cannabis law – Page 4 – Cannabis Industry

April 22, 2019 by Duane Morris

Immigrants Can Be Denied U.S. Citizenship for Working in Regulated Marijuana Industry

Last week the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued guidance indicating that working in the marijuana industry, or even just possessing cannabis, could be grounds to reject a citizenship application—regardless of whether it is done in a state where it is legal. This guidance also would apply to permanent residents or “green card” holders seeking citizenship. The policy guidance is set forth in the USCIS Policy Manual and seeks to clarify that violations of federal controlled substance law, including violations involving marijuana, are “generally a bar to establishing good moral character for naturalization, even where that conduct would not be an offense under state law.” The policy guidance also clarifies that an applicant who is involved in certain marijuana-related activities may lack good moral character if found to have violated federal law, even if such activity has been decriminalized under applicable state laws.

Reports by various news outlets indicate that some lawful immigrants have already been denied naturalization by USCIS because of their employment in the cannabis industry. According to USCIS, as long as marijuana remains illegal under federal law, the agency won’t grant special considerations to individuals whose marijuana activities may be decriminalized under state or local law. The position of USCIS is that “marijuana remains illegal under federal law as a Schedule I controlled substance regardless of any actions to decriminalize its possession, use, or sale at the state and local level, federal law does not recognize the decriminalization of marijuana for any purpose, even in places where state or local law does.”

As we know, the U.S. Customs & Border Patrol has prevented some Canadian citizens from entering the U.S. because of their involvement in the cannabis industry. It remains unclear how strict USCIS will be in enforcing the latest policy guidance on citizenship. For the time being, participation in the cannabis industry will continue to constitute a potential bar to a determination of good moral character for naturalization eligibility, even where such activity is not a criminal offense under state law.

March 18, 2019 by Brad A. Molotsky

NJ Adult Use Bill – Two Steps Closer to a March 25th Vote – Brad A. Molotsky, Esq.

According to late night reporting from NJ Biz – Dan Munoz, who has been all over this topic, committees in both the NJ Assembly & Senate approved a measure that would legalize adult-use recreational marijuana, setting the proposals for a showdown full-floor vote in 7 days from now on March 25.

Senate Bill 2703 passed by a 6-4 vote with one abstention in the Senate Judiciary Committee Monday evening while its counterpart, Assembly Bill 4497, passed by a 6-1 vote with two abstentions at the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Both measures would allow for anyone over 21 years of age to possess up to an ounce of marijuana.

The product would be taxed at $42 an ounce and the industry would be regulated by a five-person Cannabis Regulatory Commission, which will function similarly to how the Casino Control Commission operated following the legalization of gambling in the 1970s.

The approval of both measures followed hours of closed-door meetings as lawmakers hammered out last-minute changes to the legislation, including a dramatically increased expungement process for people with marijuana-related convictions.

Stay tuned for a detailed analysis as the final bill is published. – Brad

March 13, 2019 by Brad A. Molotsky

NJ Adult Use Cannabis Bill Fast Tracked for March 25th Vote

Gov. Phil Murphy and legislative leaders reached agreement on key provisions to legalize marijuana for adult recreational use, including how to tax and regulate it, and expunging past low-level marijuana offenses for certain users as a step toward social reform per reporting from Dan Munoz.

Per a press release issued by key Assembly Senate and the Governor’s office, we should expect to see the introduction of a cannabis bill within days.
Under the terms of the agreement:

• Adult-use marijuana would be subject to an excise tax of $42 per ounce, which will be imposed when marijuana is cultivated.

• Municipalities that are home to a cultivator or manufacturer would receive the revenue from a 2 percent tax on the product within their jurisdiction.

• Municipalities that are home to a wholesaler would receive the revenue from a 1 percent tax on the product within their jurisdiction.

• Municipalities that are home to a retailer would receive the revenue from a 3 percent tax on the product within their jurisdiction.

To start to address social equity concerns, the revised legislation will likely provide an expedited expungement process for individuals convicted of low-level marijuana offenses, and a separate expungement process that would automatically prevent certain marijuana offenses from being taken into account in particular areas such as education, housing and occupational licensing.

