Archive for the ‘Blog Post’ Category

  • California to Issue Temporary Cannabis Licenses Starting January 1

    The Bureau of Cannabis Control (formerly the Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation)(hereafter the “Bureau”) released information today regarding temporary cannabis licenses, which will be available beginning on January 1, 2018. The Bureau is the primary licensing agency for cannabis distributors, testing laboratories, retail stores, and microbusinesses within California.

    Temporary state licenses will only be issued to applicants that have a local permit, license, or other authorization. What exactly this authorization looks like will depend on the local jurisdiction. No temporary license will be effective prior to January 1, 2018. Once issued, temporary licenses will be valid for 120 days (4 months), though they can be extended for 90 days and possibly longer if the Bureau takes longer than expected to issue permanent licenses. During this period, a company with a temporary license can and should be working to submit its full state license application. Companies that have received a temporary license will only be able to do business with other companies that have received temporary or permanent licenses.

    Applicants will be required to provide the following information for a temporary license from the Bureau:

    1. Local jurisdiction authorization – Applicants must provide a copy of a valid license, permit, or other authorization issued by the local jurisdiction where the business is operating that allows the applicant to conduct commercial cannabis activity at the location. The authorization must specify that the applicant is authorized to conduct cannabis activity.
    2. Name – Applicants must provide a name of the individual or entity requesting the license.
    3. License type requested – Distributor, Retailer, Microbusiness, or Testing Laboratory.
    4. License designation requested – A-license (adult use) or M-license (medicinal).
    5. Contact information – Applicants must provide a designated primary contact including first and last name, title, address, phone number(s), and email address(es).
    6. Owners – For each owner that meets the criteria of Business and Professions Code section 26001 (al), the owner’s name, mailing address, and email address.
    7. Physical address – Location of the proposed premises.
    8. Authorization to use the location – A copy of the title or deed to the land where the premises is proposed to be located. If the applicant does not own the land, a document from the landowner stating that the applicant has the right to occupy the property and may use the property for the commercial cannabis activity.
    9. Premises diagram – A diagram of the business’s layout at the proposed location.

    Lori Ajax, Chief of the Bureau, says that temporary licensees will receive approval via e-mail and will be able to print their temporary license from home. The final regulations for medical and adult use cannabis businesses will be released in November, and full-length license applications will be available soon after that.

    The Bureau and the other two California cannabis licensing agencies, the Department of Food & Agriculture’s CalCannabis Licensing Division and the Department of Public Health’s Manufactured Cannabis Safety Branch (formerly OMCS) plans to hold licensing workshops around the state starting in October. Be sure to check the Bureau’s website at www.bcc.ca.gov for more information and updates related to cannabis licensing.

     

  • Summary of Local Ordinances Released by Bureau of Cannabis Control

    The Bureau of Cannabis Control (Bureau), formerly named the Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation, is working on regulations pursuant to the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA) to establish a licensing and enforcement program for commercial cannabis distributors, retailers, testing laboratories, and microbusinesses.

    As lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Bureau has prepared an Initial Study/Proposed Negative Declaration (IS/ND).  The entire document can be downloaded by clicking the image below.

    The Initial Study/Proposed Negative Declaration (IS/ND) is huge at 491 pages; however, it contains three very helpful summaries.  These summaries have been extracted for your convenience and can be downloaded by clicking the image below or here.

    The summaries are:

    Table C-1: Summary of County Ordinances (as of August 17, 2017)

    Table C-2. Summary of Ordinances in the Ten Largest California Cities (by population) (as of August 17. 2017)

    Table C-3. Summary of Regulations in Other States that Have Passed Legislation Authorizing Adult Use of Cannabis (as of August 17, 2017)

    These official summaries provide helpful information to: 1) regulators seeking guidance from other local jurisdictions, 2) entrepreneurs looking for cannabis-friendly local jurisdictions issuing local permits, and 3) those who seek to understand cannabis policy in California and other states that have passed legislation authorizing the adult use of cannabis.

    NOTE: Ordinances, laws, and regulations are in a state of evolution, and change from day to day.  The official summaries are current as of August 17, 2017, meaning they are probably already out of date.  We cannot guarantee the accuracy of these official summaries, which are provided for informational purposes.

    Please check directly with the local jurisdiction (the city for activity within city limits, or the county for activity within the unincorporated area of the county) to find the latest ordinances pertaining to cannabis.

    * * *

    The above information is provided as a public service.  It is not intended as legal advice.

    For answers to your legal questions, or legal assistance in obtaining local permits and/or state licenses, please contact the Law Offices of Omar Figueroa at (707) 829-0215 or (415) 489-0420 to schedule a confidential legal consultation.

  • Summary of Expected Emergency MAUCRSA Regulations Released

    The Bureau of Cannabis Control (Bureau), formerly named the Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation, is developing regulations pursuant to the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA) to establish a regulatory licensing and enforcement program for commercial cannabis distributors, retailers, testing laboratories, and microbusinesses. As lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Bureau has prepared an Initial Study/Proposed Negative Declaration (IS/ND).  The entire document can be downloaded by clicking the image below.

    The Initial Study/Proposed Negative Declaration (IS/ND) is huge at 491 pages; however, it contains a very helpful Summary of Expected Emergency MAUCRSA Regulations.  The official summary can be downloaded by clicking the image below.

    The Summary of Expected Emergency MAUCRSA Regulations can also be downloaded here.  This official summary provides a helpful preview to those who want to plan to comply with the anticipated MAUCRSA regulations.

    Highlights of the expected regs:

    Applicants will be required to submit identifying information for every owner.  Applicants will also be required to provide information regarding their funding sources and owners’ criminal conviction histories.

    In the regulations, the Bureau will specify the types of records that licensees must keep, including financial, personnel, and security records; training records; contracts; and permits, licenses, and local business authorizations. The regulations will require that these records can be produced when requested by the Bureau.

    Licensees and persons acting for or employed by a licensee must display photo identification badges while engaging in any commercial cannabis activity. isitors to any licensed premises will be required to be escorted by an employee when visiting limited‐access areas of the premises.

    All licensees will be required to install and maintain a video surveillance system to record all entries and exits, as well as all areas where cannabis is received, processed, and stored, as well as security rooms. Retailers will also be required to record all point‐of‐sale areas and areas where cannabis is displayed for sale. Cameras must record 24 hours per day, and recordings must be kept for a specified period of time.

