease – perhaps at the end of 2019 – depending on wholesale prices and the status of the track-and-trace program.

A markup recalculation would not affect the state cultivation tax, which is $9.25 per ounce of flower, $2.75 per ounce of leaves and $1.29 per ounce of fresh plant.

A bill in the California Legislature to temporarily lower MJ taxes died in committee in May.


California Marijuana Notebook: Dispatches from an Emerald Triangle retreat indicate the industry’s turbulence

Volatile. Transitional. Coasting. Fragmented. Dumpster fire. Passionate.

Those were the answers from half a dozen speakers last weekend at Meadowlands, a retreat in Mendocino County for cannabis industry insiders sponsored by San Francisco-based marijuana technology firm Meadow.

The question: What’s the state of California’s marijuana industry?
The answers reflect differing realities for companies depending on what niche they’re in and also how chaotic the California MJ industry remains – even though final regulations have been in place since January.

According to an informal survey of about 60 retreat participants, Meadow CEO David Hua said:

• 53% of MJ companies are less profitable than they were in 2018.
• 95% said California hasn’t created an environment where small businesses can succeed.
• 70% rated the track-and-trace rollout as “poor.”
• Two-thirds of the respondents are not actively hiring.

“These are the same questions we asked last year (at the 2018 Meadowlands), but there’s a stark difference,” Hua said while moderating a panel with Lori Ajax, the head of the California Bureau of Cannabis Control.

Ajax responded: “It’s sort of terrifying … That’s not a very good report card.”

Reasons for turbulence

While many parts of the supply chain have begun to relax into a semblance of normalcy, flux and confusion surround many issues, including:

• The rollout of the state’s track-and-trace program.
• Questions around social equity programs and their funding.
• Persistent licensing issues. Roughly 1,800 temporary permits are set to expire at the end of July, and that’s only those overseen by one of the three regulatory agencies, the Bureau of Cannabis Control.
• The long-term viability of the legal market in the face of a still-thriving underground cannabis trade – perhaps the biggest overarching question.

The illicit market dilemma

“I just want to crush the illegal market,” Ajax said to applause at Meadowlands.

“I don’t usually say that out loud …We didn’t go through this the last few years to have (the legal) market be undermined.”

Still, few answers were presented regarding exactly how the licensed operators can win out over those in the legal shadows.

During another Meadowlands panel, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s new cannabis business czar, Nicole Elliott, said the governor had set out an ambitious timeline of five to seven years in which he wants to extinguish all illicit marijuana businesses in California.

She’s hoping it won’t take that long.

“What we’re trying to do right now is to enable future jurisdictions to successfully transition their existing operators into the licensed system,” said Elliott, senior adviser for cannabis in the Office of Business and Economic Development. “From a state mindset, that’s something we’re focused on – to try to speed that up a little bit.”

Cat Packer, head of the Los Angeles Department of Cannabis Regulation, suggested it’s going to take more licensing opportunities and, therefore, more cities and counties to opt into the commercial cannabis industry.

That has slowly been happening, though arguably not at the pace with which legacy companies have been exiting the industry.

“It’s going to feel like a long time coming, and then it’s going to happen all at once,” Packer predicted. “There are only so many jurisdictions around the state that allow access right now … but it’s going to be this process where we wait for a jurisdiction to open – it fills. We wait for a jurisdiction to open up – it fills.

“All of these things are going to take time.”

She also noted that though Los Angeles doesn’t have strict caps on the number of business permits it will issue, it does have an “undue concentration” clause that will establish a de facto limit, especially on retailers.

Packer believes L.A. will hit that limit before July 2020, meaning the city likely won’t be able to grant a permit to everyone who wants one.

Weedmaps also was mentioned by licensees who still harbor ill will toward the powerful website, which has continued to carry advertisements from illegal retailers and delivery services in California.

Ajax even agreed that Weedmaps is “a problem,” and Jerred Kiloh, president of L.A. trade group the United Cannabis Business Association, brought up Assembly Bill 1417, which would allow the state to crack down on companies such as Weedmaps.

Market contraction ongoing

The continued underground market ties directly into the viability of all licensed businesses, so it’s not an easy reality to swallow for many small companies struggling with the new challenges brought on by regulations.

Market contraction is continuing, several insiders said, as legacy companies either exit because they’ve run out of money or for other reasons.

Kristi Knoblich-Palmer, the chief operations officer for Kiva Confections, said that “small manufacturers are disappearing one by one, day by day” because of much higher barriers to entry.

And Casey O’Neill of Mendocino County’s Happy Day Farms said, “it’s been touch-and-go” for his small grow.

“To still be here is a very empowering feeling,” O’Neill said, “but there’s also a deep sadness for all of the people who are not here. Five years ago, there was this hopeful feeling … and most of those people are not here now.”

Resilient hope – with realism

Still, as O’Neill indicated, an attitude of stubborn hopefulness pervaded the Meadowlands retreat.

Monica Gray, COO of Nice Guys Delivery and Distribution, noted that the state’s licensing agencies have been slowly handing out provisional and annual licenses and that enforcement against unlicensed companies has also ramped up.

