ataxian
In a BLACK HOLE!
There is a GOLF Course there very challenging!
Decent land 4 CANNABIS as well.
|
Sponsored by |
|---|
|
|
-
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
- Thread starter CarolKing
- Start date
Decent land 4 CANNABIS as well.
Baron23
Well-Known Member
Oh wait, government was inefficient, unclear, and basically incompetent.....OH, what a surprise.
This subforum is FULL of stories of various levels of government just being as extraordinarily inept.
Los Angeles Cannabis Entrepreneurs File Lawsuit Over Dispensary Approval Process
Potential cannabis business owners in Los Angeles looking to open new shops are suing the city, claiming the process for applying for a license is “flawed.”
The L.A. Times reports that the lawsuit was filed last week by the Social Equity Owners and Workers Association. They are demanding that the city vet all applications based on a first-come-first-served basis or come up with a new system that is more “equal, fair, and transparent.”
Back in September, when 100 new licenses were expected to be awarded in L.A., hundreds rushed to get in first so that their business would be considered. It has since been revealed that some started their applications before the official 10 a.m launch time. Many claimed that the process wasn’t fair and called for an audit to look more into what happened.
The audit revealed that although some people were able to start their applications early, “reasonable and appropriate” steps were taken to make sure there was no unfair advantage. Applications were reportedly pushed back in line to where they should have been, had the applicants started at the correct time.
However, this wasn’t enough for local entrepreneurs, who claimed that the audit revealed that most applicants were told they couldn’t sign on before 10 a.m. In reality, they could; they just couldn’t submit their applications until the start time or deadline.
In response to all this, the Los Angeles Department of Cannabis Regulation issued a report that pointed out what could be changed next time. It suggests tightening criteria for the social equity program, giving priority to those who had applied and been rejected before, and allowing for more delivery and manufacturing businesses. The city has yet to approve these measures.
Although cannabis is clearly a prioritized industry in California, there has been a lot of criticism about how enforcement of legal and illegal business is handled and how licenses are given out, so this latest hiccup comes as little surprise.
This subforum is FULL of stories of various levels of government just being as extraordinarily inept.
Los Angeles Cannabis Entrepreneurs File Lawsuit Over Dispensary Approval Process
Potential cannabis business owners in Los Angeles looking to open new shops are suing the city, claiming the process for applying for a license is “flawed.”
The L.A. Times reports that the lawsuit was filed last week by the Social Equity Owners and Workers Association. They are demanding that the city vet all applications based on a first-come-first-served basis or come up with a new system that is more “equal, fair, and transparent.”
Back in September, when 100 new licenses were expected to be awarded in L.A., hundreds rushed to get in first so that their business would be considered. It has since been revealed that some started their applications before the official 10 a.m launch time. Many claimed that the process wasn’t fair and called for an audit to look more into what happened.
The audit revealed that although some people were able to start their applications early, “reasonable and appropriate” steps were taken to make sure there was no unfair advantage. Applications were reportedly pushed back in line to where they should have been, had the applicants started at the correct time.
However, this wasn’t enough for local entrepreneurs, who claimed that the audit revealed that most applicants were told they couldn’t sign on before 10 a.m. In reality, they could; they just couldn’t submit their applications until the start time or deadline.
In response to all this, the Los Angeles Department of Cannabis Regulation issued a report that pointed out what could be changed next time. It suggests tightening criteria for the social equity program, giving priority to those who had applied and been rejected before, and allowing for more delivery and manufacturing businesses. The city has yet to approve these measures.
Although cannabis is clearly a prioritized industry in California, there has been a lot of criticism about how enforcement of legal and illegal business is handled and how licenses are given out, so this latest hiccup comes as little surprise.
Baron23
Well-Known Member
California Unveils State-Certified Organic Cannabis Plan
The California Department of Food and Agriculture has unveiled its proposal for certifying organic cannabis products where the federal government, due to prohibition, cannot.
Regulators in the California Department of Food and Agriculture have unveiled their OCal program, which will label organically grown cannabis products in a market scorned by federal regulators.
The proposal, which was released last week, would “ensure that cannabis products bearing the OCal seal have been certified to consistent, uniform standards comparable to the National Organic Program,” according to a CDFA statement. California regulators also announced they would be accepting public comment on the proposal until July 7.
Notably, certified products will be allowed to display the OCal seal but still cannot be labeled as “organic.” The “certified organic” label found commonly in grocery stores is regulated by the USDA, which — because it is a federal agency that must obey federal laws — automatically prevents cannabis products from qualifying for the official organic certification.
CDFA heard from some 250 cannabis industry stakeholders while crafting rules for the certification program, Cannabis Wire reports.
“Our hope is that the proposed program will be cost effective enough that the cannabis industry can fully participate,” said Sarah Armstrong, policy chair for the Southern California Coalition.
The California Department of Food and Agriculture has unveiled its proposal for certifying organic cannabis products where the federal government, due to prohibition, cannot.
Regulators in the California Department of Food and Agriculture have unveiled their OCal program, which will label organically grown cannabis products in a market scorned by federal regulators.
The proposal, which was released last week, would “ensure that cannabis products bearing the OCal seal have been certified to consistent, uniform standards comparable to the National Organic Program,” according to a CDFA statement. California regulators also announced they would be accepting public comment on the proposal until July 7.
Notably, certified products will be allowed to display the OCal seal but still cannot be labeled as “organic.” The “certified organic” label found commonly in grocery stores is regulated by the USDA, which — because it is a federal agency that must obey federal laws — automatically prevents cannabis products from qualifying for the official organic certification.
CDFA heard from some 250 cannabis industry stakeholders while crafting rules for the certification program, Cannabis Wire reports.
“Our hope is that the proposed program will be cost effective enough that the cannabis industry can fully participate,” said Sarah Armstrong, policy chair for the Southern California Coalition.
If approved, OCal would be the first organic-comparable state certification program for cannabis products and could set the standard for similar programs in other states.
ataxian
In a BLACK HOLE!
NORML reported that 1-Oz will be 38 dollar’s.
I hope their right!
ClearBlueLou
Well-Known Member
The original marijuana tax was $100 per ounce (Marijuana Tax Act, 1935?)
$38/z, that’s...CIVILIZED
Funky Western Civilization!
$38/z, that’s...CIVILIZED
Funky Western Civilization!
ataxian
In a BLACK HOLE!
Growing with nature is what we did in the 70’s?
Farm’s by the sea?
No need for $!
Born into the family of privilege?
CALIFORNIA was like a book I had my daughter read to me as I medicated with nature’s antidote I call CANNABIS to be CIVILIZED!
The BOOK I was referring is called the GREAT GAB can’t write? (Over medicated most likely?) RIGHT COAST WRITER!
Baron23
Well-Known Member
California’s legal pot industry faces year of decline because of coronavirus, Newsom warns
California’s legal marijuana industry faces a year of declining sales as a result of the pandemic-induced recession despite an initial spike in consumer demand after dispensaries were deemed essential businesses, according to details outlined in Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposed budget.
Newsom projected in January that the state’s cannabis excise tax would bring in $479 million this year and $590 million in the fiscal year starting July 1, but his revised budget now forecasts just $443 million this year and a decline to $435 million next year.
“While similar products like alcohol and tobacco tend to be recession-resistant, the forecast assumes that cannabis businesses will be more negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic,” the budget says. “Cannabis businesses have less access to banking services that could provide liquidity, have a younger consumer base likely to be disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 recession, and still must contend with competition from the black market.”
