Jul 6, 2018 | California Marijuana Laws, Proposed MMJ Law Changes
Since January 1, 2018, the California cannabis industry has been running in the semi-regulated mode to allow time to comply with regulations. That period of grace ended on 1 July 2018, meaning the full force of the law applies. This means licensed retailers may now only sell cannabis products that meet the requirements set by the California Department of Public Health for ingredients, or appearance.
There are bound to be a few old timers in the Bureau of Cannabis Control who are sticklers for detail. Hence, we judged it wise to summarize the situation now in force.
Laboratory Testing Is Now Mandatory
A licensed dealer may only sell cannabis goods that passed all legal and regulatory standards in a licensed laboratory. This applies retrospectively to old stock. If you have merchandise you acquired before 1 July 2018, you must destroy it. The law prohibits you from having it tested now.
However, if you are holding disqualified consignment stock you may return it to your supplier. In terms of the convoluted set of rules, the supplier may send the stock on to the manufacturer, and they may then ask a laboratory to test it. As Charles Dickens wrote into Mr. Brumble’s role, “the law is an ass” but a remarkably persistent one we add!
Packaging and Labeling Requirements
The Bureau of Cannabis Control requires all cannabis goods to have appropriate labels before they reach retailers. The latter must, therefore, refuse any erroneously labeled or non-labeled consignments. Furthermore, “A retailer shall not package or label cannabis goods, even if the cannabis goods were in inventory before July 1, 2018”. (more…)
Oct 3, 2017 | Proposed MMJ Law Changes
Things are indeed developing rapidly for Californian lovers of marijuana. In our last post, we thrilled with news of the Tax Guide for Cannabis Business hot off the press. Or should we say newly released in cyber space. Whatever the case, the cause is moving forward regardless of activities afoot in the U.S. Department of Justice.
This week, the California Bureau of Cannabis Control announced plans for interim commercial cannabis licenses effective 1 January 2018. We note these are under the Medicinal and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act AKA MAUCRSA. Hence, we are still waiting for news of plans for cultivator and manufacturer licenses that will follow.
In mid-November, we expect the California Bureau of Cannabis Control to start accepting applications for commercial cannabis licenses. These will permit legitimate operations to commence on 1 January 2018, and continue for 120 days. During this period, commercial operators must apply for regular state licenses, and be able to provide the information we list below. If a situation beyond their control prevents this happening, they may apply for an extension(s). (more…)
Mar 18, 2017 | California Marijuana Laws, Proposed MMJ Law Changes
In 1920, the U.S. Government banned the manufacture, import, transport, and sale of alcoholic beverages, to cure what it saw as the cause of the ills of society. During the period through to 1933, when it finally came to its senses, organized crime entered the supply chain in the form of the organization we now know as the Mafia.
Other unintended consequences included
- Consumption continued at 60% of the pre-prohibition rate, rising to 80% by the end of the failed experiment.
- Within one week, ‘grow your own’ stills were on sale throughout the country so people could make their own moonshine.
- In the first year, total crime increased by 23%, homicide by 12%, and drug addiction by a staggering 44%.
- Americans became accustomed to consuming stronger liquor because smugglers found it easier to conceal
- The exercise failed miserably in its primary goal of producing a generation believing in temperance.
The U.S. Government subsequently introduced a more rational program to regulate manufacture, import, transport, and sale of alcoholic beverages. It has however never managed to rein in the organized crime syndicates it inspired. (more…)
Mar 5, 2017 | California Marijuana Laws, Collective Operations, Proposed MMJ Law Changes
For as long as existing medical marijuana businesses are the only ‘legal’ source for pot in California, they will remain hot property. This is especially true as they stand to receive priority when licensing time arrives. If you own a share in one, you may be thinking of convincing your partners to off-load it. But there is only problem. You have no asset to sell. Take a cuppa of whatever relaxes you while we unpick the situation with input from Hilary Bricken.
The Term ‘Collective’ Does Not Appear in the Legal Lexicon
The situation dates back to 2008, when the California Attorney General stated that making profit from selling medical marijuana was illegal. Setting aside that quaint mind-set, this meant that medical marijuana dispensaries had to be non-profits. This left medical marijuana patients with only one legal workaround. They had to form collectives that barely covered costs.
California law treats these collectives as non-profit mutual benefit corporations, or NPMBC’s. By definition, these have no equity or stock to sell. Any intelligent buyer will run miles from that situation. This is because there is nothing to pay for. Except a quasi-right to a grow-your-own, in a situation that is, at best, somewhat fluid. The only workaround is transfer of rights and obligations of membership. (more…)
Feb 19, 2017 | California Marijuana Laws, Proposed MMJ Law Changes
The California Legislative Analyst’s Office is the state’s nonpartisan fiscal and policy adviser. It issued a paper on Tuesday, February 14, 2017 expressing doubt whether implementation of Proposition 64 will be self-funding in the early stages, or turn out a drain on the treasury.
What follows is a summary of the most relevant points, including opinions expressed by Los Angeles Times and our own thoughts. Here is a link to the official document if you would like to study the long and detailed report.
- We currently have two official approaches towards regulating marijuana in California. These are (a) the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act of 2015, and (b) Proposition 64 of 2016 for Legalized Nonmedical Cannabis.
- Few doubt the eventual logic of combining the legislation as Gov. Jerry Brown suggests. However many are beginning to question whether there is time to do so before Proposition 64’s deadline of December 30, 2017 runs out.
- The State Legislative Analyst’s Office is urging cash flow restraint. While it agrees with Gov. Jerry Brown, is believes there is ‘significant uncertainty regarding the resource needs for departments to regulate and tax medical and nonmedical cannabis.’ (more…)
Feb 12, 2017 | California Marijuana Laws, Marijuana Legalization, Proposed MMJ Law Changes
It is time we leapfrogged over the indecision. And got on with the business of earning tax on $2.7 billion annual sales of marijuana for the State of California. It is not the industry’s fault legislators framed Proposition 64 less than optimally. If our ancestors took as long to frame the founding statements, they could still be debating the niceties too.
And what about the mom-and-pop businesses that rely on the income? They need certainty big business with corporate advantage is not going to lever them out. Behind the scenes, recreational marijuana is selling well as it always seems to have done in the Golden State. We are trying legalize a reality not embargo it in perpetuity.
One might have thought that with two decades of regulated medical marijuana under our belt we would have at least learned something. Although granted there is still some confusion regarding what is legitimate at city and country level. The holdup is an apparent obsession with tidying these details up at the same time. For the life of me, I can’t see the problem with having two different systems for a while. Surely, this is what the population envisaged?
(more…)