    Licensed premises will have an alarm system that is monitored and maintained by a licensed alarm company.

    Distributors are also the only license type that can transport commercial cannabis goods. Distributors may act as wholesalers or may charge other licensees a fee for conducting distribution on their behalf.

     

    The regulations will provide that distributors may package and label or repackage and relabel cannabis in the form of dried flower on behalf of a cultivator or another distributor. Distributors may not package, repackage, label, or relabel manufactured cannabis goods.

    Cannabis goods will be required to be transported inside commercial vehicles or trailers. Transportation may not be done by aircraft, watercraft, rail, drones, human powered vehicles, or unmanned vehicles.

    Vehicles used for transporting cannabis goods must contain a box that can be locked and that is secured to the inside of the vehicle or trailer. Cannabis goods must be locked in the box during transport.

    After taking physical possession of a cannabis batch, a distributor will contact a licensed testing laboratory to arrange for testing, unless the distributor plans to sell the batch to another distributor. At that point, a laboratory agent will come to the distributor’s licensed premises to take a sample. The sample selection will be recorded on video, and both the distributor and the laboratory agent must witness and attest to the sample selection.

    After the sample has been tested, the testing laboratory will provide the distributor with a certificate of analysis. If a sample passes testing, the distributor may transport the cannabis goods to one or more retailers for sale. If a harvest batch fails testing, it can be remediated for use in a manufactured product, if doing so would not result in harm to consumers.

    Cannabis goods may be displayed only in the retail area, and only during business operating hours. Cannabis goods may not be displayed where visible from outside the premises.

    Retailers may not provide free samples to anyone or allow representatives of other companies or organizations to provide free samples on the licensed premises.

    Retailers must receive cannabis goods only from licensed distributors. Cannabis goods must be packaged and labeled for final sale at the time the retailer receives them.

    Following a sale, the retailer must place cannabis goods in an opaque exit package before the customer leaves the retailer premises.

    Delivery employees may not consume cannabis during delivery.

    Vehicles used for delivery must have a dedicated, active GPS device that enables the dispensary to identify the geographic location of the vehicle during delivery.

    Retailers may receive shipments of inventory only from licensed distributors.

    Retailers must keep records of all sales transactions, including the names of the sales employee and the customer, the list and quantity of products sold and their price, and the date and time of the transaction.

    The Bureau’s regulations will include a grace period for compliance with packaging and testing requirements. During the grace period, retailers may package and sell cannabis goods that have not been packaged by a cultivator or distributor. In addition, during the same time frame, retailers may sell untested cannabis if they place a label on the package with the date of purchase and the statement, “This product has not been tested under the Medicinal and Adult‐Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act.”

    Laboratories will be required to test samples for cannabinoid content. The cannabinoids that are required to be tested for are tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA), cannabidiol (CBD), cannabidiolic acid (CBDA), cannabigerol (CBG), and cannabinol (CBN). For each of these cannabinoids, laboratories must report the concentration. They may also test for other cannabinoids at the election of the test requester.

    Laboratories will be required to analyze samples of manufactured cannabis goods for residual solvents and processing chemicals. Dried flower, kief, and hashish need not be analyzed for residual solvents.

    Testing laboratories will be required to test samples for residual pesticides.

    Laboratories will be required to test samples of cannabis and cannabis products for microbiological impurities, which will include Shiga toxin producing Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. Laboratories must also test for the pathogenic species Aspergillus funigatus, A. flavus, A. niger, and A. terreus in all cannabis goods intended for consumption by inhalation, including dried flower, kief, hashish, oil, and waxes.

    Testing laboratories will be required to analyze samples for mycotoxins.

    Testing laboratories will analyze dried flower harvest batch samples for water activity and moisture content.

    Testing laboratories will be required to test samples for filth and foreign material. This includes, but is not limited to, mold, hair, insects, feces, packaging contaminants, and manufacturing waste and byproducts. Samples that contain these contaminants above the specified action levels will fail laboratory testing.

    Laboratories may be required to analyze samples for concentrations of heavy metals.

    After completion of testing, the testing laboratory will issue a certificate of analysis that details the results of each test. The certificate of analysis will also report whether the laboratory detected any unknown or unidentified substances or materials during analysis of a sample. If the laboratory finds a contaminant that is not listed in these regulations that could be injurious to human health at the levels detected, the laboratory must notify the Bureau within 24 hours. Samples found to contain synthetic cannabinoids will fail testing.

    A batch may not be retested unless it has undergone a remediation process. Before a batch can be retested, the distributor must provide a document to the laboratory specifying how the product was remediated.

    Testing laboratories will be required to develop and implement a laboratory quality assurance program

    A microbusiness license allows the licensee to cultivate cannabis in an area of less than 10,000 square feet and to act as a licensed distributor, Level 1 (nonvolatile solvent) manufacturer, and retailer. (Bus. Prof. Code §26070.) For both medicinal and adult‐use cannabis operations, CDFA is the licensing authority for stand‐alone cannabis cultivation activities and CDPH is the licensing authority for stand‐alone cannabis manufacturing activities.

    With regard to distribution and retail sale, the regulations applicable to those activities are anticipated to be the same for a microbusiness as for a standalone business. For cultivation activities, it is expected that applicants will be required to follow applicable provisions of the cultivation regulations that will be adopted by CDFA for cannabis cultivation, and CDFA is anticipated to provide assistance to the Bureau related to cultivation by a microbusiness. Similarly, it is expected that microbusiness applicants conducting manufacturing activities will be required to follow CDPH manufacturing regulations, and CDPH is anticipated to provide assistance to the Bureau related to manufacturing by a microbusiness.

    * * *

    Provided for informational purposes only; this is not intended as legal advice.  Please contact the Law Offices of Omar Figueroa for legal counsel or assistance regarding the Expected Emergency MAUCRSA Regulations, or other legal issues, at (707) 829-0215, at (415) 489-0420, or at info@omarfigueroa.com.