In an attempt to help the state’s legal pot industry weather a downturn, the Newsom administration has relaxed some restrictions on how cannabis firms operate, deferred license renewal fees and extended the deadline for filing first quarter tax returns.
Industry leaders say they are bracing for economic turmoil caused by the coronavirus pandemic, which led Newsom more than two months ago to issue an order for California residents to stay at home to stem the disease’s spread.
“It’s a pretty dire situation at this point,” said Jerred Kiloh, owner of the Higher Path cannabis store in Sherman Oaks, and president of the United Cannabis Business Assn., which represents many Los Angeles-based retailers.
“The illicit market is just going to have another leg up this year,” he added. “When people have less disposable income they are going to look at the lowest cost option.”
The darker projections are a setback for a market championed by Newsom, who was the leading proponent of Proposition 64, the 2016 ballot measure that legalized the sale of marijuana for recreational purposes in California.
Since the state began licensing growing and selling cannabis in 2018, the legal industry has struggled to overcome impediments that include bans on sales by most California cities, high taxes and competition from a much larger illicit market that can offer lower prices.
But when Newsom issued his stay-at-home order that forced many businesses to close, he exempted marijuana sellers as “essential.”
There was an immediate run on cannabis products as consumers stockpiled pot in anticipation of a possible future shortage amid concern pot shops might also be forced to close.
“We initially saw a spike in sales that was attributed to panic buying,” said Josh Drayton, a spokesman for the California Cannabis Industry Assn., who noted that sales have “leveled out.”
Drayton said the future is “very unpredictable” but that he has not seen enough data to support the idea of a downturn, and others say they think sales will continue to increase.
BDSA, a firm that analyzes industry trends, still thinks California’s market will grow, from $2.9 billion last year to $3.6 billion this year.
Illicit sales totaled $8.8 billion in 2019, according to Tom Adams, principal analyst of the financial research and consulting division of BDSA.
“But slowly and surely we expect [legal sellers] to chip away at that enormous illicit market, which only has after-tax price as a competitive advantage,” Adams said.
California retailers including Kiloh say the governor’s estimate of a decline in cannabis tax revenue is consistent with what they see in the severe, longer term damage the pandemic has inflicted on the state economy.
While the number of individual purchases has climbed, the volume of products purchased is going down, Kiloh said.
Newsom has estimated that the state’s unemployment rate this year will be 18%, and Kiloh said one of the hardest hit groups is young people, including college students, who represent the largest demographic of cannabis customers.
Some 60% of workers ages 16 to 24 have a high risk of unemployment compared with 42% of workers ages 45 to 54, according to a report last month by the Los Angeles nonprofit research group Economic Roundtable.
While the state has begun reopening many parts of the state economy, the governor’s budget proposal predicts that the cannabis industry will continue to struggle. That conclusion is based on assumptions “that recognize an economically fragile consumer base, a persistent illicit market and the continuing challenge the industry faces in accessing traditional banking liquidity solutions,” said Nicole Elliott, the governor’s senior advisor on cannabis.
The industry has also been hurt by a large drop in visitors from outside the state.
“Especially in places like San Francisco, San Diego and Los Angeles, 30% of our business is tourism,” Kiloh said. “When you see a 30% reduction in tourism, that’s big.”
The impact of declining sales would be devastating for an industry that already faces unique challenges, Drayton said.
“As with all businesses, if we do see a decline in sales we can anticipate layoffs, closures and an increased lack of access to regulated, tested, and taxed cannabis,” he said.
Elliott said the state has begun taking steps to help the industry weather tough times. State agencies recently announced that licenses expiring in May and June can receive 60-day deferrals of their license fee payments, which can run into six figures.
“The license fee deferrals are intended to provide immediate financial assistance to state cannabis licensees impacted by COVID-19,” said a statement by the state Bureau of Cannabis Control.
Kiloh noted that the state action only delays the collection of license fees and that cannabis firms still have to come up with the money eventually, even as they struggle in a recession.
State officials said the deferral was offered because the cannabis industry has so far been excluded from federal or banking-dependent assistance for small businesses because cannabis remains a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law.
State agencies have also relaxed rules requiring sales in secured buildings so that pot shops can provide curbside pickup of purchases.
Other rules that can be temporarily waived for businesses that apply include a requirement for a signature from customers when receiving deliveries, allowing retailers to accept expired drivers licenses after the DMV temporarily shuttered field offices due to the pandemic, and permitting the sale of non-cannabis products that are virus related, including hand sanitizer, that previously could not be sold in pot shops.
The state tax agency has also offered payment plans for cannabis businesses struggling to pay sales and use taxes, and extended the deadline by which most operators must file their first-quarter 2020 tax returns.
Elliott also said that if cannabis businesses can find an eligible lender, they may access the $50 million in the IBank’s Disaster Relief Loan Guarantee Program and a similar amount from the Small Business Loan Guarantee Program proposed in the governor’s budget for next year.
Still, the industry is lobbying Congress to access some of the much larger pool of federal financial assistance being offered to other small businesses hurt by the pandemic.
Without federal help, Drayton said, “Our businesses will continue to deal with the same hardships as other small businesses without access to financial relief programs nor the financial tools afforded to other industries.”
California’s legal marijuana industry faces a year of declining sales as a result of the pandemic-induced recession despite an initial spike in consumer demand after dispensaries were deemed essential businesses, according to details outlined in Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposed budget.
Newsom projected in January that the state’s cannabis excise tax would bring in $479 million this year and $590 million in the fiscal year starting July 1, but his revised budget now forecasts just $443 million this year and a decline to $435 million next year.
“While similar products like alcohol and tobacco tend to be recession-resistant, the forecast assumes that cannabis businesses will be more negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic,” the budget says. “Cannabis businesses have less access to banking services that could provide liquidity, have a younger consumer base likely to be disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 recession, and still must contend with competition from the black market.”
In an attempt to help the state’s legal pot industry weather a downturn, the Newsom administration has relaxed some restrictions on how cannabis firms operate, deferred license renewal fees and extended the deadline for filing first quarter tax returns.
Industry leaders say they are bracing for economic turmoil caused by the coronavirus pandemic, which led Newsom more than two months ago to issue an order for California residents to stay at home to stem the disease’s spread.
“It’s a pretty dire situation at this point,” said Jerred Kiloh, owner of the Higher Path cannabis store in Sherman Oaks, and president of the United Cannabis Business Assn., which represents many Los Angeles-based retailers.
“The illicit market is just going to have another leg up this year,” he added. “When people have less disposable income they are going to look at the lowest cost option.”
The darker projections are a setback for a market championed by Newsom, who was the leading proponent of Proposition 64, the 2016 ballot measure that legalized the sale of marijuana for recreational purposes in California.
Since the state began licensing growing and selling cannabis in 2018, the legal industry has struggled to overcome impediments that include bans on sales by most California cities, high taxes and competition from a much larger illicit market that can offer lower prices.
But when Newsom issued his stay-at-home order that forced many businesses to close, he exempted marijuana sellers as “essential.”
There was an immediate run on cannabis products as consumers stockpiled pot in anticipation of a possible future shortage amid concern pot shops might also be forced to close.
“We initially saw a spike in sales that was attributed to panic buying,” said Josh Drayton, a spokesman for the California Cannabis Industry Assn., who noted that sales have “leveled out.”
Drayton said the future is “very unpredictable” but that he has not seen enough data to support the idea of a downturn, and others say they think sales will continue to increase.
BDSA, a firm that analyzes industry trends, still thinks California’s market will grow, from $2.9 billion last year to $3.6 billion this year.