“It’s level, in a certain sense,” Gray said. “My (company) is on the upswing, and delivery is doing well.”

Knoblich-Palmer also said the supply chain is “professionalizing,” and it’s easier to rely on business partners to deliver raw materials.

Ajax said her top priority at the moment is to process annual applications for every temporary license of the roughly 1,800 set to expire before the end of next month, so that there’s no gap in licensure for companies trying to remain compliant.

 

[Baron23]

Wow, I bet a lot of the CA cannabis industry is regretting legalization and their being subject to the stifling, ever shifting, and often nonsensical CA administrative bureaucracy.

California cannabis vape cartridges required to include universal symbol

Changes to California’s marijuana packaging regulations will require all vaporizer cartridges to display the state’s version of the universal symbol, a move that will cause manufacturers to adjust practices and spend considerable money to comply.

The symbol is a triangle bordering a marijuana leaf and an exclamation point with CA underneath. CA is California’s postal abbreviation.

According to the California Department of Public Health:

• Cannabis packing that was compliant under the state’s emergency rules but isn’t compliant under permanent regulations must be shipped to a licensed distributor by June 30.
• Retailers must sell these noncompliant products by Dec. 31.

The health department suggests manufacturers either use stickers to display the symbol or repackage products with compliant materials.


California cannabis attorney Dana Cisneros, an industry insider who flagged this issue, wrote to the health department that “this seems very strange that vape cartridges themselves are included in the definition of a ‘cannabis concentrate’ and now suddenly CDPH is classifying the cartridge as a ‘product container’ at the same time without revision to the definitions.”
In its response to Cisneros, the state simply noted that vape cartridges must carry the state’s version of the universal symbol.

 

[CarolKing]

Just because of the special sticker, that doesn’t insure a safe product. Hopefully all will be complying with safety concerns and folks wont be bought off or products aren’t really checked. I’m getting so cynical in my old age but companies were lying about THC and CBD content here where I live. Also some dirty cannabis a couple years ago. I hope things are better.

 

[ClearBlueLou]

Companies lie to sell their products, and the bigger, the bigger....

 

[Baron23]

Ah yes....CA certainly did a bang up fucking job protecting the small guys in the industry for...what was it supposed to be....5 years? sigh

California marijuana retailers charge product suppliers for shelf space, creating friction in the industry

A growing trend among California cannabis retailers to charge brands for shelf space – and, thus, access to customers – has some in the industry decrying the practice as “pay-to-play” that threatens to crowd out smaller companies from the market.

According to several industry sources, the practice first cropped up in early 2018 and quickly caught on among California retailers, many of whom are desperate for any income stream because the illicit market is undercutting legal shops.

Some retailers in San Diego and Los Angeles, according to several sources, are asking anywhere from $1,000 to $50,000 a month from brands, depending on how much shelf space they want and in how many stores.

The most common fee request identified by sources was an average of $5,000-$10,000 a month for prime real estate inside shops, with the highest fees reserved for space in retail chains with multiple storefronts.
“We first encountered it last summer,” said Karli Warner, co-founder of Garden Society, a boutique edibles and pre-roll brand based in Sonoma County. “Over the last year, it’s really taken off.”

Warner said her company can’t afford to pay thousands of dollars a month to get their product into Southern California shops, where such fees are more common than in Northern California.

Warner noted the trend is tilting the playing field in favor of larger companies attempting to buy up as much market share and brand loyalty as possible, while smaller companies like hers are limited to shops that don’t charge such fees.

“In a new burgeoning industry, the fact that there’s already this sort of creep of brands that are able to pay these high prices to buy shelf space – it’s setting the industry up for bad business practices,” Warner said.

“It’s going to be the demise of the craft brand, frankly.”

Legal murkiness

Known in other industries as “slotting fees,” the practice is common in mainstream grocery and department stores but is largely banned in the liquor industry. It remains a gray area under California law.

“In about 10 years of practice, this is the first time I’ve seen this crop up, and crop up so voluminously,” said Hilary Bricken, a Los Angeles marijuana attorney who wrote a blog post about the practice in December because she had clients who were negotiating slotting fees.

Several cannabis manufacturers suggested to Marijuana Business Daily the practice could be illegal under state law that prohibits unfair business practices. (See code citations here and here.) But Bricken said there’s no clear-cut answer.

Rather, the legality of slotting fees will likely have to be determined on a case-by-case basis, given how vague California state law is around anti-competitive business practices, she said.

Cannabis industry attorney Khurshid Khoja also noted that California liquor laws prohibit slotting fees and pointed out that one of the state’s top marijuana regulators, Bureau of Cannabis Control chief Lori Ajax, previously was a deputy with the Department of Alcohol Beverage Control.

A primary question with regard to slotting fees could be whether California wants to pattern its marijuana regulations after either the grocery or liquor models, Khoja said.

“It’s likely a ripe issue” for litigation or regulation, Khoja said.

Alex Traverso, a spokesman for the Bureau of Cannabis Control, wrote in an email to MJBizDaily that his agency “hasn’t heard much about this,” and none of the industry sources for this story said they had filed complaints with regulators over the practice.

