Recreational Marijuana in NJ: A Legal Primer
OP-ED: A few of the legal challenges that an aspiring entrepreneur may face in opening up shop in local municipalities.
December 15, 2017 at 08:30 AM
5 minute read
Given Governor-elect Phil Murphy's campaign pledge to legalize marijuana for recreational use in his first 100 days, the State of New Jersey is on the cusp of a major new revenue stream—recreational marijuana.
Last May, Democratic State Senator Nicholas Scutari introduced a bill to legalize recreational marijuana in New Jersey, patterned after Colorado's successful legalization initiative. There is no way to fully understand the limitations that the New Jersey Senate will place on the recreational marijuana bill until the bill passes. However, Scutari's proposed bill would impose a 7 percent sales tax on marijuana and marijuana products, escalating to 25 percent after five years. The senator estimates New Jersey would realize $300 million to $500 million a year in new tax revenue after the tax is fully phased in. Proponents say New Jersey could see $2-$3 billion in annual marijuana sales, based on the experiences of other states (like Colorado) that have legalized the drug.
Based on that $2-$3 billion annual sale projection, there is no doubt that aspiring entrepreneurs will flock to the Garden State for their piece of the pie. As mentioned above, the real analysis of the bill would come after the bill passes, however, below are just a few of the legal challenges that an aspiring entrepreneur may face in opening up shop in local municipalities.
Zoning Issues
One of the biggest challenges will be finding a commercial/retail space that fits within an allowable zone in accordance with a local municipality's zoning map. As other states have seen, like Colorado, marijuana businesses are narrowly zoned, primarily with the intent to ensure such businesses are unable to open. States have implemented certain zoning restrictions such as: marijuana businesses must remain a certain distance from schools, hospitals, substance abuse treatment centers, daycare and other sensitive uses. Additionally, some jurisdictions impose that marijuana business be separated from one another (some jurisdictions require a 500-foot limit). In a densely populated state, like New Jersey, this could dramatically limit the number of recreational marijuana business storefronts across the state.
Leasing Issues
Once an aspiring business owner finds a location within an allowable zone to set up shop, the owner must now be mindful that the sale of recreational marijuana may in fact be prohibited by private contracts between landlords and existing tenants. Many commercial leases in New Jersey include varying provisions that detail prohibited uses of such commercial spaces by tenants. While a commercial landlord may try to distance himself from leasing space to a recreational marijuana storefront, such prohibitions are also negotiated strongly by tenants. Historically, larger retail tenants aggressively negotiate such prohibited uses in an attempt to ensure its neighboring tenants do not attract “unwanted consumers.” Most notably (and quite common) is a prohibition against head shops. Such prohibitions could create an even more limited market for marijuana businesses to open.
Banking
Because marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. §812 sched. 1(c)(10)(2012)), it is still a federal crime to use, possess or distribute it. As such, marijuana businesses often cannot obtain bank accounts of any kind, unless the bank is willing to undergo strict compliance with federal guidelines passed down in a memorandum initiated during the Obama administration. The Bank Secrecy Act, enforced by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), mandates that banks monitor customer accounts for suspicious activity associated with crime or terrorism. The act requires banks to investigate their customers and to neither negligently nor knowingly do business with bad actors. FinCEN requires financial institutions to file Suspicious Activity Reports with the federal government when they know or suspect an account-holder engages in illegal activity. While the legality is not entirely clear around banks' acceptance of funds from marijuana businesses, the risk for the banks simply isn't worth the cost of business at this stage. Banks are required to ensure businesses are compliant under state law to ensure they are not aiding or assisting in any money laundering schemes. To put it simply, banks do not have the time, resources or clarity to ensure this type of compliance. In jurisdictions that permit the sale of recreational marijuana, there has been a slight push by local savings banks and credit unions who have been willing to permit marijuana businesses to open accounts. As such, it's safe to say, in New Jersey, the vast majority of marijuana businesses will likely operate primarily on a cash basis, unless local banks and credit unions are receptive to banking with a marijuana business.
While many aspiring entrepreneurs will be looking to get a piece of the projected $2-$3 billion in revenue, it is clear, based on other jurisdictions, that it will not be as easy as opening a storefront and watching the cash flow in. In addition to the above points, once the bill passes, we will likely see dramatic limitations to the “who, what, where and when” of the legal recreational marijuana business.
Lyons is an associate at Bertone Piccini in Hasbrouck Heights, and concentrates his practice in the areas of business/corporate dealings, real estate and health care.
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 AllAs Trafficking, Hate Crimes Rise in NJ, State's Federal Delegation Must Weigh in On New UN Proposal
4 minute readAppellate Court's Decision on Public Employee Pension Eligibility Helps the Judiciary
5 minute readWhere CFPB Enforcement Stops Short on Curbing School Lunch Fees, Class Action Complaint Steps Up
5 minute read'Confusion Where Previously There Was Clarity': NJ Supreme Court Should Void Referral Fee Ethics Opinion
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Tuesday Newspaper
- 2Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-85
- 3Decision of the Day: Administrative Court Finds Prevailing Wage Law Applies to Workers Who Cleaned NYC Subways During Pandemic
- 4Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 5Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
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