Illicit sales totaled $8.8 billion in 2019, according to Tom Adams, principal analyst of the financial research and consulting division of BDSA.
“But slowly and surely we expect [legal sellers] to chip away at that enormous illicit market, which only has after-tax price as a competitive advantage,” Adams said.
California retailers including Kiloh say the governor’s estimate of a decline in cannabis tax revenue is consistent with what they see in the severe, longer term damage the pandemic has inflicted on the state economy.
While the number of individual purchases has climbed, the volume of products purchased is going down, Kiloh said.
Newsom has estimated that the state’s unemployment rate this year will be 18%, and Kiloh said one of the hardest hit groups is young people, including college students, who represent the largest demographic of cannabis customers.
Some 60% of workers ages 16 to 24 have a high risk of unemployment compared with 42% of workers ages 45 to 54, according to a report last month by the Los Angeles nonprofit research group Economic Roundtable.
While the state has begun reopening many parts of the state economy, the governor’s budget proposal predicts that the cannabis industry will continue to struggle. That conclusion is based on assumptions “that recognize an economically fragile consumer base, a persistent illicit market and the continuing challenge the industry faces in accessing traditional banking liquidity solutions,” said Nicole Elliott, the governor’s senior advisor on cannabis.
The industry has also been hurt by a large drop in visitors from outside the state.
“Especially in places like San Francisco, San Diego and Los Angeles, 30% of our business is tourism,” Kiloh said. “When you see a 30% reduction in tourism, that’s big.”
The impact of declining sales would be devastating for an industry that already faces unique challenges, Drayton said.
“As with all businesses, if we do see a decline in sales we can anticipate layoffs, closures and an increased lack of access to regulated, tested, and taxed cannabis,” he said.
Elliott said the state has begun taking steps to help the industry weather tough times. State agencies recently announced that licenses expiring in May and June can receive 60-day deferrals of their license fee payments, which can run into six figures.
“The license fee deferrals are intended to provide immediate financial assistance to state cannabis licensees impacted by COVID-19,” said a statement by the state Bureau of Cannabis Control.
Kiloh noted that the state action only delays the collection of license fees and that cannabis firms still have to come up with the money eventually, even as they struggle in a recession.
State officials said the deferral was offered because the cannabis industry has so far been excluded from federal or banking-dependent assistance for small businesses because cannabis remains a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law.
State agencies have also relaxed rules requiring sales in secured buildings so that pot shops can provide curbside pickup of purchases.
Other rules that can be temporarily waived for businesses that apply include a requirement for a signature from customers when receiving deliveries, allowing retailers to accept expired drivers licenses after the DMV temporarily shuttered field offices due to the pandemic, and permitting the sale of non-cannabis products that are virus related, including hand sanitizer, that previously could not be sold in pot shops.
The state tax agency has also offered payment plans for cannabis businesses struggling to pay sales and use taxes, and extended the deadline by which most operators must file their first-quarter 2020 tax returns.
Elliott also said that if cannabis businesses can find an eligible lender, they may access the $50 million in the IBank’s Disaster Relief Loan Guarantee Program and a similar amount from the Small Business Loan Guarantee Program proposed in the governor’s budget for next year.
Still, the industry is lobbying Congress to access some of the much larger pool of federal financial assistance being offered to other small businesses hurt by the pandemic.
Without federal help, Drayton said, “Our businesses will continue to deal with the same hardships as other small businesses without access to financial relief programs nor the financial tools afforded to other industries.”
ataxian
In a BLACK HOLE!
Is that why CANNABIS is getting more affordable?
Baron23
Well-Known Member
Dunno, my friend...to me, the west coast has always been less expensive, by far.
ataxian
In a BLACK HOLE!
When I Was Thinking about HAWAII it was so demonized? (CANNABIS) we called it differently before we learned about word’s?
CANNABIS was a weed for farmer’s to deal with?
Baron23
Well-Known Member
Why California’s Legal Cannabis Sales Could Fall This Year
On June 3, The Los Angeles Times reported that the budget proposed by Governor Gavin Newsom projected a decline in California’s cannabis sales. COVID-19 induced a recession in the US economy, which could drag cannabis sales down. At the beginning of this year, Newsom expected the excise tax on cannabis to bring in $479 million this year. For the fiscal year starting on July 1, he expects an excise tax of $590 million. Meanwhile, Newsom cut his forecasts to $443 million for this year due to lower cannabis sales. For the next year, he expects the excise tax to fall to $435 million.
The budget proposal added that marijuana isn’t recession-resistant like other defensive stocks including alcohol and tobacco. The proposal said that the lack of access to banking services for marijuana companies, the higher impact of job losses on the younger population, and thriving black market sales could drag cannabis sales down.
Since marijuana is prohibited by the federal government, businesses can’t get any federal or banking-dependent assistance. However, The Los Angeles Times added that Newsom’s administration provided some operating relaxations and deferred license renewal fees for cannabis licensees. The administration extended the deadline for cannabis companies to file their tax returns for the first quarter.
California announced a 60-day deferral for licenses expiring in May and June. The state relaxed its previous rule that retailers should only operate through secured buildings. Now, retailers can provide curbside pickup services. The state also waived some of the requirements, which include a mandatory customer signature at the time of delivery, accepting expired driving licenses, and allowing retailers to sell non-cannabis products, such as sanitizers.
Cannabis sector’s performance in 2020
The cannabis sector has underperformed the broader equity markets. The ETFMG Alternative Harvest ETF (NYSE:MJ) has fallen by 18.2% YTD. Meanwhile, the S&P 500 Index has declined by 3.7% during the same period. The lower-than-expected Cannabis 2.0 demand, increasing operating losses, pricing pressure, and robust black market sales have all been a drag on the marijuana sector. However, marijuana sales showed some strong growth before the lockdown. Consumers stockpiled products in anticipation of store closures and a marijuana shortage. However, Newsom’s proposal, which expects marijuana sales to fall, could impact the sector.
Canopy Growth (TSE:WEED), Aurora Cannabis (NYSE:ACB), and Aphria (NYSE:APHA) are some of the prominent players in the marijuana sector. Canopy Growth, Aurora Cannabis, and Aphria have all fallen by 18.0%, 43.2%, and 11.8% YTD, respectively. Last month, Aurora Cannabis reported an impressive third-quarter performance. However, Canopy Growth reported a lower-than-expected performance in the comparable quarter.
On June 3, The Los Angeles Times reported that the budget proposed by Governor Gavin Newsom projected a decline in California’s cannabis sales. COVID-19 induced a recession in the US economy, which could drag cannabis sales down. At the beginning of this year, Newsom expected the excise tax on cannabis to bring in $479 million this year. For the fiscal year starting on July 1, he expects an excise tax of $590 million. Meanwhile, Newsom cut his forecasts to $443 million for this year due to lower cannabis sales. For the next year, he expects the excise tax to fall to $435 million.
The budget proposal added that marijuana isn’t recession-resistant like other defensive stocks including alcohol and tobacco. The proposal said that the lack of access to banking services for marijuana companies, the higher impact of job losses on the younger population, and thriving black market sales could drag cannabis sales down.
Since marijuana is prohibited by the federal government, businesses can’t get any federal or banking-dependent assistance. However, The Los Angeles Times added that Newsom’s administration provided some operating relaxations and deferred license renewal fees for cannabis licensees. The administration extended the deadline for cannabis companies to file their tax returns for the first quarter.