  • Amicus Brief Filed on Behalf of National Cannabis Bar Association

    You may have heard about the ongoing case involving a San Diego cannabis lawyer who is facing felony charges in what amounts to a vindictive prosecution from the local District Attorney’s office (which is notoriously unfriendly to cannabis).
    Today, we just filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the National Cannabis Bar Association and other amici in support of the defendant-lawyer, our esteemed colleague Jessica McElfresh, arguing about the far-reaching implications of this case not only on the cannabis industry, but also on the legal profession and the public at large.

    Download PDF version of Amicus Brief Here

  • SB-162 Would Bar Cannabis Licensees from Using Branded Merchandise (and is Probably Unconstitutional)

    California Cannabis Industry Alert!

    Senate Bill 162 (hereafter “SB162”), currently making its way through the state legislature, would impose draconian restrictions on cannabis marketing. Specifically, it would prevent cannabis licensees from advertising or marketing cannabis products using merchandise, such as clothing, hats, t-shirts, or other items branded with the name or logo of the product. The bill already passed through the California Senate unanimously, but its constitutionality is questionable.

    The bill is intended to limit marketing of cannabis products in ways that were already conceptually prohibited by AUMA in that a licensee may not advertise a cannabis product in a way intended to encourage people under 21 years of age to consume or purchase cannabis. However, the bill goes beyond just requiring that merchandise may not be made attractive to children and bars, presumably, any branded merchandise.

    The language of the proposed law is extremely broad.  SB162 would amend Section 26152 of the Business and Professions Code to read:

    26152. A licensee shall not do any of the following:

    (a) Advertise or market in a manner that is false or untrue in any material particular, or that, irrespective of falsity, directly, or by ambiguity, omission, or inference, or by the addition of irrelevant, scientific, or technical matter, tends to create a misleading impression.

    (b) Publish or disseminate advertising or marketing containing any statement concerning a brand or product that is inconsistent with any statement on the labeling thereof.

    (c) Publish or disseminate advertising or marketing containing any statement, design, device, or representation which tends to create the impression that the cannabis originated in a particular place or region, unless the label of the advertised product bears an appellation of origin, and such appellation of origin appears in the advertisement.

    (d) Advertise or market on a billboard or similar advertising device located on an Interstate Highway or on a State Highway which crosses the California border.

    (e) Advertise or market cannabis or cannabis products in a manner intended to encourage persons under 21 years of age to consume cannabis or cannabis products. This prohibition includes all advertising of cannabis or cannabis products through the use of branded merchandise, including, but not limited to, clothing, hats, or other merchandise with the name or logo of the product.

    (f) Publish or disseminate advertising or marketing that is attractive to children.

    (g) Advertise or market cannabis or cannabis products on an advertising sign within 1,000 feet of a day care center, school providing instruction in kindergarten or any grades 1 through 12, playground, or youth center.

    (Emphasis added.)  The entire bill is available on the Legislature’s web site, at:

    https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB162

    As of August 1, 2017, the Legislative Counsel’s Digest for the bill states, “This bill would specify that advertising or marketing cannabis or cannabis products in a manner intended to encourage persons under 21 years of age to consume cannabis or cannabis products includes all advertising of cannabis or cannabis products through the use of branded merchandise, including, but not limited to, clothing, hats, or other merchandise with the name or logo of the product.”

    You read that right—if this becomes law, then cannabis licensees would be prohibited from advertising their brands on any merchandise, even if it was not designed to appeal to minors or even made available to people under the age of 21. The bill cites a case related to tobacco advertising restrictions (Commonwealth Brands, Inc. v. United States, 678 F.Supp.2d 512 (2010)) in support of the legislature’s position that such a restriction on speech for cannabis would be constitutional. However, there are problems with that comparison.

    First, Commonwealth Brands dealt with a federal law that placed restrictions on advertising, whereas AUMA is a state law. The federal district court’s holding in Commonwealth Brands is not binding on courts in California.

    Second, tobacco and cannabis are not the same thing, nor do they have the same effect on the human body. The court in Commonwealth Brands made only passing references to the government interest being served by the federal law at issue in that case citing the Act’s aim as being “to curb tobacco use by adolescents” (at 519) and reducing tobacco use by minors” (at 522). However, even interests that some may consider intuitively worthy are not self-validating under the law. Rather, the government must prove that the interest is substantial (or, in some cases, compelling). In this instance, the interest put forth in tobacco regulations is substantial because it has been widely accepted, through substantiation of numerous studies, that tobacco use is inherently dangerous in its causation of cancer, heart disease, and other serious health effects. This interest is explicitly referenced in the act regulating the tobacco advertising at issue and therefore implicitly accepted by the court in Commonwealth Brands. That said, there is simply no evidence that the potential harm and therefore the same interest in curbing cannabis use. The government lacks the same or even comparable body of evidence demonstrating that cannabis is carcinogenic or otherwise harmful to one’s health. In fact, a number of recent studies comparing tobacco smokers and cannabis smokers found that cannabis smokers had better long-term health and were less likely to suffer from cancer than tobacco users.

    In addition, unlike in Commonwealth Brands, where the government provided “extensive documentation” to show that marketing of tobacco products had a causal connection on consumer behavior of children, the legislature does not provide any proof that restricting advertising of cannabis products will affect youth behavior. Rather, the current version of SB162 simply states:

    Research by The RAND Corporation indicates that adolescents who are exposed to advertising of cannabis were more likely to report using cannabis or say they planned to use the substance in the future. The American College of Pediatricians’ research has found that cannabis has adverse effects on the adolescent brain and is associated with psychiatric illness and negative social outcomes.

     The bill does not provide any specific studies from either the RAND Corporation or the American College of Pediatricians to support this position, or to demonstrate that restricting speech in this broad way will achieve the desired outcome. Failure to provide the studies presumably demonstrating the government’s interest not only leaves the public in the dark as to what the government posits its substantial interest to be, but also creates a lack of accountability in the manner such interest was substantiated should the public infer or otherwise guess at what the interest might be.

     

    Commercial v. Non-Commercial Speech

    The First Amendment prohibits the government from making any law abridging the freedom of speech. Commercial speech is speech where the speaker is more likely to be engaged in commerce, where the audience consists of actual or potential customers, and where the content of the message is commercial in nature. Admittedly, commercial speech is afforded less protection by the First Amendment than non-commercial speech.