Bricken, however, said she believes it’ll take a lawsuit to get some legal clarity for cannabis companies when it comes to slotting fees.

However, neither she nor Khoja expect a suit anytime soon because of the hefty legal fees it would take to support such a case. And the stakeholders hit hardest by the slotting fee practice are small companies that are already struggling financially.

Cost of doing business?

Though multiple executives in the California supply chain slammed the practice as a “cash grab” or “pay-to-play,” others defended it and said it’s just part of doing business.

“This was always going to happen. I don’t see this as retailers gouging their manufacturers or their product providers,” said Adrian Sedlin, the CEO of Canndescent, a large-scale cultivator in Southern California. “You don’t think Procter & Gamble isn’t paying for shelf space?”

Sedlin said the cost of paying for shelf space is built into his company’s marketing budget, and the hurdle for other companies is to calculate the return on investment from slotting fees.

Jerred Kiloh, the owner of The Higher Path in Los Angeles, also said he charges some brands $1,000 a month for space in his shop, and a big motivator for his retail colleagues is financial survival.

“The parity between legal and illegal is so far apart that we don’t have a way to compete with these illicit retailers, so if brands are trying to get their products to the top of the shelf, that’s a business decision,” Kiloh said.

Kiloh and others also said the practice began last year when some manufacturers started offering payments to retailers in exchange for the best real estate inside shops.

“It’s not like retailers created this trend. The manufacturers and the brands did. And I think it’s trickling down to brands that can’t necessarily afford it,” he said.

Bryce Berryessa, who sees both sides of the issue as both a manufacturer and retailer in Santa Cruz, said his shop also tacks on slotting fees, but he maintains it’s not hard to structure such agreements in ways that bolster marketing and brand exposure for small companies.

“If it’s not a win-win, if they have generated more sales and revenue through the shop in the program, we failed them,” Berryessa said. He also said some retailers have definitely adopted “predatory” slotting fees.

But Chris Coulombe, CEO of Santa Rosa-based distributor Pacific Expeditors, predicted “a large-scale problem in the industry if it continues.”

“Now it’s a capital arms race,” he said. “Whoever can buy the most space for the longest period of time, they can effectively choke out the smaller brands who are not as well capitalized and deny access to other brands that precludes anybody else from stepping in.”

 

[Baron23]

"Californians are paying up to 45% tax rates on cannabis purchases — nearly 40% higher than the standard 6% state sales tax."
​

And they sit in Sacramento scratching their heads and wondering why their wonderfully crafted POS legalization structure ain't working. I can't say anymore about this or the people who foisted this off on CA without getting a point from Mom.....which neither of us like....so, I'm leaving it at this. Cheers

High cannabis taxes keep black market alive in California

Two years ago, California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 64, which legalized adult cannabis use. Fast forward two years later, and the illicit market is “getting worse, not better.”

The legal cannabis market has yet to achieve its desired impact for a number of reasons. More than three-quarters of California’s city and county governments still ban the sale of cannabis within their jurisdictions. Another is based on simple economics that falls on the entire state of California: taxes are too high on the legal cannabis industry and it is stunting the growth of the legal market.

With current tax rates, businesses and consumers are incentivised to turn to the illicit market and medical patients overpay for medicine they need, all while the state is receiving far less revenue than it projected.

Taxes are designed and implemented to discourage buying and spending. The theory goes that the higher the tax on an item, the less likely you are to purchase that item. Taxes that are too high discourage growth, stunt hiring and reduce profit. Economic theory still holds true for the cannabis industry.

The United States has some of the lowest tax rates in the developed world. Businesses — from oil conglomerates to telecom giants — all reap the benefits of low taxes. Right now, the statutory corporate tax rate is 21%. After applying loopholes and tax breaks, there remain American companies raking in billions while paying essentially zero dollars in taxes. It’s not a value judgment, it’s just the structure of our tax code.

In the legal cannabis industry, our tax code is inverted. Retailers and brands, and in turn consumers, are getting taxed at rates that would make Sweden blush. Californians are paying up to 45% tax rates on cannabis purchases — nearly 40% higher than the standard 6% state sales tax.

How do we know high taxes impede entry into the market? Well, for one, California’s legal cannabis market is stagnant. The New York Times reported that California’s legal cannabis sales totaled $2.5 billion in 2018, about $500 million less than in 2017. Despite the state’s desire to expand the legal market, entrepreneurs and consumers aren’t adopting as fast as expected.

Not only is the market stagnant, it’s more profitable to buy and sell illegally. California’s illicit cannabis market is estimated to be twice the size of the legal one, nearly doubling California’s legal market in sales a year ago. Current tax rates and fees hamper legal businesses’ ability to compete.

High taxes also affect the thousands of people who depend on medical cannabis to alleviate chronic pain, mitigate seizures and more. Not only is it expensive to run a compliant medical cannabis company — costs for patients skyrocket as businesses attempt to keep up.

California cannabis policy has yet to meet the promise that once made it so popular: increased tax revenue for the government. Cannabis tax revenue can help thousands of Californians access affordable health care, take advantage of public transportation infrastructure and secure green jobs. Estimates show that cannabis taxes have the potential to generate $8 billion to $20 billion in annual revenue for California. Last November, California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office released a report showing — over six months — retail excise tax revenue and cultivation tax revenue totaled $77 million and $7 million, respectively. This collected tax revenue was $101 million below projections.