California announced a 60-day deferral for licenses expiring in May and June. The state relaxed its previous rule that retailers should only operate through secured buildings. Now, retailers can provide curbside pickup services. The state also waived some of the requirements, which include a mandatory customer signature at the time of delivery, accepting expired driving licenses, and allowing retailers to sell non-cannabis products, such as sanitizers.
Cannabis sector’s performance in 2020
The cannabis sector has underperformed the broader equity markets. The ETFMG Alternative Harvest ETF (NYSE:MJ) has fallen by 18.2% YTD. Meanwhile, the S&P 500 Index has declined by 3.7% during the same period. The lower-than-expected Cannabis 2.0 demand, increasing operating losses, pricing pressure, and robust black market sales have all been a drag on the marijuana sector. However, marijuana sales showed some strong growth before the lockdown. Consumers stockpiled products in anticipation of store closures and a marijuana shortage. However, Newsom’s proposal, which expects marijuana sales to fall, could impact the sector.
Canopy Growth (TSE:WEED), Aurora Cannabis (NYSE:ACB), and Aphria (NYSE:APHA) are some of the prominent players in the marijuana sector. Canopy Growth, Aurora Cannabis, and Aphria have all fallen by 18.0%, 43.2%, and 11.8% YTD, respectively. Last month, Aurora Cannabis reported an impressive third-quarter performance. However, Canopy Growth reported a lower-than-expected performance in the comparable quarter.
CarolKing
Always in search of the perfect vaporizer
People in CA have continued to grow their own or buy from their friends that grow. They want cheaper weed. Habits are hard to change. It comes down to price and too many hoops to jump through to bother with for some. When you can buy an ounce on the black market for $50 - 100 in some areas. Also those that are in need (sick) can get it for free, you need to know the right folks.
California Court Returns 1,800 Pounds of Cannabis Oil and Cash After Bad Bust
It is still not clear how or why the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department got confused and confiscated perfectly legal cannabis. But thankfully courts have proven to have a far better understanding of local weed laws than cops.
In January, officers from the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department arrived at Arroyo Verde farms and started poking around. Before the day was done, the cops claimed the business was illegally moving cannabis to the black market and confiscated 1,800 pounds of crude cannabis oil and $620,000. This week, though, a superior court judge offered a stern rebuke of law enforcement efforts and ordered sheriffs to immediately return the cannabis and the cash.
According to Marijuana Business Daily, Judge Thomas Anderle determined that the sheriff’s department had acted entirely out of turn, and presented no evidence to prove the weed was illegal.
“The record here shows that a California licensed cannabis operator committed no crime,” Judge Anderle ruled. “Much less intentionally committed a crime.”
Earlier this year, the Arroyo Verde seizure was covered in depth by the Los Angeles Times as an example of how Santa Barbara’s rapidly growing cannabis industry was ripe for illegal activity. But while sheriffs and the Times painted Arroyo Verde’s cannabis oil vats as a shady secret hidden from the rest of their operation, a couple of months in court demonstrated that the crude oil had been legally produced, was already sold, and was simply waiting to be legally transferred.
John Armstrong, attorney for Procan Labs, the company that had purchased the crude oil and was storing it at Arroyo Verde, said that the police-delayed transfer of legally-purchased goods nearly put his client out of business.
“Licensed cannabis operators should not be at risk of losing their business because police mistake lawful cannabis operations for illegal black-market activities,” Armstrong said. “Unless the seized cannabis oil is returned to Procan expeditiously, the company will likely be forced to close its business.”
It is still not clear how or why the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department got confused and confiscated perfectly legal cannabis. But as the Golden State weed market expands — and black market busts continue — courts have proven to have a far better understanding of local weed laws than cops.
“This decision shows that our courts will side with the cannabis industry when provided evidence of good-faith efforts to comply with state regulations,” Armstrong said.
It is still not clear how or why the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department got confused and confiscated perfectly legal cannabis. But thankfully courts have proven to have a far better understanding of local weed laws than cops.
In January, officers from the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department arrived at Arroyo Verde farms and started poking around. Before the day was done, the cops claimed the business was illegally moving cannabis to the black market and confiscated 1,800 pounds of crude cannabis oil and $620,000. This week, though, a superior court judge offered a stern rebuke of law enforcement efforts and ordered sheriffs to immediately return the cannabis and the cash.
According to Marijuana Business Daily, Judge Thomas Anderle determined that the sheriff’s department had acted entirely out of turn, and presented no evidence to prove the weed was illegal.
“The record here shows that a California licensed cannabis operator committed no crime,” Judge Anderle ruled. “Much less intentionally committed a crime.”
Earlier this year, the Arroyo Verde seizure was covered in depth by the Los Angeles Times as an example of how Santa Barbara’s rapidly growing cannabis industry was ripe for illegal activity. But while sheriffs and the Times painted Arroyo Verde’s cannabis oil vats as a shady secret hidden from the rest of their operation, a couple of months in court demonstrated that the crude oil had been legally produced, was already sold, and was simply waiting to be legally transferred.
John Armstrong, attorney for Procan Labs, the company that had purchased the crude oil and was storing it at Arroyo Verde, said that the police-delayed transfer of legally-purchased goods nearly put his client out of business.
“Licensed cannabis operators should not be at risk of losing their business because police mistake lawful cannabis operations for illegal black-market activities,” Armstrong said. “Unless the seized cannabis oil is returned to Procan expeditiously, the company will likely be forced to close its business.”
It is still not clear how or why the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department got confused and confiscated perfectly legal cannabis. But as the Golden State weed market expands — and black market busts continue — courts have proven to have a far better understanding of local weed laws than cops.
“This decision shows that our courts will side with the cannabis industry when provided evidence of good-faith efforts to comply with state regulations,” Armstrong said.
ataxian
In a BLACK HOLE!
Santa Barbara is where RINCON is (SURF SPOT)
GSC form the COOKIE BROTHER’s (North of S.F.) Made the cross as you probably know? SANTA BARBARA grow’s GSC very decent.
I am toking on MYSTERY CANNABIS (feel’s decent) no name CANNABIS!
Just enjoying the PALE BLUE DOT the member’s of this web site do as well I imagine?
Last edited:
Baron23
Well-Known Member
This State Is Home To The Largest Marijuana Black Market
An increased tax on flower has forced legally operating dispensaries to increase their prices, which makes it hard for them to compete with the black market.
In California, medical marijuana has been legal since 1996. In 2018, recreational use became legal in the state as well. With that, the state became the largest legal marijuana market in the world, according to date from BDS Analytics.
Unfortunately, this isn’t the only way California tops the charts in the world of cannabis. The state also has the largest marijuana black market in the world.
The Numbers: Black Market Marijuana in California
In 2018, law enforcement officials in California reported destroying 1.6 million marijuana plants because they were illegally grown, according to The New York Times. What does this mean for the financials of the industry? Halfway through 2019, black market sales were projected to reach $8.7 billion in California, according to the LA Times. Meanwhile, legal sales were on track to reach a little over one third of that number at $3.1 billion.
The black market has a real cost for the state as a whole as well as for entrepreneurs in the industry. When California first legalized marijuana, tax revenue was predicted to reach $643 million during the first year of legal sales, according to BDS Analytics. In reality, the state only took in $345 million that year.
Take a look a MedMen as an example of how the illicit market is hurting dispensaries that are sticking with the legal route. By the time the second half of 2018 came around, this major retail chain was struggle to make ends meet. The reason? They couldn’t compete with the low prices being offered by illegal sellers. Meanwhile, other retailers report the frustration of competing with unlicensed dispensaries operating in plain sight.