    The test to see whether a restriction on commercial speech violates the First Amendment is outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm’n, 447 U.S. 557 (1980). First, in order to be protected by the First Amendment, commercial speech must be truthful and not misleading. If the answer is yes, the speech can only be constitutionally regulated if (i) the government has a substantial interest in regulating the speech; (ii) the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted; and (iii) the regulation is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest. Central Hudson at 565.

    Additionally, any regulation of speech is void if it is vague, meaning it does not give reasonable notice of what is prohibited, or overbroad, meaning it regulates substantially more speech than is necessary to serve the government interest at stake.

    The government has the burden of demonstrating that the challenged regulation advances its interest in a direct and material way; mere speculation or conjecture that the regulation may serve the interest is not sufficient. There must be a “reasonable fit between the legislature’s ends and the means chosen to accomplish those ends, a means narrowly tailored to achieve the desired objective.” Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525, 561 (2001).

    The Commonwealth Brands case seems to rely on the idea that branded merchandise when utilized by the public, even if only those members of the public aged over 21 years, such individuals become walking advertisements to which minors will be inevitably exposed.  While there is some logic to the concept, if taken to its logical conclusion, absolutely no brand affiliated products intended for adults should be visible in the public domain given the likelihood that a minor might encounter them – this ban would include not only tobacco, cannabis, and alcohol, but also to clearly illogical extremes such as pharmaceuticals, cars (which are not to be driven except by individuals aged 16 and older), military careers, and more. Certain, more conservative, portions of the population may well include many more items to such a list.

    In either event, even if such items may seem easily forgone by some, the Supreme Court has already rejected such logic, not only with substantial interests but even the higher bar of compelling interests, and for good reason.  In Lorillard, the Court held that even retailers and manufacturers of adult-oriented products have an interest in conveying truthful information about their products to adults, and adults have a corresponding interest in receiving truthful information about such products. Lorillard at 564. In fact, the Court has reiterated several times that the level of discourse reaching the public simply cannot be limited to that which would be suitable for a sandbox, despite the presence of minors and their inevitable exposure to such discourse. To hold otherwise would be to reduce the adult population to reading only what is fit for children. Id (citing Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 U.S. 60, 74 (1983) and Butler v. Michigan, 352 U.S. 380,  383 (1957)).

    Purely political speech is given the full protection of the First Amendment, and restrictions on political speech are judged using strict scrutiny, which is the most difficult burden for the government to uphold. There must be a compelling government interest at stake and the government restriction on speech must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. A law is not narrowly tailored if it is over-inclusive, meaning it restricts even speech that does not implicate the government’s interest, or if there is a less restrictive means available to serve the government’s interest. Additionally, government restrictions on the content of speech are judged using this strict scrutiny analysis.

    The constitutionality of non-commercial, content-neutral restrictions of speech are assessed using intermediate scrutiny. This means that the law or restriction must advance an important government interest, and the means chosen must be substantially related to that interest. As is the case with content-based, purely political, or commercial speech, the law cannot be vague or overbroad.

    Additionally, there can’t be what’s called a “prior restraint” on speech, which is a governmental action that prevents speech or expression before it occurs. Prior restraints are typically found to be unconstitutional.

     

    Prohibition on Cannabis Advertising of Bands

    Cannabis companies advertising their brands or products on merchandise would likely fall under the purview of commercial speech, though certain messages could be construed to be non-commercial or even purely political given the fact that the legality of cannabis is currently a topic of political discussion.

    Yet, even if a court were to find that cannabis and cannabis product advertising on merchandise was commercial speech, the restriction would not withstand Central Hudson review. Specifically, the government would not be able to meet the first and final prongs of the test—that the government have a substantial interest to be served and the regulation be not more extensive than necessary to achieve that interest. Here, the State of California may well posit an interest in ensuring that children do not have access to cannabis products made for adults in much the same way that the State has an interest in ensuring youth do not have access to alcoholic beverages; however, the scientific data is entirely lacking to put cannabis on par with tobacco given the severe and undisputed health effects associated with the latter but not the former.

    In addition, prohibiting all cannabis licensees from advertising their company or products on branded merchandise is more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest given the plethora of valid and easily implemented alternatives. There is not a “reasonable fit” here between the objective and the means chosen. Instead, the legislature could restrict marketing that is specifically designed to be attractive to children, or could prohibit cannabis licensees from distributing branded merchandise at locations where children are present. Additionally, self-regulation of the industry is also an option. This method works quite well in the beer industry, where industry-created guidelines exist for branding and marketing by brewers and have thus far prevented the need for outside, legislative restrictions.

    Interestingly, the prohibition on advertising cannabis or cannabis products through branded merchandise would only apply to licensees. This means that someone without a state-issued cannabis license, such as a headshop or unpermitted operator, both of which are more easily accessible by someone under the age of 21, could advertise cannabis products through branded merchandise without repercussion, but someone with a license would be in violation of the law if they did so. This does not seem equitable or in line with the goal of reducing child exposure to branded cannabis merchandise.

    Lastly, the restriction on speech in SB162 is overbroad, as it would regulate substantially more speech than is necessary to achieve the government’s interest in restricting advertisements to minors. Speech that is not targeted in any way towards children, is not sold or distributed in places where children are present, and is not attractive to children would be included in the prohibition. This would impede the ability of cannabis companies to engage in constitutionally protected truthful commercial speech.

    If you’re concerned about this, we encourage you to contact your state assembly member today and tell your representative to vote “NO” on SB 162 unless amended.

    Please contact the Law Offices of Omar Figueroa to learn more about proposed restrictions on cannabis branded products and constitutional challenges thereto.

  • Planning to Hire Local? Be Aware of Employment Laws.

     

    As local authorities begin drafting and, in certain circumstances even finalizing, local ordinances for cannabis licensing, prospective licensees are faced with a number of considerations about how to structure their company so as to optimize the likelihood of obtaining a license. One factor several jurisdictions, such as Sonoma County, have proposed or adopted is giving priority licensing to companies that intend to “hire local.”

    Many cannabis companies instinctively adopt a “local-first” ethos as part of their core values. However, when structuring business operations, companies must keep in mind the myriad local, state, and federal employment laws that affect the way in which it may operate.

    Federal law prohibits companies from denying employment to an individual if the denial is based on certain criteria that are unrelated to one’s ability to perform the job at hand. The federal criteria includes: age, disability, genetic information, harassment, national origin, pregnancy, race or color, religion, and sex.