Despite the tax burden placed on the legal cannabis industry, we’re seeing bipartisan momentum across cities to incentivise legal entrepreneurship and consumption. Progressive cities like Oakland, San Francisco and Los Angeles understand that exorbitant taxes position the biggest corporate cannabis companies to thrive, while small businesses get squeezed out of the market.

To prevent this, these cities launched cannabis equity programs to help people who were impacted by the failed “War on Drugs” to get a leg up in the growing industry. To protect against unsustainable tax rates and empower equity grantees, the Oakland City Council recently voted to lower the business tax for recreational cannabis enterprises that make less than $500,000 per year, from 10% down to 0.12%. Progressive cities like Oakland realize lower taxes for the time being can actually help the legal market grow and thrive.

The State Assembly has also explored effective solutions. Assembly Bill 286, authored by Assemblyman Rob Bonta and State Treasurer Fiona Ma, proposed a temporary reduction to California’s cannabis excise tax from 15% to 11% and suspension of the cultivation tax altogether through 2022.

Ultimately, the cannabis industry is hamstrung by high taxes but debilitated by a lack of equity. Policymakers must view our industry with an equity lens — equity for entrepreneurs, customers and patients.

Our industry understands we must pay our fair share of taxes, but right now we don’t have that luxury. To gain that equity, call or write to your state representative today to resurface and pass the Bonta Bill (AB286), suspend the cultivation tax and lower the cannabis excise tax until the legal market overtakes the illicit market.


Let’s channel the political will to make the legal cannabis industry look more like the fastest-growing legal industry in the world and less like California’s reality.

 

[momofthegoons]

California Bans Drug Test Masking Products; Cal NORML Calls for Protection of Legal MJ Consumers

July 8, 2019 – Gov. Newsom has signed a little-noticed bill to ban drug-test masking aids such as additives and synthetic urine. The bill, AB 851 by Jim Cooper (Sacramento), passed quietly and unanimously through both houses with no debate or input from opponents.

Cal NORML blasted the bill as a gift to the powerful drug testing industry. “Drug tests have never been FDA proven to be safe or effective for preventing drug abuse or judging employment fitness,” says Cal NORML director Dale Gieringer. “This bill criminalizes products used to protect consumers against an unproven and widely abused technology that wrongly discriminates against legal marijuana users.”

The California Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that employers can summarily fire workers for positive drug tests for marijuana, regardless of medical need. Urine tests can detect marijuana for days to weeks after use; hair tests, which are also protected by AB 851, can detect use for months.

California NORML is calling on the legislature to pass a law banning the use of drug testing to discriminate against legal users of marijuana. Similar legislation has recently been adopted in Nevada and New York City.

AB 851 takes effect as of Jan 1, 2020. At present, manufacturers and distributors of drug testing screens are operating in California.

Read more about Drug Testing and Employment Rights for Marijuana Users in California.

 

[Baron23]

Oh, what a surprise. When faced with punative taxes, citizens tell their politicians to go fuck themselves and shop on black and grey markets. Happens with cigerettes and alcohol also....not to even mention prescription drugs from Canada (which is not a tax issue, per se, but is another example of government incompetence and inaction).

California’s underground market is nearly 3 times larger than legal market

California’s legal cannabis market is on pace to earn $3.1 billion this year, but the state’s decades-old underground market is nearly triple that, on pace for $8.7 billion in revenue.

This is according to the newest numbers from Arcview Market Research and BDS Analytics’ report “California: Lessons From the World’s Largest Cannabis Market,” which was released today. Even though California will see a predicted 23% growth in the market this year, according to The Arcview Group’s CEO Troy Dayton, the state’s best days are still ahead.

“Despite the burdens imposed on the legal market by regulators, with a $2.7 billion gross domestic product [in 2018], California has the world’s largest legal cannabis market and will continue to until federal legalization makes it merely a part of the larger U.S. market,” Dayton said. “At that point, California will assume its usual place in the world economy as a major exporter of agricultural commodities and their derivative products, a technology mecca, and consumer product trendsetters.”

The report also noted California was the first state that saw a drop in sales in the year it transitioned to the adult-use market. Californians spent $500 million less in 2018 than in 2017, following the start of legal sales on Jan. 1, 2018. But this year, the market looks to be on pace to bounce back.

“California companies that survived the dual ‘extinction events’ of 2018 have emerged stronger and well-positioned to grow their market share going forward,” said Tom Adams, managing director and principal analyst for BDS Analytics’ Industry Intelligence group and editor-in-chief for Arcview Market Research. “More than that, they are battle-hardened, and kicked off a merger and acquisition flurry in the first half of 2019 that will allow them to leverage their positions in California to compete across the country.”

Another big takeaway from the report is that people don’t like paying a ridiculous amount of taxes on their cannabis, and that’s not going to change anytime soon.