Behind the Thriving Marijuana Black Market
It isn’t a mystery why black market marijuana is thriving in California. First, we know that licensed dispensaries are facing high taxes on everything they sell. As recently as January 2020, the state increased taxes on the flower from $9.25 to $9.65 per dry ounce and the leaf from $2.75 to $2.84 per dry ounce, according to a notice from the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. This has forced legally operating dispensaries to increase their prices, which makes it hard for them to compete with the black market.
There is also the issue of availability. The majority of California’s illicit weed isn’t even used within the state. Instead, the black market is feeding illegal sales in states where recreational sales remain illegal, according to Politico. And, within the state, the opening of legal dispensaries has been slow with a concentration of locations in specific areas while other areas have few or no dispensaries.
What does the future hold for the black market in California? It doesn’t look great, especially if things don’t change within the legal industry. Researchers predict that illegal marijuana will still claim 54% of sales in 2024 in California, while other legal states are predicted to see illegal sales to only account for 30% of cannabis income.
An increased tax on flower has forced legally operating dispensaries to increase their prices, which makes it hard for them to compete with the black market.
In California, medical marijuana has been legal since 1996. In 2018, recreational use became legal in the state as well. With that, the state became the largest legal marijuana market in the world, according to date from BDS Analytics.
Unfortunately, this isn’t the only way California tops the charts in the world of cannabis. The state also has the largest marijuana black market in the world.
The Numbers: Black Market Marijuana in California
In 2018, law enforcement officials in California reported destroying 1.6 million marijuana plants because they were illegally grown, according to The New York Times. What does this mean for the financials of the industry? Halfway through 2019, black market sales were projected to reach $8.7 billion in California, according to the LA Times. Meanwhile, legal sales were on track to reach a little over one third of that number at $3.1 billion.
The black market has a real cost for the state as a whole as well as for entrepreneurs in the industry. When California first legalized marijuana, tax revenue was predicted to reach $643 million during the first year of legal sales, according to BDS Analytics. In reality, the state only took in $345 million that year.
Take a look a MedMen as an example of how the illicit market is hurting dispensaries that are sticking with the legal route. By the time the second half of 2018 came around, this major retail chain was struggle to make ends meet. The reason? They couldn’t compete with the low prices being offered by illegal sellers. Meanwhile, other retailers report the frustration of competing with unlicensed dispensaries operating in plain sight.
Behind the Thriving Marijuana Black Market
It isn’t a mystery why black market marijuana is thriving in California. First, we know that licensed dispensaries are facing high taxes on everything they sell. As recently as January 2020, the state increased taxes on the flower from $9.25 to $9.65 per dry ounce and the leaf from $2.75 to $2.84 per dry ounce, according to a notice from the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. This has forced legally operating dispensaries to increase their prices, which makes it hard for them to compete with the black market.
There is also the issue of availability. The majority of California’s illicit weed isn’t even used within the state. Instead, the black market is feeding illegal sales in states where recreational sales remain illegal, according to Politico. And, within the state, the opening of legal dispensaries has been slow with a concentration of locations in specific areas while other areas have few or no dispensaries.
What does the future hold for the black market in California? It doesn’t look great, especially if things don’t change within the legal industry. Researchers predict that illegal marijuana will still claim 54% of sales in 2024 in California, while other legal states are predicted to see illegal sales to only account for 30% of cannabis income.
ataxian
In a BLACK HOLE!
Black Market was the business model?This State Is Home To The Largest Marijuana Black Market
An increased tax on flower has forced legally operating dispensaries to increase their prices, which makes it hard for them to compete with the black market.
In California, medical marijuana has been legal since 1996. In 2018, recreational use became legal in the state as well. With that, the state became the largest legal marijuana market in the world, according to date from BDS Analytics.
Unfortunately, this isn’t the only way California tops the charts in the world of cannabis. The state also has the largest marijuana black market in the world.
The Numbers: Black Market Marijuana in California
In 2018, law enforcement officials in California reported destroying 1.6 million marijuana plants because they were illegally grown, according to The New York Times. What does this mean for the financials of the industry? Halfway through 2019, black market sales were projected to reach $8.7 billion in California, according to the LA Times. Meanwhile, legal sales were on track to reach a little over one third of that number at $3.1 billion.
The black market has a real cost for the state as a whole as well as for entrepreneurs in the industry. When California first legalized marijuana, tax revenue was predicted to reach $643 million during the first year of legal sales, according to BDS Analytics. In reality, the state only took in $345 million that year.
Take a look a MedMen as an example of how the illicit market is hurting dispensaries that are sticking with the legal route. By the time the second half of 2018 came around, this major retail chain was struggle to make ends meet. The reason? They couldn’t compete with the low prices being offered by illegal sellers. Meanwhile, other retailers report the frustration of competing with unlicensed dispensaries operating in plain sight.
Behind the Thriving Marijuana Black Market
It isn’t a mystery why black market marijuana is thriving in California. First, we know that licensed dispensaries are facing high taxes on everything they sell. As recently as January 2020, the state increased taxes on the flower from $9.25 to $9.65 per dry ounce and the leaf from $2.75 to $2.84 per dry ounce, according to a notice from the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. This has forced legally operating dispensaries to increase their prices, which makes it hard for them to compete with the black market.
There is also the issue of availability. The majority of California’s illicit weed isn’t even used within the state. Instead, the black market is feeding illegal sales in states where recreational sales remain illegal, according to Politico. And, within the state, the opening of legal dispensaries has been slow with a concentration of locations in specific areas while other areas have few or no dispensaries.
What does the future hold for the black market in California? It doesn’t look great, especially if things don’t change within the legal industry. Researchers predict that illegal marijuana will still claim 54% of sales in 2024 in California, while other legal states are predicted to see illegal sales to only account for 30% of cannabis income.
Legalization is lowering the cost!
Scotch drinking law maker’s are out of touch!
Baron23
Well-Known Member
L.A. proposes overhaul of ailing legal marijuana market, including social-equity programs
A Los Angeles City Council committee Tuesday approved a series of changes to reset the city’s troubled legal marijuana market, including bolstering programs intended to help operators who suffered during the nation’s long-running war on drugs.
Los Angeles was once seen as a potential showcase for the industry, but that has never squared with the reality on the street: illegal shops continue to flourish, while licensed companies complain that just about everything costs too much and takes too long when dealing with City Hall.
Meanwhile, one of the expected pillars of the city’s legal system — programs to assist those working in the business who were arrested or imprisoned during the war on drugs, including many people of color— has been slow to take shape.
The proposed revisions were greeted with a mix of applause and confusion.
They ranged from minor moves, such as tweaking a definition to match language in state law, to potentially major ones, such as limiting delivery licenses until 2025 only to businesses that meet so-called social-equity benchmarks. Those programs are aimed at helping operators who were arrested or convicted of a marijuana-related offense and lower-income residents who live, or have lived, in neighborhoods marked by high marijuana arrest rates.
The city’s top cannabis regulator, Cat Packer, called the changes urgent. She noted the industry and the city have been buffeted by the coronavirus crisis, an economic downturn and unrest over racial injustice. Meanwhile, marijuana remains illegal at the federal level and big banks typically refuse to do business with pot companies because of the legal conflict between state and federal law.
The intersection “between cannabis policy and racial injustice is clear to me,” Packer said. “Black and brown communities … have been disproportionately impacted, disproportionately policed, and we made a commitment to actively acknowledge those harms and address the harms of the drug war.”
Adam Spiker, executive director of the industry group Southern California Coalition, called the proposals a “mixed bag.” While well intended, he said placing an inflexible limit on who could qualify for a delivery license is “open to a lot of problems” since it could leave out longstanding operators deeply enmeshed in the industry.