    However, some states, and even some municipalities, have their own laws that offer even broader protection. California, for example, has additional protected classes upon which an employer may not discriminate in the hiring process. In California, protected categories include: race or color, ancestry or national origin (including language use restrictions), religion or creed, age, mental or physical disabilities, medical condition, genetic information, sex or gender (including pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding or related medical conditions), marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression, or military and veteran status.

    While the federal and state lists inevitably overlap to a certain extent, a company must comply with the most restrictive set of laws applicable to its location. Moreover, the intent of the employer is not the deciding factor when determining whether improper discrimination has occurred. Rather, the fact that a particular practice has the effect of discrimination is sufficient to create a legal issue. This means that even a company with the best of intentions can run afoul of employment laws if otherwise valid practices have the effect of discrimination.

    This issue sometimes arises with respect to local-preference hiring practices.  By way of an example, say a company has adopted a hiring practice whereby they give preference to individuals who live in the same city as the company is headquartered in and that city happens to have a population that is skewed to a particular demographic; the applicant pool is therefore also going to be skewed towards that disproportionate demographic. In such a scenario, if that demographic is skewed with regards to race or ethnicity, for example, the company’s hiring practice has the effect of discriminating based on race and ethnicity. This is true, even if done without the intention to discriminate based on race or ethnicity, but rather to simply benefit “locals,” without regard to race or ethnicity.

    For example, according to the 2010 United States Census, 66.1% of Sonoma County residents self-identified as “White alone, not Hispanic or Latino”, whereas 40.1% of Californians self-identified as “White alone, not Hispanic or Latino.”  On the other hand, 3.% of Sonoma County residents self-identified as “Asian alone”, whereas 13.0% of Californians self-identified as “Asian alone.”  Similarly, 1.6% of Sonoma County residents self-identified as “Black or African American alone”, whereas 6.2% of Californians self-identified as “Black or African American alone.”  In other words, compared to the State of California as a whole, Sonoma County has a greater percentage of individuals self-identifying as  “White alone, not Hispanic or Latino” and a smaller percentage of individuals self-identifying as “Asian alone” or “Black or African American alone.”  Because of these demographic disparities, a hiring plan that favors local applicants (Sonoma County residents) may have the effect of discriminating based on race or ethnicity, even if done without the intention to discriminate.

    When the effect of discrimination arises, an employer may yet avoid liability if it can prove that the hiring criterion was job-related and consistent with business necessity; however, this is a fairly difficult standard of review, especially if reasonable alternatives with a less discriminatory effect exist. As such, companies looking at licensing in areas that have a less-than-varied demographic with regards to any of the protected classes should be wary of a local preference hiring plan and consult with an attorney prior to implementation.

    For more information, visit the California Department of Fair Employment & Housing’s website.

  • Court Update from San Diego in Case of Lawyer Jessica McElfresh

    Court update from the San Diego hearing in the Jessica McElfresh case, which took place on July 7, 2017 in Department 36 on the third floor of the Main Courthouse located at 220 West Broadway, before the Honorable Laura Halgren.

     

    BACKGROUND

    Jessica McElfresh is a well-known San Diego lawyer who has practiced cannabis law for years. She is facing several cannabis-related felony charges, filed by Jorge Del Portillo of the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office after Ms. McElfresh helped secure a tremendous appellate victory in an asset forfeiture case unsuccessfully prosecuted by the same Jorge Del Portillo of the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office. At issue was whether legal documents and digital data seized from attorney McElfresh’s home and office pursuant to the search warrant were protected under the attorney-client privilege.

     

    TAKEAWAY

    The good news is that Judge Halgren will not rely on the federal prohibition on cannabis in deciding claims of privilege, contrary to the prosecution’s position that the federal prohibition on cannabis means that the crime-fraud exception controls. Judge Halgren stated that no further argument is needed on the federal prohibition, as the search warrant was based on purported violations of state law, not federal law, and probable cause was based on an analysis of state and local law. This was a relief to many lawyers present, who were concerned that the Court would go along with the prosecution’s overreaching contention that the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege swallowed the privilege entirely because, well, because federal law.

    The Court declined to issue a final ruling on the motions until the special master’s report came in. (A special master is a court-appointed adjudicator of time-consuming issues, in this case, deciding claims of privilege with respect to voluminous documents and electronic files.

    The Court noted that it had not been presented with a declaration from Ms. McElfresh showing that the accused attorney has an immediate need for the return of seized items in order to conduct her law business, hinting that if the Court were to be presented with such a declaration, the Court may be inclined to make a ruling favorable to the defense.

    The next hearing will take place in two weeks, on July 21 at 2:30 p.m. in Department 36 on the third floor of the Main Courthouse located at 220 West Broadway, before the Honorable Laura Halgren.

     

    DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF HEARING (FOR LAW GEEKS)

    Defendant Jessica McElfresh was represented by the mighty Eugene Iredale, and the prosecution was represented by Jorge Del Portillo.

    You can compare their listings on the State Bar web site:

    http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/75292

    http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/241474

    The matter was set for a hearing on the accused’s Motions for Return of Property, Narrowing Scope of Search Warrant, Return of Illegally Seized Items, Return of Privileged Material, and Sealing Pending In Camera Review.

    The hearing commenced with about a dozen lawyers entering appearances on behalf of their current clients (clients formerly represented by Jessica McElfresh) to assert the attorney-client privilege. Mr. Iredale agreed to provide the court with a comprehensive list of counsel and clients asserting privilege.

    Judge Halgren noted she is in trial and only had until 10 a.m. She said she did not want to hear more about the timing of the search warrant in relation to the court order issued by Judge Ipema (to return funds seized from co-defendant Slatic in an asset forfeiture proceeding), meaning, she did not want to hear about retaliatory and vindictive prosecution. There was no more discussion of this topic during the hearing.

    Judge Halgren stated that no further argument was needed on the federal prohibition, as the search warrant was based on purported violations of state law, not federal law, and probable cause was based on an analysis of state and local law. This was a relief to many lawyers present, who were concerned that the Court would go along with the prosecution’s overreaching contention that the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege swallowed the privilege entirely simply “because federal law.”

