Allowing for Marijuana Deliveries in All of California: A Q&A With NorCal Cannabis Company's AnnaRae Grabstein
AnnaRae Grabstein, chief compliance officer of NorCal Cannabis Company, talks about the recent lawsuit filed by 24 cities and one county in California against the state's Bureau of Cannabis Control over banning cannabis deliveries and how this could impact the legal cannabis market.
April 17, 2019 at 04:42 PM
3 minute read
Twenty-four cities and one county in California filed a lawsuit earlier this month against California's Bureau of Cannabis Control and its director seeking a court declaration to ban the delivery of marijuana to consumers in their jurisdictions. The plaintiffs in the case have banned, as allowed by law, brick-and-mortar cannabis stores.
AnnaRae Grabstein is the chief compliance officer of NorCal Cannabis Co., a vertically integrated company that cultivates, sells and delivers marijuana. She spoke to Corporate Counsel on Wednesday about why she thinks the suit brought on by the municipalities will fail and how delivery bans are emboldening the illegal cannabis market in California.
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Corporate Counsel: Does NorCal deliver in the areas that have put a ban on the brick-and-mortar stores and has the lawsuit affected business at all?
AnnaRae Grabstein: NorCal does not deliver to any of the banned areas in California. The lawsuit itself does not change any of our day-to-day operations, nor does it change our business plan. I don't believe this lawsuit is going to stand up. The people [of California] voted for regulated access to cannabis. The law was written to give local control over land use, but it does not give local governments the right to ban delivery on public roads.
The lawsuit represents a very small group of cities that are not speaking for the rest of the state. [Cannabis] delivery can support local government control of their land use for those cities that want cannabis out of sight and mind.
CC: What is the fear of allowing delivery drivers to drop off cannabis to consumers?
AG: What we're hearing is that legal cannabis delivery will become a burden on the local police forces. The drivers who work for NorCal have benefits, and they're professionally trained. They also carry a manifest, so there would be no confusion to law enforcement if they were pulled over.
CC: Is there a fear that police resources will be spent protecting drivers from robberies?
AG: We've been making cannabis deliveries for two years and we have not had one major incident. I think that cannabis delivery is extremely safe and discreet. The BCC regulations mandate that a delivery driver have no more than $5,000 of product or currency in the car at one time. That is a lot less value than you see in an average delivery truck driving down the road.
The state has clarified its position that Proposition 64 makes it legal for a licensed delivery retailer. When we encourage statewide access to legal cannabis we all win. We're going to be able to squash the illegal market and get tax revenue that the state sorely missed out on in 2018.
CC: What kind of tax revenues did the state miss out on in 2018?
AG: The state only saw $335 million in tax revenue even though they estimated three times that. There was a report from the BCC that found that 80 percent of cannabis consumed in 2018 came from the illegal market, which is the result of these cannabis retail deserts. People in those areas are still consuming cannabis and are purchasing it though the illegal market.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All11 Red State AGs Demand Damages in Antitrust Lawsuit Shaming ESG Climate Investors
3 minute readRegulatory Upheaval Is Coming. How Businesses Prepare and Respond Will Separate Winners and Losers
3 GOP States Join Paid Sick Leave Movement, Passing Ballot Measures by Wide Margins
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Key Moves in the Reshuffling German Legal Market as 2025 Dawns
- 2Social Media Celebrities Clash in $100M Lawsuit
- 3Federal Judge Sets 2026 Admiralty Bench Trial in Baltimore Bridge Collapse Litigation
- 4Trump Media Accuses Purchaser Rep of Extortion, Harassment After Merger
- 5Judge Slashes $2M in Punitive Damages in Sober-Living Harassment Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250