“I think that creates more problems than solutions,” he said.
How the city issues licenses — and who gets them — has been at issue. In April, a lawsuit was filed against the city by license applicants claiming its process was flawed.
Other proposed changes approved by the Rules Committee would permit businesses to relocate while being licensed, clarify what employees are required to have background checks and streamline the application process.
Prior to the vote, the committee heard from a long line of industry officials and other speakers who alternately praised the proposals or depicted the city licensing system as dysfunctional.
A Los Angeles City Council committee Tuesday approved a series of changes to reset the city’s troubled legal marijuana market, including bolstering programs intended to help operators who suffered during the nation’s long-running war on drugs.
Los Angeles was once seen as a potential showcase for the industry, but that has never squared with the reality on the street: illegal shops continue to flourish, while licensed companies complain that just about everything costs too much and takes too long when dealing with City Hall.
Meanwhile, one of the expected pillars of the city’s legal system — programs to assist those working in the business who were arrested or imprisoned during the war on drugs, including many people of color— has been slow to take shape.
The proposed revisions were greeted with a mix of applause and confusion.
They ranged from minor moves, such as tweaking a definition to match language in state law, to potentially major ones, such as limiting delivery licenses until 2025 only to businesses that meet so-called social-equity benchmarks. Those programs are aimed at helping operators who were arrested or convicted of a marijuana-related offense and lower-income residents who live, or have lived, in neighborhoods marked by high marijuana arrest rates.
The city’s top cannabis regulator, Cat Packer, called the changes urgent. She noted the industry and the city have been buffeted by the coronavirus crisis, an economic downturn and unrest over racial injustice. Meanwhile, marijuana remains illegal at the federal level and big banks typically refuse to do business with pot companies because of the legal conflict between state and federal law.
The intersection “between cannabis policy and racial injustice is clear to me,” Packer said. “Black and brown communities … have been disproportionately impacted, disproportionately policed, and we made a commitment to actively acknowledge those harms and address the harms of the drug war.”
Adam Spiker, executive director of the industry group Southern California Coalition, called the proposals a “mixed bag.” While well intended, he said placing an inflexible limit on who could qualify for a delivery license is “open to a lot of problems” since it could leave out longstanding operators deeply enmeshed in the industry.
“I think that creates more problems than solutions,” he said.
How the city issues licenses — and who gets them — has been at issue. In April, a lawsuit was filed against the city by license applicants claiming its process was flawed.
Other proposed changes approved by the Rules Committee would permit businesses to relocate while being licensed, clarify what employees are required to have background checks and streamline the application process.
Prior to the vote, the committee heard from a long line of industry officials and other speakers who alternately praised the proposals or depicted the city licensing system as dysfunctional.
Baron23
Well-Known Member
I'm going to bite my tongue and let the information in this this article stand on its own merits or lack thereof.
Big changes in Los Angeles marijuana licensing: Q&A with cannabis czar Cat Packer
As executive director of the Los Angeles Department of Cannabis Regulation, Cat Packer has overseen one of the most turbulent marijuana licensing programs in the nation since being appointed by Mayor Eric Garcetti nearly three years ago.
While L.A.’s cannabis licensing seems to have gone off the rails since allegations of corruption arose over 100 social equity retail permits last fall, Packer hopes to get the program back on track through an overhaul of the licensing and social equity programs.
In mid-June, Packer sent a series of recommendations to the City Council, which gave them final approval on July 1. And the mayor is expected to sign off on the recommendations this week.
One of the biggest changes Packer confirmed is that the 100 retail permits from last fall – for which there were 802 applicants – will be increased to 200 storefront licenses, doubling the number of winners from the September licensing round.
There’s no timeline, however, for when those license winners will be allowed to open their doors, Packer confirmed in a wide-ranging interview with Marijuana Business Daily.
But the numbers alone are a major shift, given that there are currently only 188 licensed shops in the city.
What do you view as the most substantive changes that are being adopted, and what do you hope will be the practical impacts?
A lot of what I’m going to articulate … were in the reports. Those policy objectives were:
One of the policy objectives we had was to clarify the process for applicants who were reflecting a finding of public convenience or necessity; that’s the process that applicants apply for licenses in areas that had reached their limit.
Those are the specific changes and policy objectives we had.
Overall, there was a revision and reorganization of other sections of the licensing program, but that was more just to streamline the process.
What about changes to the social equity program?
One of the most significant and impactful amendments is that we are limiting retail and delivery opportunity to only social equity applicants until Jan. 1, 2025.
We’ve also revised our eligibility criteria for the social equity program, but we’re allowing people to participate in the program based on the original criteria or based on the new criteria.
Part of the reason we have this new criteria is we felt the original criteria was overly broad.
We wanted to redefine how we’re defining disproportionately impacted areas, so report No. 3 was this expanded social equity analysis that identified 151 police reporting districts that were disproportionately impacted by cannabis arrests.
Those are going to be the new disproportionately impacted areas as it relates to the new eligibility criteria, and the criteria itself will allow folks to participate in the social equity program if they meet any two of the following three criteria:
What about the lottery for some future licenses?
We have more narrow criteria for the lottery. That’s, of course, another significant change, that Phase 3, Round 2 – in which approximately 150 retail licenses will be available to social equity applicants.
We’re going to select those applicants through a lottery process rather than through a first-come, first-served online process.
The way that the criteria for this lottery is set up is folks would have to have a California cannabis arrest or conviction and either be low income or live in a disproportionately impacted area.
So it requires an arrest or conviction, plus one, for the lottery.
What’s new is the Council adopted an amendment that would allow for an additional 100 applications to be processed in this round (Phase 3 retail, Round 1, the round for which 802 applications were submitted in September).
What else should cannabis stakeholders know about the licensing and social equity changes?
The only other policy objective … is the amendment we made to the definition of equity share.
We had a lot of feedback from stakeholders about what they were calling predatory practices in some of the contracts that social equity applicants were signing, either with investors or other owners.
And part of what we did in our recommendation is to clarify and strengthen that definition of equity share. It was previously just a couple of lines; now it’s multiple pages in our cannabis ordinances.
The definition of equity share still maintains a foundational requirement around making sure the equity applicant has the required profits, voting rights and control of the business.
But we really wanted to focus on the concept of unconditional ownership.
The new definition prohibits the divestment or relinquishment of any part of the social equity applicant’s requisite equity share under any circumstances.
We expanded the definition to more appropriately address profits and payments.
We are requiring the equity applicant be offered the highest officer position in the business, or another individual that’s appointed by mutual agreement of the parties.
What’s the reasoning for allowing only social equity applicants to get retail licenses for five years?
Our goal is the tangible improvement to both our licensing and social equity programs. We recognize there’s a high demand, particularly for the retail licenses, delivery included.
But the reality is that our social equity program is not for non-social equity participants. It’s for communities that were most impacted by the war on drugs.
Will non-social equity applicants be able to apply for other types of licenses?
Non-social equity applicants will still be able to apply for distribution, testing, non-volatile manufacturing, volatile manufacturing.
Big changes in Los Angeles marijuana licensing: Q&A with cannabis czar Cat Packer
As executive director of the Los Angeles Department of Cannabis Regulation, Cat Packer has overseen one of the most turbulent marijuana licensing programs in the nation since being appointed by Mayor Eric Garcetti nearly three years ago.
While L.A.’s cannabis licensing seems to have gone off the rails since allegations of corruption arose over 100 social equity retail permits last fall, Packer hopes to get the program back on track through an overhaul of the licensing and social equity programs.