Additionally, there are a number of provisions that aim to ensure broad-based participation for women owned and minority owned businesses, low and middle-income individuals, and disadvantaged communities.

Under the proposed legislation, adult-use marijuana would be governed by a Cannabis Regulatory Commission, composed of 5 members—three appointed directly by the Governor to serve terms of at least 4 years, and 2 appointed by the Governor upon the recommendations of the speaker and Senate president.

The commission would be tasked with promulgating all regulations to govern the industry and overseeing applications for licensing of adult-use marijuana dispensaries.

-Brad A. Molotsky, Esq.

December 18, 2018April 6, 2020 by Ryan Wesley Brown

California’s Bureau of Cannabis Control Submits Final Regulations for Administrative Review

The three agencies that regulate the cannabis market in California, the Bureau of Cannabis Control, Department of Food and Agriculture, and Department of Public Health, submitted a final version of regulations to the Office of Administrative Law (“OAL”) in California this month. The OAL reviews regulations for compliance with procedural requirements and substantive standards under California law. The OAL has 30 working days — until January 16, 2019 — to review the regulations.

This blog post will highlight some of the important changes to the regulations made by the Bureau of Cannabis Control (“BCC”). Continue reading “California’s Bureau of Cannabis Control Submits Final Regulations for Administrative Review”

September 13, 2018September 13, 2018 by Duane Morris

Duane Morris’ Jerome Levy to Discuss Municipal Regulation of Marijuana

Duane Morris partner Jerome Levy will participate in the Strafford webinar, “Municipal Regulation of Marijuana: Guidance on Permitting, Licensing and Zoning for Medical and Recreational Uses,” on Wednesday, October 10, 2018, from 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. (Eastern time).

This CLE webinar will offer guidance to local government lawyers on regulating cannabis consumption for medical and recreational uses. The panel will discuss the patchwork of current regulatory efforts across the country and explore some of the most effective strategies for regulating in municipalities based on current case law and the interplay with state and federal regulation. For more information and to register, visit the Strafford website.

June 12, 2018April 6, 2020 by Justin A. Santarosa

California Department of Public Health’s Re-Adopted Emergency Regulations

The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) is the state agency designated under the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA) as responsible for regulating cannabis manufacturing.

The CDPH issued emergency regulations for manufacturers in November 2017, and has now proposed readopting those regulations for another 180 days. Based on feedback from the public and stakeholders in the industry, the CDPH has proposed some changes to these regulations.

This blog post will highlight the changes to the CDPH emergency regulations and identify key issues for manufacturers. In separate posts, we will be describing the changes made by the California Department of Food and Agriculture and the California Bureau of Cannabis Control.

Changes to Emergency Regulations:

The CDPH has removed the distinction of A and M Licenses and now only requires one application and applicants will only have to pay one licensing fee. Previously you had to submit two applications and pay two separate licensing fees if you wanted to operate in the medicinal and adult-use market.
The readopted regulations have now incorporated the previously released shared-use facility regulations, which allow a manufacturing premises to be used my multiple businesses that take turns utilizing the space and equipment. This allows for operations similar to a commercial kitchen or agreements in which larger manufacturers offer space and use of equipment to smaller manufacturers.
The CDPH has removed tinctures from the definition of a product containing more than 0.5% alcohol by volume. However, tinctures cannot be sold in a package larger than two fluid ounces and shall include a calibrated dropper or other measuring device

The change to only a single application for both medical and adult-use is a welcome change for manufacturing businesses. Overall, the CDPH did not make significant changes to its regulations.

If you have any questions about the regulations, please contact Justin Santarosa in our Los Angeles office.

June 1, 2018April 6, 2020 by Justin A. Santarosa

Bureau of Cannabis Control’s Re-Adopted Emergency Regulations

The Bureau of Cannabis Control is the state agency designated under the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA) as responsible for issuing licenses to and regulating distributors, retailers, delivery-only retailers, microbusinesses, and testing labs.

The BCC issued emergency regulations in November 2017, and has now proposed readopting those regulations for another 180 days. Based on feedback from the public and stakeholders in the industry, the BCC has proposed some changes to these regulations.