2019 is expected to see California’s illicit market bring in $8.7 billion in revenue, nearly three times what consumers in the legal market will spend at $3.1 bilion. Californians enjoyed “the hoopla of long-awaited legalization and then quietly returned to traditional sources when they saw after-tax prices reflective of the 77% tax-and-regulatory load the legal market bears,” the report said.

Researchers expect unregulated marijuana purchases to continue to thrive and still make up 53% of all sales in California by 2024. They noted in states with “more supportive” regulators, the illicit share for the market is expected to drop to 30% in the same time frame. It’s worth noting those other markets didn’t have an underground economy with 50 years of infrastructure to compete with like California does.

California’s previous governor, Jerry Brown, had predicted the legal market would generate $643 million in 2018. Brown ended up a bit off the mark. “Actual cannabis-related tax revenue fell short of projections, totaling just over $345 million, with $182 million coming from cannabis-specific excise taxes and $36 million from cultivation taxes,” the report noted.

The report also presented the most up-to-date picture of who is buying cannabis in California. BDS Analytics’ consumer insights research shows that the average legal cannabis consumer is 44 years old, a far cry from claims the medical market was a cover for mostly young healthy men.

Regardless of how old they are, consumers are certainly a part of the cannabis industry, and the authors present a case that they are an underserved community. Oregon has one dispensary for every 5,567 adults and Colorado has one for every 4,420. But in California, there is only one licensed retailer for every 35,147 people over the age of 21. A major contributing factor to that is the many counties and municipalities that have banned cannabis businesses.

In general, the report was a California-specific version of Arcview’s flagship annual report, The State of Legal Cannabis Markets. That has been one of the main measuring points for the growth of the global cannabis industry this decade.

 

[momofthegoons]

California's Largest Legal Weed Farms Face Conflict In Wine Country

A cannabis flower at Glass House Farms in Carpinteria, Calif., is almost ready for harvest. This farm uses greenhouses, allowing for five harvests a year.
Claire Heddles/NPR


The Santa Rita Hills, nestled in Santa Barbara County, are ideal for pinot noir, a notoriously finicky grape. That's why Kathy Joseph came here to plant Fiddlestix Vineyard.

"The plants are over 20 years old, which comes through in the wines we make. The topography is just right; the proximity to the ocean is incredible," Joseph says. "Difficult to find a pinot noir district this good."

Neighboring grape vines extend to the west as far as the eye can see. In the other direction, there's a new neighbor in town. This spring, a cannabis farmer started building hoop houses on the 100-acre parcel. So far, a quarter of the land is growing pot. Joseph has seen plenty of vegetable farms there before.

"We've lived together with other vegetables, lettuces and cauliflower, and broccoli and snap peas, and walnuts very happily," she says.

Kathy Joseph looks out over the recently planted cannabis farm from her ATV. Her pinot noir grapevines are growing to her right.
Claire Heddles/NPR


But this new crop is different. In June, Joseph learned that the fungicide she has been spraying on her grapes for decades could be drifting onto the cannabis. Unlike food crops, cannabis can't be sold if there's any trace of fungicide or pesticide in it,according to state law. So while the county investigates, she's using a more expensive and far less effective spray on the grapevines that are nearest to the cannabis farm.


"We may lose crop because we can't protect it," Joseph says.

Joseph, and other Santa Barbara County residents in the southern city of Carpinteria, say the county has been excessively permissive toward cannabis.

"I have nothing against cannabis. It existed whether it was legal or not legal, and this just allows it to be controlled a little bit more responsibly," Joseph says. "But that isn't what happened."

Vintner Kathy Joseph has learned that the fungicide she has been spraying on her grapes for decades could be drifting onto the cannabis, forcing her to use a more expensive and far less effective spray on the grapevines that are nearest to the cannabis farm.
Claire Heddles/NPR


California passed Proposition 64 in 2016 with 57% of voters in favor of legalizing recreational marijuana, but regulation of cannabis cultivation was left largely up to the counties.

More than half of California's counties decided to ban recreational cannabis cultivation, according to local ordinances.

Of the counties that do permit cannabis cultivation, Santa Barbara has issued the most legal permits in the state. Proposition 64 banned licenses for over 1 acre of land until 2023, but farmers can still "stack" licenses or combine small permits for neighboring plots of land.

 

[momofthegoons]

7 Californians hospitalized in ICU after vaping cannabis or CBD oils

Kings County is warning vape users to avoid buying cannabis e-cigarettes on the street after seven people in Hanford were hospitalized in the intensive care unit with a potentially fatal lung toxin.

The seven suffered pneumonia-like symptoms associated with acute respiratory distress syndrome, according to the alert, issued Wednesday. They include a feeling of not being able to get enough air in one's lungs, rapid breathing, low blood-oxygen level, low blood pressure, extreme fatigue and confusion.


All of the victims had been vaping either cannabis or CBD oils from cartridges purchased at temporary "pop-up shops" in the last month. No infectious agent was immediately identified.

"If you're going to vape THC, get it from a licensed dispensary where you know there's a certain amount of testing required to do," Dr. Milton Teske, a health officer with the Kings County Department of Public Health, told the web site Leafly. "It's going to cost twice as much as the stuff on the street, but you don't want to end up with a life-threatening respiratory condition."