In mid-June, Packer sent a series of recommendations to the City Council, which gave them final approval on July 1. And the mayor is expected to sign off on the recommendations this week.
One of the biggest changes Packer confirmed is that the 100 retail permits from last fall – for which there were 802 applicants – will be increased to 200 storefront licenses, doubling the number of winners from the September licensing round.
There’s no timeline, however, for when those license winners will be allowed to open their doors, Packer confirmed in a wide-ranging interview with Marijuana Business Daily.
But the numbers alone are a major shift, given that there are currently only 188 licensed shops in the city.
What do you view as the most substantive changes that are being adopted, and what do you hope will be the practical impacts?
A lot of what I’m going to articulate … were in the reports. Those policy objectives were:
- To create a process for the issuance of temporary approval to all applicants.
- To create a process that would allow all businesses to relocate.
- To allow for other application modifications we felt were necessary.
One of the policy objectives we had was to clarify the process for applicants who were reflecting a finding of public convenience or necessity; that’s the process that applicants apply for licenses in areas that had reached their limit.
Those are the specific changes and policy objectives we had.
Overall, there was a revision and reorganization of other sections of the licensing program, but that was more just to streamline the process.
What about changes to the social equity program?
One of the most significant and impactful amendments is that we are limiting retail and delivery opportunity to only social equity applicants until Jan. 1, 2025.
We’ve also revised our eligibility criteria for the social equity program, but we’re allowing people to participate in the program based on the original criteria or based on the new criteria.
Part of the reason we have this new criteria is we felt the original criteria was overly broad.
We wanted to redefine how we’re defining disproportionately impacted areas, so report No. 3 was this expanded social equity analysis that identified 151 police reporting districts that were disproportionately impacted by cannabis arrests.
Those are going to be the new disproportionately impacted areas as it relates to the new eligibility criteria, and the criteria itself will allow folks to participate in the social equity program if they meet any two of the following three criteria:
- If they are low income – and it’s important to note we did change the definition of “income” because we wanted to more appropriately capture and consider wealth.
- Any arrest or conviction for cannabis.
- Or (those) living in this newly defined disproportionately impacted area.
What about the lottery for some future licenses?
We have more narrow criteria for the lottery. That’s, of course, another significant change, that Phase 3, Round 2 – in which approximately 150 retail licenses will be available to social equity applicants.
We’re going to select those applicants through a lottery process rather than through a first-come, first-served online process.
The way that the criteria for this lottery is set up is folks would have to have a California cannabis arrest or conviction and either be low income or live in a disproportionately impacted area.
So it requires an arrest or conviction, plus one, for the lottery.
What’s new is the Council adopted an amendment that would allow for an additional 100 applications to be processed in this round (Phase 3 retail, Round 1, the round for which 802 applications were submitted in September).
What else should cannabis stakeholders know about the licensing and social equity changes?
The only other policy objective … is the amendment we made to the definition of equity share.
We had a lot of feedback from stakeholders about what they were calling predatory practices in some of the contracts that social equity applicants were signing, either with investors or other owners.
And part of what we did in our recommendation is to clarify and strengthen that definition of equity share. It was previously just a couple of lines; now it’s multiple pages in our cannabis ordinances.
The definition of equity share still maintains a foundational requirement around making sure the equity applicant has the required profits, voting rights and control of the business.
But we really wanted to focus on the concept of unconditional ownership.
The new definition prohibits the divestment or relinquishment of any part of the social equity applicant’s requisite equity share under any circumstances.
We expanded the definition to more appropriately address profits and payments.
We are requiring the equity applicant be offered the highest officer position in the business, or another individual that’s appointed by mutual agreement of the parties.
What’s the reasoning for allowing only social equity applicants to get retail licenses for five years?
Our goal is the tangible improvement to both our licensing and social equity programs. We recognize there’s a high demand, particularly for the retail licenses, delivery included.
But the reality is that our social equity program is not for non-social equity participants. It’s for communities that were most impacted by the war on drugs.
Will non-social equity applicants be able to apply for other types of licenses?
Non-social equity applicants will still be able to apply for distribution, testing, non-volatile manufacturing, volatile manufacturing.
CarolKing
Always in search of the perfect vaporizer
CA had voted for legal cannabis 2016 this fall. Started switching over in 2018 from medical only. It seems to be taking a long time IMO. It’s hard to have legal cannabis that will be successful when they have such a large black market. I don’t understand why some of the illegal shops are still open? Maybe they keep moving around?
But at other dispensaries, prices remain just as low as before. You can still inspect the buds up-close, probably see them weighed, and they’ll likely even give you a free joint just for discovering their shop. So if you’re a patron just looking for a place to get a price-conscious bag, it’d be an easy decision to choose between the two types of dispensaries in California—who picks expensive and uptight over reasonably priced and chilled-out?
However, if you were to choose that second shop, you’d be breaking the law—it’s an unlicensed illegal dispensary. So how are cannabis lovers in California supposed to know which is which? And, does it matter?
Related
Here’s why there are so few legal cannabis stores in Los Angeles
Legal compliance in the Wild West of cannabis
In California, the amount of unlicensed illegal cannabis dispensaries is estimated to be over 3 times higher than the amount of legal ones. Between a bureaucratic nightmare with licensing, including stunning fees, limited availability, and other issues, going legal in California isn’t easy or cheap. This has resulted in a state filled with dispensaries that were previously legal for medical patients but are now illegal.
Many people risked everything they had to start a legal business, but the cheap illegal competition has meant the ruin of their legal businesses.
But at other dispensaries, prices remain just as low as before. You can still inspect the buds up-close, probably see them weighed, and they’ll likely even give you a free joint just for discovering their shop. So if you’re a patron just looking for a place to get a price-conscious bag, it’d be an easy decision to choose between the two types of dispensaries in California—who picks expensive and uptight over reasonably priced and chilled-out?
However, if you were to choose that second shop, you’d be breaking the law—it’s an unlicensed illegal dispensary. So how are cannabis lovers in California supposed to know which is which? And, does it matter?
Related
Here’s why there are so few legal cannabis stores in Los Angeles
Legal compliance in the Wild West of cannabis
In California, the amount of unlicensed illegal cannabis dispensaries is estimated to be over 3 times higher than the amount of legal ones. Between a bureaucratic nightmare with licensing, including stunning fees, limited availability, and other issues, going legal in California isn’t easy or cheap. This has resulted in a state filled with dispensaries that were previously legal for medical patients but are now illegal.
Many people risked everything they had to start a legal business, but the cheap illegal competition has meant the ruin of their legal businesses.
Last edited:
Baron23
Well-Known Member
@bulllee - check it out...also addresses AZ
Personally, I'm not a Medmen fan at all. I have been in one of their stores in L.V. and was not impressed with the "we're too cool for school" vibe and IMO lousy product.
I also objected to them looking to scarf up dispensaries here in MD using the loophole workaround of "management contracts" which are complete and total BS and which undermines the intention of the legal and regulatory restrictions on selling licenses. Was kind of glad to see these deals fall through after they hit the skids recently.
More hurdles for marijuana MSO MedMen in Arizona, California – and in court
Bad news continues to pile up for California-based MedMen Enterprises.
After the multistate operator’s founders stepped down from leadership roles in January, their replacements have continued to struggle to right the ship, and just last month, MedMen lost a medical marijuana business license in Virginia.
Recently, MedMen has been further hit with:
Combined, the three new hurdles could easily cost the company millions, not to mention the costs associated with keeping two formerly operational stores in Arizona shuttered while the litigation plays out.
