Lawmakers Pass on Pot Bills, Giving State Regs a Chance
California lawmakers have killed a handful of bills aimed at regulating the state's pending recreational marijuana market, an apparent nod to the governor's desire to craft such rules through executive agencies.
September 01, 2017 at 07:38 PM
4 minute read
California lawmakers killed a handful of bills aimed at regulating the state's pending recreational marijuana market, an apparent nod to the governor's desire to craft such rules through executive agencies.
Among the bills axed on Friday by the Legislature's appropriations committees, without debate, are:
â–º AB 64 would have set guidelines for transporting marijuana.
â–º AB 76 sought strict rules for cannabis advertisers.
â–º AB 175 tasked the Department of Public Health with pre-approving marijuana labeling and packaging.
â–º AB 948 sought to make paying taxes to the state easier for the cash-intensive industry.
â–º SB 162 would have placed marketing restrictions, similar to those imposed on the tobacco industry, on marijuana businesses.
Other cannabis-related legislation addressing growing appellations, tax payments, testing and labeling already stalled earlier this year.
“There's a feeling that the administration wants to stay on track with adult-use rollout in January of 2018, and that unless current proposed bills are absolute solutions to impending hurdles to reach that goal, then they will be held over and dealt with at a later date,” said Josh Drayton, deputy director of the California Cannabis Industry Association. “We believe that we will see many of these bills revisited in the 2018 legislative sessions.”
After California voters approved recreational cannabis use and sales in November 2016, lawmakers rushed at the start of the new session in January to introduce regulating legislation, particularly bills that sought to keep marijuana away from minors.
The state Bureau of Cannabis Control and other state agencies are working on final regulations, expected to be released in the fall, that will guide licensed growers, distributors and sellers when the recreational market opens on Jan. 2. The governor also signed into law budget-related legislation this summer that addresses many of the issues identified in the individual bills.
Related Articles:
|- Pot Advocates Argue Against Tobacco-Styled Marketing Restrictions
- Plaintiff Firms Hit Marijuana Businesses With Prop. 65 Violation Letters
- We Asked 4 Marijuana-Industry Lawyers 4 Questions. Here's What They Said
- IRS Lawyer Says the Agency Isn't Targeting Cannabis Lawyers
California lawmakers killed a handful of bills aimed at regulating the state's pending recreational marijuana market, an apparent nod to the governor's desire to craft such rules through executive agencies.
Among the bills axed on Friday by the Legislature's appropriations committees, without debate, are:
â–º AB 64 would have set guidelines for transporting marijuana.
â–º AB 76 sought strict rules for cannabis advertisers.
â–º AB 175 tasked the Department of Public Health with pre-approving marijuana labeling and packaging.
â–º AB 948 sought to make paying taxes to the state easier for the cash-intensive industry.
â–º SB 162 would have placed marketing restrictions, similar to those imposed on the tobacco industry, on marijuana businesses.
Other cannabis-related legislation addressing growing appellations, tax payments, testing and labeling already stalled earlier this year.
“There's a feeling that the administration wants to stay on track with adult-use rollout in January of 2018, and that unless current proposed bills are absolute solutions to impending hurdles to reach that goal, then they will be held over and dealt with at a later date,” said Josh Drayton, deputy director of the California Cannabis Industry Association. “We believe that we will see many of these bills revisited in the 2018 legislative sessions.”
After California voters approved recreational cannabis use and sales in November 2016, lawmakers rushed at the start of the new session in January to introduce regulating legislation, particularly bills that sought to keep marijuana away from minors.
The state Bureau of Cannabis Control and other state agencies are working on final regulations, expected to be released in the fall, that will guide licensed growers, distributors and sellers when the recreational market opens on Jan. 2. The governor also signed into law budget-related legislation this summer that addresses many of the issues identified in the individual bills.
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 AllCritics Ramp Up Ongoing Battle With SEC Over Settlement 'Gag Rule' in 9th Circuit
Newsom Signs Lemon Law Changes Into Law, Averting Threatened Tort War
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
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