Pop-up shops are unlicensed markets that do not follow any current regulations or safety practices, and usually do not screen their products for contaminants.


According to Leafly, producers import the empty vape cartridges from China and then fill them with raw THC oil cut with agents such as propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, medium-chain triglycerides (MCT) oil or more exotic chemicals.

Teske said six of the Hanford patients were in their 20s and one was a 60-year-old longtime marijuana user who had just tried vaping cartridges for the first time. Two had to be put on mechanical ventilation to save their lives.

Hanford is located outside of Visalia in Central California.

 

[momofthegoons]

America's first restaurant to serve legal marijuana to open in California

A restaurant in California will be offering marijuana to customers as part of their regular menu.

The Lowell Cafe in West Hollywood confirmed to Fox News that they will become America’s first “full-service restaurant and lounge to offer farm-to-table cannabis and cuisine.” To that end, diners over the age of 21 will reportedly be able to enjoy a menu designed to “enhance the cannabis experience.”

The website describes the restaurant as “a welcoming space for those who are cannabis connoisseurs and those who are canna-curious." (Lowell Cafe)


According to their website, Lowell Farms: A Cannabis Cafe was one of eight establishments granted a cannabis consumption license in West Hollywood. There were reportedly over 300 applicants, and Lowell Café states that they were granted the first license.

The cafe will offer a “flower menu,” which they say will change daily "based on seasonal harvests available from our network of family farms.” Guests will also be able to purchase prepackaged cannabis-infused products, although current legislation prevents them from offering any infused dishes.

The cafe will offer a “flower menu,” which they say will change “daily based on seasonal harvests available from our network of family farms.” (Lowell Cafe)


The website describes the restaurant as “a welcoming space for those who are cannabis connoisseurs and those who are canna-curious and looking to experience cannabis in a welcoming atmosphere. There hasn’t been anything like this in existence for over 100 years, dating back to pre-prohibition era cannabis tea pads. We’re excited to set the standard on what a cannabis cafe is and create this experience for the community.”

Chef Andrea Drummer created the menu, which the cafe calls “the first-of-its-kind.” The restaurant says that the menu will be “reflective of California flavors with its farm-to-table experience for both cuisine and cannabis.”

Chef Drummer is also “highly regarded for her ability to pair a strain with a dish that compliments its particular flavor profile,” according to press materials released by the Lowell Cafe.

The Lowell Cafe will open in September and will start taking reservations two weeks before the official opening date (which has not been revealed yet).

 

[Baron23]

They got greedy and are taxing the living shit out of legal MJ and are shocked, just shocked that their constituents are telling the to pound sand up their butt and are buying on the illegal market. There are plenty of examples to show why this will fail to include Prohibition and disparate cigarette taxes back in the day when more people smoked them.

Government and law enforcement were not ever able to stop it in those cases and they will fail again with CA MJ.

Its simple, CA Government....quit fucking raping your citizens on MJ taxes and you might be able to pull a viable regulated legal market out the mess you have made.

What the marijuana industry thinks of California governor’s performance since taking office

California Gov. Gavin Newsom swept into office in 2018 just two years after he was the most high-profile politician to champion adult-use cannabis legalization in the state.

With that history of support for the legal marijuana industry, many in the sector had hoped that soon after Newsom was elected he’d quickly take up some tough issues facing licensed California cannabis firms, including:

• Addressing state MJ taxes that have weighed down business growth and put licensed companies at a huge disadvantage against illicit businesses, which do not pay taxes.
• Inspiring more California cities and counties to allow legal cannabis within their boundaries.
• Providing a continued emphatic voice of support for the legal MJ industry, as he had in the past.

How has he done so far, according to MJ industry representatives?

Not nearly as well as many had hoped is the short answer.

History lesson
Newsom’s connections to marijuana reform date to 2013, when, as lieutenant governor, he led a Blue Ribbon Commission on Marijuana Policy to craft recommendations on how to implement cannabis legalization.

He wrote an op-ed in 2016 calling for recreational MJ legalization, and during one visit to the Emerald Triangle in 2015, Newsom was cheered when he said he wanted to help protect the interests of small MJ farmers.

Newsom spent at least three years developing relationships and learning about California’s marijuana businesses, and he fostered a political image suggesting to many he would be a “warrior” – as one cannabis businesswoman put it – for marijuana industry interests.

Grading Newsom
But in recent months, conversations among MJ industry advocates in the California Capitol have turned more toward what they haven’t seen from Newsom: bold action to help stabilize a flailing legal market.

“I don’t feel like he’s failing, and I don’t think he’s getting an A+,” said Kristin Nevedal, chair of the International Cannabis Farmers Association, when asked to give Newsom a grade on MJ business issues.

Nevedal was also one of the stakeholders who worked closely with Newsom’s Blue Ribbon Commission.

Josh Drayton, communications director for the California Cannabis Industry Association (CCIA), said the Newsom administration has fallen short of what many of its members were hoping for, including support for issues such as lowering state cannabis taxes and persuading more municipalities to opt into the legal MJ industry.

“This is not the administration that we necessarily expected,” Drayton said.

Newsom on record
Since taking office in January, Newsom has largely remained mum on marijuana in general.

