As our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand it, auto insurance premiums in states that adopted legal medical cannabis fell by an average of $22 annually after legalization. The research was published in the journal Health Economics, which looked at insurance premium information from 2014 to 2019. Authors of the study speculate that it may have something to do with people opting for cannabis over alcohol, thereby reducing instances of drunk driving. It’s not that driving while under the influence of cannabis is any safer, but at least anecdotally, those under the influence of cannabis are less likely to get behind the wheel in the first place, compared to those under the influence of alcohol.

While a reduction of $22 in insurance premiums over the course of a year may not seem all that significant, one must consider that amplified by each individual on the road. And if the reason for the decline is that there is link between legal cannabis and road safety that in turn leads to fewer drunk driving crashes (and associated costs), that starts to look much more significant.

The researchers determined that legalization of medical marijuana collectively results in $1.5 billion in lower auto insurance premiums. If all states were to legalize marijuana, researchers surmise, that could result in an additional $900 million in reduced premiums. The combined total impact of would be $2.4 billion less we’d all be paying for car insurance if medical marijuana was accessible across the U.S.

What’s more, given that the amount we pay for auto insurance is directly tied to how much property is damaged and how severely people are injured in crashes, the lowered premiums are indicative of safer roadways overall when medical marijuana is made legal.

Of course, as our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers are aware, this isn’t the first study to debunk the myth that legalized marijuana makes roads less safe. But what is unique about it is that it highlights car insurance trends. Most previous analysis focused on the correlation between road safety based on traffic deaths and state marijuana reforms. But the latter type of study overlooks the fact that traffic deaths only account for a small number of overall traffic crashes (only about .5 percent). Insurance premiums, however, provide us with a more complete picture of how marijuana laws impact actual day-to-day safety on our roads.

The key takeaway, according to the co-author of the study, was that even though driving high is very dangerous, medical cannabis makes roads safer by reducing the prevalence of drunk driving. Beyond the substitution effect theory, analysis shows that people who use cannabis in place of other drugs are more likely to either stay home or go to house parties, rather than gather at bars that will require them to drive home after a certain point.

Another analysis found that states with legalized marijuana also actually have fewer instances of people driving under the influence of THC than in states where marijuana criminalization has remained intact.

The Los Angeles CANNABIS LAW Group represents growers, dispensaries, ancillary companies, patients, doctors and those facing marijuana charges. Call us at 949-375-4734.

Additional Resources:

Medical Marijuana Legalization Linked To Reduced Drunk Driving And Safer Roads, Study On Auto Insurance Data Suggests, June 20, 2022, By Kyle Jaeger, Marijuana Moment

As our Los Angeles cannabis business lawyers can explain, while the state has clear guidelines in place mandating marijuana products be screened for contaminants and THC content by licensed testing facilities, what is lacking is any sort of uniform methodology to do so. The result of that is that two facilities may be using different processes, ultimately leading to a variation of findings.

Products with a greater THC concentration (which has the greatest potential for intoxication) are going to be in higher demand. The state’s problem is a pattern it has identified of marijuana growers shopping around for labs that employ testing methods that have a greater tendency to indicate a higher THC concentration.

In an effort to drill down on this matter, the state’s Department of Cannabis Control recently initiated the process of rulemaking that would ultimately lead to development of a standard test method that would need to be adopted by all licensed cannabis testing labs. The state agency’s director said this issue comes about partially as a result of regulating an industry that lacks federal recognition, and thus has no standard, validated testing methods. Licensed labs have reportedly issued THC concentration data that may be inconsistent – or possibly even inaccurate – according to the agency. Having a streamlined testing process, the agency said in a press release, will improve testing accuracy, stakeholder confidence, and market integrity.

Public comment on the proposed testing method rules is being accepted through July, with a public hearing scheduled for the first day of August.

Word of this proposal came just after the governor signed a state bill to restructure the adult use cannabis program through removal of the state’s cannabis cultivation tax – the end goal of that being to undercut illegal sales. That measure also includes a one-time, $20 million grant to support development of local retail licensing in areas where no cannabis licensees are allowed to operate. The state recently launched an interactive map that clearly shows where cannabis companies are allowed to operate – and where they are not. This helps to provide consumers with a clear idea of whether a shop or provider may be illicit or not.

Lab shopping for potency analysis isn’t a brand new issue, but officials believe it has become more pervasive as demand for high-potency flower has grown in recent years.

As cannabis growers and retailers, it’s important to convey the message to consumers that potency of THC isn’t the only factor that determines cannabis quality. Specific strains, growth methods, light intensity, and other properties can be important to buyers.

Marijuana testing laboratories that are dedicated to accurate analysis and quality control take their role as public safety agent seriously. All labs should have a dedicated marijuana business lawyer on retainer to ensure their policies and practices adhere to the latest state laws, rules, and guidelines. legal compliance must be a top priority.