    Judge Halgren did issue a tentative ruling in favor of the defense with respect to medical records pertaining to Ms. McElfresh and her father, who passed away years ago. She said medical records of patients are protected by a right of privacy in the California Constitution, that the search warrant does not encompass such medical records, that there is no basis for overcoming their confidentiality, and that the defense should expect the records to be returned.

    The prosecutor, Mr. Del Portillo, argued that if Ms. McElfresh has a medical marijuana recommendation, or is in possession of recommendations, that is evidence either of an affirmative defense (a reference to the medical cannabis defense, which technically is a limited immunity from prosecution rather than an affirmative defense) or evidence of her joining a criminal conspiracy.

    If Ms. McElfresh is part of a collective, argued Del Portillo, she is part of a conspiracy. Judge Halgren stated that the Court does not see the search warrant as authorizing a search of medical records for defendant’s medical marijuana recommendation, but that the Court will not issue a final ruling until it obtains the special master’s report.

    With regard to the defense challenge to the overbreadth of the search warrant with respect to electronic searches, Judge Halgren stated that the Court did not view the search warrant as authorizing an electronic search term for Ms. McElfresh’s name (and thereby a search of each and every document containing Ms. McElfresh’s name), but rather clarified that the search is to be focused on Ms. McElfresh in connection with the legal entities the Court “found probable cause for.”

    The prosecution gave a status update on the electronic search: the items should be imaged and the originals ready to return by the end of next week, but had yet to be analyzed.   Defense counsel Iredale requested that, before any search takes place, the defense be given a list of search terms, so there is an opportunity for correction “before the bell that cannot be unrung is rung.” The Court ordered the prosecution and defense to meet and confer to try to narrow the execution of the search warrant so that the search does not exceed the scope of the search warrant (interpreted in light of the court’s clarifying statements.)

    Judge Halgren noted that she had not been presented with a declaration from Ms. McElfresh showing that the accused attorney has an immediate need for the return of seized items in order to conduct her law business, hinting that if the Court were to be presented with such a declaration, the Court may be inclined to make a ruling favorable to the defense.

    A discussion ensued about verifying the authenticity of imaged copies of seized digital materials, and the Court suggested that the prosecution should keep the original electronic items and provide an imaged copy to the defense.

    Defense counsel Iredale requested to be given a copy of the special master report in advance of its publication to the prosecution so that the defense would have an opportunity to object to the inadvertent or unintentional disclosure of privileged information in the report (for example, if the special master itemizes a file in a way that discloses the nature of a privileged communication.) The Court suggested the parties meet and confer with the special master, Mr. Martin.

    Mr. Iredale previewed an issue that he wanted to brief more thoroughly: the special master is not allowed to review the contents of seized material, but only to peruse the material in order to categorize it. Prosecutor Mr. Del Portillo said the prosecution disagreed with that position, and argued that when the attorney is a target of a criminal investigation, no special master is required, and that the prosecution had gone above and beyond the call of duty by having a special master. The defense disagreed, of course.

    Judge Halgren stated the Court needed to hear from the special master, Mr. Martin at the next hearing; the Court did not want to guess. At the status hearing on July 21, the Court also wanted to hear from the computer lab about its timetable.

    The Court further stated that — contrary to the prosecution’s position that the crime-fraud exception applies to any attorney-client communications that could be used as evidence of a violation of 11379.6(a) (Manufacturing by means of ethanol extraction) — the search warrant does not allow examination of all client files to see if there’s evidence of criminal activity.

    Finally, Judge Halgren granted Ms. McElfresh permission to travel freely out of state, but would need to obtain a travel order in order to leave the country.

    The next hearing will take place in two weeks, on July 21 at 2:30 p.m. in Department 36 on the third floor of the Main Courthouse located at 220 West Broadway, before the Honorable Laura Halgren.

     

  • Bank of America Named as Defendant in Oregon Civil RICO Litigation

    Bank of America has been named as a defendant in the civil RICO (“Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act”) lawsuit filed in federal court in Oregon in June of 2017. This will send shock waves through the financial and insurance industries:

    “Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (“Defendant Bank of America”) is a nationally chartered banking association with its principal place of business in North Carolina. Defendant Bank of America does business in Oregon and holds a mortgage on the Beddow Property. As further described herein, Defendant Bank of America knowingly allowed the Beddow Property to be used for the production and processing of marijuana, and profited from such use.”

     

     

    The complaint goes on to state:

    “Defendant Bank of America holds the mortgage on the Beddow Property. As the mortgagee of the Beddow Property, Defendant Bank of America controls the Beddow Property. In November 2015, Bank of America received written notice that the Beddow Defendants, the mortgagors, were leasing the Beddow Property to Defendant Hidden Acres for the purpose of producing and processing marijuana, that marijuana was being produced and processed on the Beddow Property, and that the Beddow Defendants were investors in the marijuana production and processing operation. In violation of 18 U.S.C. § 856(a)(2), since November 2015, Defendant Bank of America has knowingly permitted the production and processing of marijuana to continue on the Beddow Property, and derived a profit from such activity via the monthly mortgage payments it received. Since November 2015, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b), Defendant Bank of America has communicated via mail with the Beddow Defendants to facilitate use of the Beddow Property in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 856(a)(2).”

    The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, costs, and “other and further relief as the Court shall deem equitable.”  Interestingly, one of the two plaintiffs, Rachel McCart, is a lawyer and is representing herself and her sister.  There is no request for attorney’s fees.

    Oregon RICO complaint

    Oregon RICO docket

  • Legislature consolidates MCRSA and AUMA into MAUCRSA


    On Thursday June 15, the California Senate and Assembly passed two bills, SB-94 and AB-110, which are the state legislature’s versions of Governor Brown’s Trailer Bill. The Trailer Bill is the administration’s effort to reconcile the medical and adult use cannabis systems in California. Now that these bills have passed, Governor Brown has until July 1 to sign them into law, which he is expected to do. The law would then go into effect immediately once signed.

    We contacted the Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation to ask what would happen next. Their official response was:

    “The bureau will withdraw the proposed MCRSA regulations and propose a new set of regulations consistent with the changes in the law. However, public comments on the proposed MCRSA regulations are still very important. Many of the provisions in the MCRSA proposed regulations will carry over to the new regulations. Public comment from the MCRSA proposed regulations will provide information for the bureau to use when crafting any new regulations.”