This blog post will highlight the changes to the BCC emergency regulations and identify key issues for distributors, retailers, delivery-only retailers, microbusinesses, and testing labs. In separate posts, we will be describing the changes made by the California Department of Food and Agriculture and the California Department of Public Health. Those posts can be found here and here.

Changes to Emergency Regulations:

The BCC has removed the distinction of A and M Licenses and now only requires one application and applicants will only have to pay one licensing fee. Additionally, license fees have been reduced. Previously you had to submit two applications and pay two separate licensing fees if you wanted to operate in the medicinal and adult-use market.
A delivery employee may now complete multiple deliveries of cannabis goods if they are prepared by the retailer prior to the delivery employee leaving the licensed premises. The total amount of cannabis goods in the delivery vehicle may be up to $10,000, the previous limit was set at $3,000.
The definition of owner has been amended to specify that the chief executive officer and/or the members of the board of directors of any entity that own 20% or more of a commercial cannabis business will be considered “owners.”
The definition of financial interests has been amended to include “an agreement to receive a portion of the profits of a commercial cannabis business.” Commercial cannabis business and service providers will have to review their agreements and applications to determine if certain amendments will need to be made to include other people or businesses as having a “financial interest” in a commercial cannabis business. Interestingly, this change was not made in the definition of “financial interest” under the CDFA and CDPH regulations.
Retail stores may not sell or deliver cannabis goods through a drive-through or pass-out window and sales cannot be made to people within motor vehicles.
License applications must now include:
- Cannabis waste procedures; and
- Delivery procedures, if applicable.

These changes show that the BCC and the other regulatory agencies are being responsive to their stakeholders and while not all changes are positive, we believe this is a step in the right direction for cannabis businesses in California.If you have any questions about the regulations, please contact Justin Santarosa in our Los Angeles office.

May 23, 2018April 6, 2020 by Justin A. Santarosa

California’s Re-Adopted Emergency Regulations – What Cannabis Cultivators Need to Know

The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), through its CalCannabis Cultivation Licensing division, is the state agency designated under the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA) as responsible for issuing licenses to commercial cannabis cultivators in California.

The CDFA issued emergency regulations for cannabis cultivators in November 2017, and has now proposed readopting those regulations for another 180 days. Based on feedback from the public and stakeholders in the industry, the CDFA has proposed some changes to these regulations.

This blog post will highlight the changes to the CDFA emergency regulations and identify key issues for cannabis cultivators. In separate posts, we will be describing the changes made by the Bureau of Cannabis Control and the California Department of Public Health. Click here for those updates. Continue reading “California’s Re-Adopted Emergency Regulations – What Cannabis Cultivators Need to Know”

December 4, 2017April 6, 2020 by Justin A. Santarosa

What Distributors Need to Know About California’s Emergency Cannabis Regulations

On November 16, 2017, the California Bureau of Cannabis Control published emergency regulations governing both the medical and the adult-use cannabis industries in California. Below are the highlights of the emergency regulations and how they may impact distributors of cannabis products.

This post is the fourth in a series of entries on the Duane Morris Cannabis Industry blog that will provide an analysis of the new California emergency regulations. If you have any questions about the regulations, please contact Justin Santarosa in our Los Angeles office. Continue reading “What Distributors Need to Know About California’s Emergency Cannabis Regulations”

November 18, 2017April 6, 2020 by Justin A. Santarosa

California Releases Emergency Cannabis Regulations

On November 16, 2017, California’s three cannabis licensing agencies published emergency regulations to govern both the medical and adult-use cannabis industry in California under the Medical and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA) (Bus. & Prof. Code 26000 et seq.). The regulations published by the Bureau of Cannabis Control, the Department of Food and Agriculture and the Department of Public Health cover, among other things, cultivating, manufacturing, testing, growing, packaging and potency requirements.

Below are highlights of the emergency regulations. This post is the first in a series of entries on the Duane Morris Cannabis Industry blog that will provide an analysis of the new regulations. If you have any questions about the regulations, please contact Jennifer Briggs Fisher in our San Francisco office or Justin Santarosa in our Los Angeles office. Continue reading “California Releases Emergency Cannabis Regulations”