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
© 2025 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
- 1Houston Law Firm Files $250K Breach of Contract Suit Against 2 Former Lawyers
- 2The Week in Data Feb. 3: A Look at Legal Industry Trends by the Numbers
- 3Mass Tort Cases: Challenges for Plaintiff’s and Defense Counsel
- 4Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs: Davis Wright Tremaine, Wilmer and More
- 5Forum Clause Axes $844M Case Against Reinsurer Over Deadly Plane Crash, Judge Rules
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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