    The emergency rule-making process will most likely be used for the next round of proposed regulations.

    Below are some of the main changes coming soon to California cannabis.

     

    Name of the Law and Rebranding of Regulatory Agency

    The new name for the combined medical and adult use cannabis regulatory systems is the “Medicinal and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act” (MAUCRSA–we think this would be pronounced MAO-KUR-SA) (BPC §26000). The Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation will be renamed the “Bureau of Cannabis Control” (BPC §26001(e)).

     

    License Types and Combinations

    The license types for medical and adult use cannabis operations will be the same. There will be no transporter or producing dispensary licenses. Licenses will be identified as medical or adult use with an “M” or “A,” respectively, except for testing laboratories which shall not be designated as either. The requirements for M-licenses and A-licenses shall be the same, unless otherwise specified (BPC §26050(b)). Regarding which combinations of licenses a person may hold, the law removes MCRSA’s limitation on holding licenses in more than two separate categories. Large cultivators, which will not be allowed until 2023, cannot hold distribution or testing licenses but can hold all other license types.

     

    Definition of “Owner”

    The new law eliminates the distinction between public and private companies; the threshold is 20% interest in the company to be an owner; and the CEO of a company (if applicable) ; and all members of the Board of Directors of a nonprofit (if applicable); and anyone who exercises direction, management or control of the company (if applicable) (BPC §26001(al)).

     

    Delivery

    Deliveries may only be made by a licensed retailer or microbusiness (BPC §26090). However, retailers are allowed to conduct business exclusively by delivery. Such a retailer must still have a licensed premises, but the premises may be closed to the public (BPC §26070). Deliveries includes the use of technology platforms that are either independently licensed or owned and controlled by another licensee (BPC §26001(p)).

     

    Volatile Solvents

    The definition of “volatile solvents” has been completely changed, and no longer includes references to specific compounds. Instead, a volatile chemical is defined by MAUCRSA as “a solvent that is or produces a flammable gas or vapor that, when present in the air in sufficient quantities, will create explosive or ignitable mixtures.” (HSC §11362.3(b)(3)).

     

    Lab Testing

    The bureau will issue testing laboratory licenses, but these licenses will not be designated as “M” or “A” (BPC §26050(b)). Holders of a testing laboratory license may not hold a license in any other category (BPC §26053(b)). Testing laboratories are responsible for obtaining samples and transporting them back to the laboratory

     

    Distribution

    Transportation of cannabis can only be done by licensed distributors (BPC §26070(a)(2)), but anyone, except testing laboratory license holders, can apply for a distributor license (BPC §26110).

     

    No More Prohibition on ABC Licensees Holding Cannabis Licenses

    MCRSA and AUMA prohibited a holder of an alcohol license from obtaining a license for commercial cannabis. The new legislation does away with that prohibition. Instead, the law would prohibit any cannabis licensee from serving alcoholic beverages or tobacco on the licensed premises (BPC §26054).

     

    Special Events

    Temporary event licenses that would allow on-site consumption may be available, if all participants are licensed and the local jurisdiction allows it (BPC §26200(e)).

     

     

  • Proposition 65’s Warning Requirements and Cannabis Businesses

     

    WARNING: New Proposition 65 Notice Requirements Coming Soon!

    OVERVIEW

    California’s Proposition 65, a voter initiative passed in 1986, created the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Health & Safety Code § 25249.5 et seq.), which requires that the seller of a product that contains chemical(s) known by the State of California to cause cancer or reproductive harm must provide a warning to anyone who buys the product, unless there is already a clear and sufficient warning printed on the label or package. Warnings must also be given if there is a possibility of environmental exposure to a chemical on the list of substances that cause cancer or reproductive harm. Penalties for violating Proposition 65’s warning requirement can be as high as $2,500 per day.

    The Proposition 65 list can be found at https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/proposition-65-list.

    Proposition 65 is enforced by the California Attorney General’s office; however, the law also gives a private right of action to individuals acting in the public interest, who may file a lawsuit alleging that a business is in violation of the law. Many private attorneys are involved in filing these notices, and the attorney fees awarded are usually significant.

    The warning required under Proposition 65 must be “reasonably calculated” to be available to an individual prior to exposure, and must clearly communicate that the chemical in question is known to cause cancer or reproductive harm. “Exposure” in this context is defined as: “to cause to ingest, inhale, contact via body surfaces or otherwise come into contact with a listed chemical,” and can occur through use of consumer products as well as through the environment.

    For products, the warning must be “prominently placed upon a product’s label or other labeling or displayed at the retail outlet with such conspicuousness, as compared with other words, statements, designs, or devices in the label, labeling or display as to render it likely to be read and understood by an ordinary individual under customary conditions of purchase or use.” A system of signs, a public advertising system, or any other system that provides clear and reasonable warnings is also sufficient. This could include a warning printed on each customer receipt, or included as part of a membership agreement, if one exists, depending on the circumstances. For environmental exposure, in addition to the warning methods mentioned above, warnings can also be provided by a mailed or delivered notice to each occupant of the affected area at least once every three months, or via public media announcements targeted to the affected area at least once every three months.

    Currently, the consumer product warning for a carcinogen must include the following language:

    “WARNING: This product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer.”

    The current environmental exposure warning for a carcinogen must include the following language:

    “WARNING: This area contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer.”

    The required warnings for chemicals known to cause reproductive harm are identical, except the word “cancer” is replaced with “birth defects or other reproductive harm.”

     

    NEW RULES COMING

    California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the agency that oversees Proposition 65 enforcement, issued new warning regulations in late 2016 that will go into effect on August 30, 2018. The new regulations are designed to provide consumers with more specific notice of the chemicals contained in products sold within the state. Between now and August 30, 2018, businesses can choose to continue following the existing regulations or to begin following the new regulations immediately. (For a side-by-side comparison of the current and new reasonable warning regulations, go to https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/side-sidearticle6090116.pdf.)

    The new regulations place the burden to warn on manufacturers and distributors rather than on retailers, though there are instances when a warning by the retail seller is required. Additionally, as long as the consumer ultimately receives an adequate warning, an arrangement may be reached between a retail seller and a manufacturer, producer, packager, importer, supplier, or distributor to allocate legal responsibility for providing the warning.

