3 Takeaways From Changes to California's Proposed Cannabis Regs
Companies had lobbied the state Legislature and other policymakers this year to keep local delivery restrictions out of state law.
October 19, 2018 at 06:53 PM
4 minute read
California regulators on Friday announced dozens of changes to proposed rules for the state's recreational and medicinal marijuana markets, kicking off a frenetic 15-day public comment period.
The amendments to proposed rules issued in July are tucked into 318 pages of documents released by the Bureau of Cannabis Control, the Department of Food and Agriculture and the Department of Public Health. The changes respond to some of the 6,000 public comments that were submitted to the state this summer.
Interest groups were still sifting through the proposed new language Friday afternoon but some changes—and just as importantly, the rules that stayed the same—were readily apparent. Here are a few takeaways.
|➤➤ Delivery services remain protected.
The Bureau of Cannabis Control did not add restrictions on where delivery companies can operate. Police groups, the League of California Cities and the United Food and Commercial Workers lobbied for regulatory language that would allow local governments, many of which already prohibit retail sales and grows, to ban pot deliveries within their boundaries.
“It's unfortunate the Bureau of Cannabis Control made the decision to undermine the authority of local officials,” David Swing, president of the California Police Chiefs Association, said in August. He added: “The proposed regulations give unrestricted access to the cannabis delivery industry and open the floodgates to a number of public safety risks.”
Companies including WeDrop Cannabis Delivery, CannaWagon and Weedmaps lobbied the Legislature and other policymakers this year to keep the local delivery restrictions out of state law.
There is some new language to the cannabis delivery rules. The final rule would prohibit delivery “to a school providing instruction in kindergarten or any grades 1 through 12, day care center, or youth center.”
|➤➤ License costs will be lower (for some).
Regulators have lowered the annual license fees for smaller operators. Previously, retailers with revenues of up to $750,000, for instance, would have had to pay $4,000 for a 12-month license. The proposed changes create lower revenue caps, so now retailers sales under $500,000 will pay $2,500.
Costs will be cheaper for small-scale cannabis event organizers, micro-businesses, distributors and labs. Industry advocates had complained that high projected fees were encouraging some operators to stay in the black market.
Bigger operations will still see big license fees. Retailers with sales of $7.5 million or more will pay $96,000 year for a license under the rules.
|➤➤ Packaging and promotion restrictions abound.
The changed rules include new language mandating more child-proof packaging and more specifics about labeling cannabinoid content. Amendments also clarify that cannabis products can't have the “realistic or caricature” shape of a human being. The same prohibitions were already in place for products resembling animals, insects and fruit.
As for advertising, retailers will now be barred from promoting giveaways of non-cannabis products—not just marijuana itself. Ads can't depict anyone under the age of 21 instead of 18. And billboards can't be located on highways within 15 miles of the California state line.
The final regulations, which will be issued some time after the 15-day comment period, must be sent to the Office of Administrative Law for review on or before Dec. 3.
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 AllAdvisory Opinion Offers 'Road Map' for Judges Defending Against Campaign Attacks
3 minute readSanta Clara County Superior Court Authorizes Electronic Recording of Proceedings
4 minute readRegulatory Upheaval Is Coming. How Businesses Prepare and Respond Will Separate Winners and Losers
Trending Stories
- 1How Amy Harris Leverages Diversity to Give UMB Financial a Competitive Edge
- 2Pa. Judicial Nominee Advances While Trump Demands GOP Unity Against Biden Picks
- 3The Unraveling of Sean Combs: How Legislation from the #MeToo Movement Brought Diddy Down
- 4Publication of Information Regarding Client Matters
- 5The State of Cost Recovery — Post COVID
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