A MedMen spokesman declined to comment for this story. But in an email to Marijuana Business Daily, he cited a recent company news release touting plans for a “financial restructuring and turnaround plan,” which includes deferring $32 million in financial commitments for a year.
“Implementing our turnaround plan is the best way to ensure that MedMen continues on its path to building the leading cannabis retailer in the U.S.,” MedMen interim CEO Tom Lynch said in the release.
But Mike Regan, an equity analyst and managing member of Denver-based MJResearchCo, pointed out the potential hurdles facing MedMen’s plans for recovery.
“Losing the Pasadena license would be a negative compared to MedMen’s restructuring plan, since Pasadena is a planned opening in the next 12 months,” he noted. “A license that cannot be transferred even internally isn’t worth much to an investor or creditor.
“MedMen planned to sell the Arizona dispensaries as part of the restructuring plan, so the question is if the lawsuit has delayed this process. The receipt of $10 million on July 2 for a future sale of a single unspecified non-California license may be related to this issue.”
Arizona
The Arizona case began in May when the original owners of two licensed Arizona MMJ dispensaries – CSI in Scottsdale and Kannaboost in Tempe – filed suit against MedMen for not paying $12 million still owed from an acquisition deal struck in February 2019, according to court filings.
MedMen originally agreed to pay $15 million to purchase both licenses, with a $3 million down payment made last August, according to the lawsuit.
In its own court filings, MedMen noted that it’s paid $33 million for the two shops.
The remaining $12 million, plus interest, was due in February.
But the company was not able to make that payment, and the deadline was extended multiple times, until the original license owners filed suit against MedMen, according to court records.
MedMen has countered in court filings that it has until the end of the year to pay the debt under an agreement it says was solidified between the parties.
The case is ongoing, but the two stores appear to have been at least temporarily shuttered.
According to MedMen’s website, one Arizona location is still operational, in Scottsdale.
California
In Pasadena, MedMen might lose a retail license it won last year because of executive turnover at the company, according to local news outlet Pasadena Now.
The Pasadena city manager’s office notified MedMen on July 1 that its application might no longer be valid because of the departure of at least seven company officials.
Pasadena Now noted the officials – which it did not identify – were “listed in MedMen’s initial January 2019 application as owners or key staff.”
According to Pasadena officials, that amounts to a “change in control” of the company and, therefore, the license, which is prohibited under the city’s marijuana licensing rules.
The city gave MedMen 10 days to prove “it remains under the control of the people listed on its application,” Pasadena Now reported.
Given the high turnover at MedMen – including the departures of former CEO Adam Bierman and ex-President Andrew Modlin – that appears unlikely.
Parker
To add to MedMen’s potential financial burdens, former CFO Parker is asking a judge to order the company to pay $600,000 in legal fees he claims he’s owed under his original employment contract. MedMen has hotly disputed that claim.
According to Law360, MedMen has responded that Parker himself violated the terms of his contract by departing without a required 90-day notice, which nullifies the company’s obligation to pay his legal bills.
MedMen trades on the Canadian Securities Exchange under the ticker symbol MMEN and on the U.S. over-the-counter markets as MMNFF.
Personally, I'm not a Medmen fan at all. I have been in one of their stores in L.V. and was not impressed with the "we're too cool for school" vibe and IMO lousy product.
I also objected to them looking to scarf up dispensaries here in MD using the loophole workaround of "management contracts" which are complete and total BS and which undermines the intention of the legal and regulatory restrictions on selling licenses. Was kind of glad to see these deals fall through after they hit the skids recently.
More hurdles for marijuana MSO MedMen in Arizona, California – and in court
Bad news continues to pile up for California-based MedMen Enterprises.
After the multistate operator’s founders stepped down from leadership roles in January, their replacements have continued to struggle to right the ship, and just last month, MedMen lost a medical marijuana business license in Virginia.
Recently, MedMen has been further hit with:
- A lawsuit filed in May that so far has resulted in at least the temporary closure of two MedMen-branded Arizona stores, in Tempe and Scottsdale.
- The potential loss of a retail license in Pasadena, California.
- A new demand for $600,000 in legal fees from former Chief Financial Officer James Parker, who’s demanding the payment in an ongoing lawsuit he filed against MedMen in January 2019.
Combined, the three new hurdles could easily cost the company millions, not to mention the costs associated with keeping two formerly operational stores in Arizona shuttered while the litigation plays out.
A MedMen spokesman declined to comment for this story. But in an email to Marijuana Business Daily, he cited a recent company news release touting plans for a “financial restructuring and turnaround plan,” which includes deferring $32 million in financial commitments for a year.
“Implementing our turnaround plan is the best way to ensure that MedMen continues on its path to building the leading cannabis retailer in the U.S.,” MedMen interim CEO Tom Lynch said in the release.
But Mike Regan, an equity analyst and managing member of Denver-based MJResearchCo, pointed out the potential hurdles facing MedMen’s plans for recovery.
“Losing the Pasadena license would be a negative compared to MedMen’s restructuring plan, since Pasadena is a planned opening in the next 12 months,” he noted. “A license that cannot be transferred even internally isn’t worth much to an investor or creditor.
“MedMen planned to sell the Arizona dispensaries as part of the restructuring plan, so the question is if the lawsuit has delayed this process. The receipt of $10 million on July 2 for a future sale of a single unspecified non-California license may be related to this issue.”
Arizona
The Arizona case began in May when the original owners of two licensed Arizona MMJ dispensaries – CSI in Scottsdale and Kannaboost in Tempe – filed suit against MedMen for not paying $12 million still owed from an acquisition deal struck in February 2019, according to court filings.
MedMen originally agreed to pay $15 million to purchase both licenses, with a $3 million down payment made last August, according to the lawsuit.
In its own court filings, MedMen noted that it’s paid $33 million for the two shops.
The remaining $12 million, plus interest, was due in February.
But the company was not able to make that payment, and the deadline was extended multiple times, until the original license owners filed suit against MedMen, according to court records.
MedMen has countered in court filings that it has until the end of the year to pay the debt under an agreement it says was solidified between the parties.
The case is ongoing, but the two stores appear to have been at least temporarily shuttered.
According to MedMen’s website, one Arizona location is still operational, in Scottsdale.
California
In Pasadena, MedMen might lose a retail license it won last year because of executive turnover at the company, according to local news outlet Pasadena Now.
The Pasadena city manager’s office notified MedMen on July 1 that its application might no longer be valid because of the departure of at least seven company officials.
Pasadena Now noted the officials – which it did not identify – were “listed in MedMen’s initial January 2019 application as owners or key staff.”
According to Pasadena officials, that amounts to a “change in control” of the company and, therefore, the license, which is prohibited under the city’s marijuana licensing rules.
The city gave MedMen 10 days to prove “it remains under the control of the people listed on its application,” Pasadena Now reported.
Given the high turnover at MedMen – including the departures of former CEO Adam Bierman and ex-President Andrew Modlin – that appears unlikely.
Parker
To add to MedMen’s potential financial burdens, former CFO Parker is asking a judge to order the company to pay $600,000 in legal fees he claims he’s owed under his original employment contract. MedMen has hotly disputed that claim.
According to Law360, MedMen has responded that Parker himself violated the terms of his contract by departing without a required 90-day notice, which nullifies the company’s obligation to pay his legal bills.
MedMen trades on the Canadian Securities Exchange under the ticker symbol MMEN and on the U.S. over-the-counter markets as MMNFF.
|
Sponsored by |
|---|
|
|
|