    Warnings under the new regulations must be provided via signs and/or product labeling as applicable. For warning signs in retail establishments, the new regulations still require the warnings to be prominently displayed with conspicuous signage, so as to render them likely to be read and understood by an ordinary customer. Regarding additions to the warning, the warning may contain supplemental information “only to the extent that it identifies the source of the exposure or provides information on how to avoid or reduce exposure to the identified chemical or chemicals,” and any such supplemental information is not a substitute for the required warning.

    The new exposure warning messages must include the following:

    (1) A symbol consisting of a black exclamation point in a yellow equilateral triangle with a bold black outline. Where the sign, label or shelf tag for the product is not printed using the color yellow, the symbol may be printed in black and white. The symbol shall be placed to the left of the text of the warning, in a size no smaller than the height of the word “WARNING”.

    (2) The word “WARNING” in all capital letters and bold print, and:

    (A) For exposures to listed carcinogens, the words, “This product can expose you to chemicals including [name of one or more chemicals], which is [are] known to the State of California to cause cancer. For more information go to www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.”

    Additionally, on-product warnings for products containing a known cancer-causing agent require the symbol required in §25603(a)(1), the word “WARNING” in bold capital letters, and the following words: “Cancer – www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.” The name of the listed chemical is not required to be printed on a product warning label.

    The major differences between the current and the new “clear and reasonable” warning regulations are: (i) that the current regulations do not require that the specific listed chemical be identified, whereas the new regulations do; (ii) a change in the appearance of the warning sign, which will now require a yellow (or black-and-white) triangle with an exclamation point; and (iii) a clear preference for placing the burden to warn on manufacturers and packagers rather than retail sellers where possible, while also providing a mechanism to allocate legal responsibility for providing such warnings.

     

    EXCEPTIONS

     Businesses that employ nine or fewer employees are exempt from the reasonable warning requirement. Additionally, only marijuana smoke is included on the Prop. 65 list of cancer-causing substances, so warnings may not be required for edible or topical marijuana products, provided they do not contain another chemical on the Prop. 65 list, such as certain pesticides. A warning still may be required on some marijuana products that can be vaporized, since certain chemicals used in vapor products may be included on this list.

     

    APPLICATION TO CANNABIS BUSINESSES

    Marijuana smoke was added to the list of substances known by the State of California to cause cancer in 2009. Recently, a number of medical cannabis dispensaries throughout the state have received 60-day notices of allegedly violating the clear and reasonable warning requirement. Therefore, medical marijuana dispensary operators should provide a warning, since some products being sold (i.e., any marijuana intended for use by combustion or vaporization) can be used in a way that, according to the State of California, could expose the user to a cancer-causing agent. This is not required if all such products already have clear warnings on their packages or labels. Additionally, dispensaries that permit smoking or vaporizing on-site should provide a warning for environmental exposure. These warnings must be placed in a location where an average customer is likely to see them.

    Under the new regulations, which go into effect in August 2018, the burden placed on retailers will be minimized. Retailers of cannabis will not be responsible for providing the required warnings unless: (i) the retailer is responsible for introducing a listed chemical into a product; (ii) the retailer agrees to take on this responsibility; (iii) the retailer is selling the product under a brand or trademark that is owned or licensed by the retailer or an affiliated agency; (iv) the retailer obscured or did not conspicuously display warning labels or signage that were provided; or (v) the retailer has actual knowledge of potential consumer exposure that would require a warning, and there is no manufacturer, producer, packager, importer, supplier, or distributor of the product who is a “person in the course of doing business” and has designated an agent for service of process in California or has a place of business in California.

    Retailers are explicitly authorized to enter into arrangements with providers of packaged smokeable or vaporizable marijuana products to allocate legal responsibility for providing Prop. 65 warnings. However, the providers of the packaged products have the option of including the required warning directly on the product label or providing an accompanying written warning to the retailer along with the product. If the latter method is chosen, then the notice must be renewed every six months and the retailer is responsible for the placement and maintenance of the warning materials.

    Below are examples of warnings that comply with the new regulations, which go into effect on August 30, 2018:

     

    WARNING: This product can expose you to marijuana smoke, which is known to the State of California to cause cancer. For more information, go to www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.

     

     

     

    WARNING: Entering this area can expose you to marijuana smoke. Marijuana smoke is known to the State of California to cause cancer. For more information, go to www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.

     

    As noted, Proposition 65 can be enforced by both a public and private right of action, so individuals can serve businesses who they allege to be in violation of the Act with a 60-Day Notice of Violation and can then file a civil lawsuit against the alleged violator if an agreement to resolve the violation is not reached. A number of medical marijuana dispensaries have been targeted in this manner over the past years. Apparently, all of these cases resulted in either a settlement or a consent judgment.

    Moreover, marijuana smoke is not the only chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer that a dispensary might encounter: pesticides such as myclobutanil and carbaryl are on the Proposition 65 list, and a number of medical cannabis dispensaries throughout California have recently received 60-Day Notices for edible cannabis products allegedly containing myclobutanil or carbaryl.

    To view the Attorney General’s database of marijuana-smoke-related Prop. 65 60-Day Notices, visit https://oag.ca.gov/prop65/60-day-notice-search and search for “Marijuana smoke” in the “Chemical” box.

    Searches for “Marijuana smoke“, “Myclobutanil“, and “Carbaryl” reveal that dozens of 60-Day Notices have been reportedly served on California medical cannabis businesses throughout the state.

    Because marijuana smoke and other pesticides which may be found in cannabis products are currently listed as cancer-causing substances by the OEHHA, and because several dispensaries have been targeted for not providing such warnings, it is advised that medical cannabis dispensaries provide the warnings called for under Proposition 65, despite some evidence suggesting that marijuana may actually help treat cancer. It is also advised that packagers of cannabis products start preparing to include Proposition 65 warnings on their labels or to provide these warnings to retailers, or to make agreements with retailers as to who will take on this responsibility.

    There is nothing that prevents a cannabis dispensary from including additional signage that states the facility disagrees with the required warnings.

    For more information on Proposition 65, go to https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/.

     

    Remember: laws, rules, and regulations are constantly changing.  The above information is not intended as legal advice; please contact the Law Offices of Omar Figueroa for legal advice on how to comply with Proposition 65 at (415) 489-0420 or (707) 829-0215.