During that time, his press office issued three statements that included the word “cannabis” or “marijuana”:

1. An announcement in his state-of-the-state address in February that he would redeploy National Guard troops to pursue trespass MJ grows on public lands.
2. His February appointment of Nicole Elliott as his cannabis industry czar.
3. His signature on a major marijuana reform bill in July.

Drayton, Nevedal and others emphasized there’s only so much that can be expected from a new governor, especially in his first year.

They also hailed the hiring of Elliott, an industry-friendly regulator from San Francisco, and said Lori Ajax, the chief of the Bureau of Cannabis Control, has done great work in developing relationships with the industry.

“Have I lost hope that (Newsom will) be an ally down the road? Absolutely not,” Nevedal said.

“But it’s a sticky wicket to step in with a brand-new administration. … I’m kind of feeling like this has more to do with a first-year administration (finding its footing) versus a failure to be an ally.”

Nevedal did acknowledge, however, there’s a feeling among many of her small farmer colleagues in Northern California that Newsom neglected to follow up on pledges made during the Blue Ribbon Commission years.

To live up to those promises immediately, he would have had to come “out of the gate swinging – which would have been really, really hard (politically),” Nevedal noted.

Mixed opinions
Others in the marijuana industry also had varying takes on Newsom’s performance to date on cannabis industry priorities, with some saying he’s doing as well as can be expected and others expressing serious disappointment.

“For me to be disappointed in Gavin Newsom’s approach to cannabis, I would have had to have a high expectation for him going into office. I never did,” said industry attorney Matt Kumin, who has worked on cannabis social justice issues for years.

He gave Newsom a “B” when asked to grade the governor on MJ industry issues.

Several other sources gave Newsom the same grade.

Industry consultant Ben Bradley echoed Drayton’s sentiment by saying: “He has not been the champion we were expecting.”

“I’m curious to hear, not just talking points, but what is their plan?” Bradley said, noting that Newsom’s administration hasn’t laid out much in the way of specifics on how it intends to replace the gray and black markets with a new, fully legal market.

But longtime political consultant Sean Donahoe said Newsom inherited a complicated and flawed regulatory system for which he’s not to blame.

“To say that he hasn’t delivered on expectations because he hasn’t fixed the unfixable is a lot of sour grapes,” Donahoe said.

“Perhaps we have false expectations of what’s achievable in politics.”

Elliott, the governor’s industry czar, was quick to push back on the idea that Newsom hasn’t performed the way a full-fledged MJ industry ally would.

“If the governor was not an ally, we would not be having this conversation,” Elliott said during a recent interview with Marijuana Business Daily.

She noted that Newsom created the job she holds because he wants to ensure legalization is implemented properly.

“The governor reflected his commitment to address so many of these issues simply by creating this position and by putting it in a space of economic development,” Elliott said.

She added in an email: “It’s unfortunate that CCIA feels the governor hasn’t done enough to show his support for this industry … As (he) has always indicated, getting to that end goal is a process that will take time.”

Elliott also pointed to Assembly Bill 97 as a major legislative victory for both Newsom and the industry, since the measure:

• Extended the lifespan of provisional permits.
• Created a $30,000-a-day civil fine for use against the illicit market.
• Tripled state investments in cannabis social equity programs.

 

[CarolKing]

I like the law where it states you can’t sell your license to someone else. In my state they allow businesses to be sold, whereas the owner is able to sell the business along with the license. The owner can sell to another person and can make a huge profit. This inflates the cost of doing business to anyone who buys later in the game. It keeps prices high IMO.

 

[Baron23]

I like the law where it states you can’t sell your license to someone else.

Yeah, we have that in Maryland and the corporate lawyers are flying rings around our politicians and bureaucrats. What they are doing is not "buying" the license but rather entering into a management agreement that works like this; 1) you have a dispensary with a license and you just opened up; 2) Harvest (or somebody like them), comes in and offers you $3M (which by the by, I have heard is a pretty real number for some of these deal) upfront cash for your store (the space for which is leased, right) and; 3) in return you sign a management agreement where Harvest completely controls the operation and takes like 99% of the future revenue/profit.

So, the license stays the same, but in effect the business was sold and these corps are trying to homogenize the industry which I personally oppose.

Less than brilliant people in Annapolis never saw it coming and didn't even know about it until after the fact. Wow.

 

[CarolKing]

Folks would buy a license for like $1500, I can’t remember the exact amount, it wasn’t much. Be in business a year then sell the license along with the business for 10 times what it’s actually worth. The license is where the goldmine is. I think it’s the same. I don’t think the law has changed as of this year, I better look.

 

[Baron23]

These assholes are talking about Weedmaps? They are going after Weedmaps? Perhaps it can't penetrate their thick politician skulls, but rapacious taxes along with allowing individual municipalities to opt out of any legal MJ activity is the reason why the black market is thriving...all in my never humble opinion.

I'm not sure that they could have fucked this up worse if they tried.

California’s illegal cannabis industry three times bigger than regulated market

It has been nearly three years since California voters overwhelmingly approved a measure legalizing recreational marijuana use, opening the door for boutique pot shops and cannabis bakeries. But a report this week found that the state’s illicit market is still plenty active in its own right.

