California Rolled Out 278 Pages of Marijuana Rules. Here Are Highlights.
California on Thursday unveiled its latest set of marijuana regulations—this time, emergency rules that will guide the legalized recreational market when it opens in January. Here are a few takeaways from the emergency regulations presented to the committee on Thursday.
November 16, 2017 at 07:42 PM
5 minute read
Photo illustration by Jason Doiy / The Recorder
California on Thursday unveiled its latest set of marijuana regulations—this time, emergency rules that will guide the legalized recreational market when it opens in January.
The regulations published by the Bureau of Cannabis Control, the Department of Food and Agriculture and the Department of Public Health were shaped by early draft proposals and legislation enacted this summer. They cover testing, growing, packaging and potency requirements for both the medical and recreational sectors. And they will likely change.
The state has created a Cannabis Advisory Committee, comprised of growers, retailers, union representatives and others with interests in the marijuana industry, to consider the regulations and suggest change.
Here are a few takeaways from the emergency regulations presented to the committee on Thursday.
|
Everything's temporary, for now.
Regulators will rely on temporary four-month licenses to get the market rolling on Jan. 1. To get those short-term permits, however, applicants will have to show that they have authorization to operate from their local government agencies. That may not be readily available, as some cities and counties are still grappling with how to handle recreational enterprises.
The regular licensing process will ramp up in 2018. While that happens, the state will operate in a six-month transition period and allow retailers and operators to move and sell existing inventory that might not meet regulations on packaging or potency caps.
|
It's going to cost money—a lot of it—to make money.
Lori Ajax
Everyone in the marijuana business will pay a licensing fee that varies significantly based on the size and type of operation. Someone who transports marijuana only—without performing any quality-control testing—will pay $500. The biggest distributors doing product testing will be charged $125,000 a year for a license.
That's not counting the $500 to $1,000 that license-seekers will have to pay just to apply for a permit—or the costs for entrepreneurs who need multiple licenses.
Regulation watchers have questioned whether California's fees, added to a 15 percent excise tax and local charges, will cost so much that small businesses will be squeezed out and the black market will continue to operate.
Lori Ajax, bureau chief of Cannabis Control, said Thursday the agency worked with an economist to set fees so that they only cover state costs. As to what the impact of those fees might be, “There's much work to be done on our regulations,” Ajax said.
|
California is about to enter the edibles shape-and-packaging debate.
The emergency regulations ban edibles that appeal to children. For now, that includes no munchables in the shape of human beings—”either realistic or caricature”—animals, fruit or insects. Edibles must be covered in an opaque packaging, which can't “imitate” any products that are marketed to kids.
Colorado has grappled with how to regulate edibles for years, a struggle amplified in 2014 when the chief medical officer called for an outright ban on consumable marijuana. Oregon approved recreational marijuana use in 2015 but did not allow edible sales until strict rules went into effect in 2016.
Miren Klein, an assistant deputy director at the California Department of Public Health, conceded Thursday that deciding what packaging and products appeals to kids is a subjective endeavor.
“We tried to outline as much as we could in this regulation package,” Klein said. “If the committee has any other ideas or suggestions that we could consider for a permanent package we definitely welcome that.”
Klein said pre-approving each product is not feasible. Pointing to California's physical and market sizes, she said, “if you think our licensing fees are expensive now that definitely will drive up the licensing fees.”
Read more:
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 AllContract Software Unicorn Ironclad Hires Former Pinterest Lawyer as GC
2 minute readSouthern California Law Firms Boast Industry-Leading Revenue, Demand Through Q3
Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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