In fact, according to a report released Wednesday by the United Cannabis Business Association that was reported on by the Los Angeles Times, California’s marijuana illicit market is three times larger than the regulated industry established by the 2016 referendum. The audit found that there remains about 2,835 unlicensed dispensaries and delivery services throughout the state, compared with only 873 licensed marijuana dealers.

The figures were highlighted as part of an effort by the United Cannabis Business Association, which represents licensed pot dealers in California, to crack down on Weedmaps, an app that allows users to locate dispensaries near them.

The group contends that Weedmaps is still rife with listings for illicit marijuana dispensaries, despite the company’s pledge to remove them from the app.

In a letter Wednesday to California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), United Cannabis Business Association president Jerred Kiloh called on regulators to enforce Assembly Bill 97, legislation passed and signed this year that enables the state to levy $30,000 a day fines for unlicensed dealers.
The bill took effect on July 1.

In the letter to Newsom, Kiloh drew attention to the string of recent vaping-related deaths.
“The severity of this situation cannot be underscored. We know too well the dangers of the unlicensed and unregulated market,” Kiloh said. “Just last week, after a series of deaths, the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) formally warned consumers to avoid vapes containing THC. While still under investigation, all 57 cases so far in California have involved purchases from unlicensed “pop-up” shops.”

“This outbreak serves as a tragic reminder of the dangers that the unlicensed industry poses to consumers. Licensed retailers are required to adhere to strict testing mandates that help prevent incidents like this from happening – the reality is, unless you are buying from a legal dispensary there is no guarantee of safety.”
Given the volume of illegal dispensaries present on Weedmaps, Kiloh claimed that the “California could levy fines against the platform of up to $85 million per day” if it were to enforce AB97.

“There’s simply no reason to wait, Californians are in danger,” Kiloh said.
Weedmaps promised to crack down on the illegal dispensaries shown on the platform in an announcement late last month, saying it was “restricting the use of its point of sale, online orders, delivery logistics, and wholesale exchange software-as-a-service (SaaS) platforms to licensed operators exclusively.”

In his letter Wednesday, Kiloh said that the legislation should be enforced to ensure that “Weedmaps’ toothless announcements are followed with real action.”

 

[ataxian]

These assholes are talking about Weedmaps? They are going after Weedmaps? Perhaps it can't penetrate their thick politician skulls, but rapacious taxes along with allowing individual municipalities to opt out of any legal MJ activity is the reason why the black market is thriving...all in my never humble opinion.

I'm not sure that they could have fucked this up worse if they tried.

California’s illegal cannabis industry three times bigger than regulated market

It has been nearly three years since California voters overwhelmingly approved a measure legalizing recreational marijuana use, opening the door for boutique pot shops and cannabis bakeries. But a report this week found that the state’s illicit market is still plenty active in its own right.

In fact, according to a report released Wednesday by the United Cannabis Business Association that was reported on by the Los Angeles Times, California’s marijuana illicit market is three times larger than the regulated industry established by the 2016 referendum. The audit found that there remains about 2,835 unlicensed dispensaries and delivery services throughout the state, compared with only 873 licensed marijuana dealers.

The figures were highlighted as part of an effort by the United Cannabis Business Association, which represents licensed pot dealers in California, to crack down on Weedmaps, an app that allows users to locate dispensaries near them.

The group contends that Weedmaps is still rife with listings for illicit marijuana dispensaries, despite the company’s pledge to remove them from the app.

In a letter Wednesday to California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), United Cannabis Business Association president Jerred Kiloh called on regulators to enforce Assembly Bill 97, legislation passed and signed this year that enables the state to levy $30,000 a day fines for unlicensed dealers.
The bill took effect on July 1.

In the letter to Newsom, Kiloh drew attention to the string of recent vaping-related deaths.
“The severity of this situation cannot be underscored. We know too well the dangers of the unlicensed and unregulated market,” Kiloh said. “Just last week, after a series of deaths, the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) formally warned consumers to avoid vapes containing THC. While still under investigation, all 57 cases so far in California have involved purchases from unlicensed “pop-up” shops.”

“This outbreak serves as a tragic reminder of the dangers that the unlicensed industry poses to consumers. Licensed retailers are required to adhere to strict testing mandates that help prevent incidents like this from happening – the reality is, unless you are buying from a legal dispensary there is no guarantee of safety.”
Given the volume of illegal dispensaries present on Weedmaps, Kiloh claimed that the “California could levy fines against the platform of up to $85 million per day” if it were to enforce AB97.

“There’s simply no reason to wait, Californians are in danger,” Kiloh said.
Weedmaps promised to crack down on the illegal dispensaries shown on the platform in an announcement late last month, saying it was “restricting the use of its point of sale, online orders, delivery logistics, and wholesale exchange software-as-a-service (SaaS) platforms to licensed operators exclusively.”

In his letter Wednesday, Kiloh said that the legislation should be enforced to ensure that “Weedmaps’ toothless announcements are followed with real action.”

The $$$ saved is decent.
However growing your self is 2-stay hidden.
+ COLAS can B had?