The Los Angeles CANNABIS LAW Group represents growers, dispensaries, ancillary companies, patients, doctors and those facing marijuana charges. Call us at 949-375-4734.

Additional Resources:

California Seeks To Standardize Marijuana Testing To Prevent THC ‘Laboratory Shopping’ , July 8, 2022, By Kyle Jaeger, Marijuana Moment

Assembly Bill No. 2188 calls for revision of the state’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) – specifically the provision that deals with employment antidiscrimination. It would make it unlawful for employers to take adverse employment action against adult applicants or employees based on the individual’s use of cannabis off the jobsite and while not working. Employees who test positive for non-psychoactive cannabis metabolites in their urine, blood, hair, or bodily fluids could not be discriminated against.

However, the law would not allow workers to be impaired by cannabis, use it at work, or violate employer rules in accordance with maintaining a drug-free and alcohol-free workplace, as outlined in California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.45. There would also be an exception for federal contractors, federal funding recipients, federal licensees required to maintain drug-free workplaces, and those who work in the building and construction trades. Any employer required by state or federal law to test employees for controlled substances would also be exempt.

As our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers can explain, if this bill passes, it would be the first California workplace law protecting cannabis users. When voters legalized the use of medicinal marijuana in 1996, there was no baked in provision to protect off-duty, off-premises medical marijuana use. Further, even after recreational marijuana was legalized in the state in 2016, a 2018 California Supreme court ruling in Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications, Inc. held that a person with disabilities who used medical marijuana was NOT protected under FEHA. AB 2188 would represent a marked shift from that position – and protect not just medical marijuana users, but also those who use recreationally.

Similar measures have been passed in other states (New York, Nevada, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Montana), and the movement is gaining traction at the local level at various cities across the country.

City council members in Washington, D.C. unanimously passed a bill recently that (if approved by the mayor) would protect employees who test positive for marijuana from being fired. The Cannabis Employment Protections Amendment Act of 2022 would also prohibit employers from firing workers who use marijuana for recreational or medicinal uses. That bill has a few exceptions. For example, they won’t be considered in violation of if they’re acting under federal guidelines OR if the worker consumes the drug while at work OR is under the influence while performing work-related duties. It also doesn’t apply to those in safety-sensitive occupations, such as law enforcement, construction, security, health care, gas/power companies, or those who operate heavy machinery. The measure will allow employers to enact provisions that ban the possession, storage, delivery, transfer, display, sale, purchase, or growing of cannabis at one’s place of employment.

Additionally, New York City, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Richmond, Kansas City, and St. Louis have ordinances that protect the employment rights of marijuana users. Some of these extend just to city workers, others to all employers in those jurisdictions.

It’s unclear the odds for AB 2188 passing. Although it has cleared the state Assembly, it still requires approval from the state Senate and the governor. If it does make it to the governor’s desk, he’ll have until the end of September to sign or veto it.

As it stands, the California Chamber of Commerce is in opposition to the measure, citing the feasibility and cost of alternative drug testing that would be required to omit marijuana usage.

Our L.A. cannabis lawyers will be watching closely this measure’s progression.

The Los Angeles CANNABIS LAW Group represents growers, dispensaries, ancillary companies, patients, doctors and those facing marijuana charges. Call us at 949-375-4734.

Additional Resources:

California Lawmakers Aim to Protect Workers’ Off-Hours Pot Use, April 18, 2022, Bloomberg Law

More Blog Entries:

Can California CBD Retailers Carve a Lasting Competitive Advantage? May 28, 2022, Los Angeles Marijuana Lawyer Blog

In Richmond Compassionate Care Collective v. 7 Stars Holistic Foundation, an independently-owned dispensary, RCCC, in Contra Costa County, sued the owners of the Richmond Patients’ Group (RPG) over allegations of conspiring to block RCCC from opening a new shop. Evidence presented at trial included evidence the defendant impeded access to the finite amount of commercial property zoned for medical marijuana distribution.

Plaintiffs argued the defendant, a potential competitor, intentionally thwarted their opportunities by submitting fraudulent letters of intent, leases, and purchase agreements to landlords of commercial properties, effectively tying up those spaces until RCCC’s permits became expired. (Local ordinance in Richmond, Calif. requires cannabis shop permit holders open up a shop within six months or lose their permit.) The defendants reportedly even went door-to-door, trying to persuade landlords to avoid leasing to RCCC. Defendants also made efforts to compel a change in city ordinance that would reduce the number of cannabis permits available (in this, they were successful). RPG was also accused of trying to influence city officials to deny RCCC’s licensing permit.

As our Los Angeles cannabis attorneys can explain, trying to compel a change in local ordinance or state law isn’t illegal. But the plaintiffs underscored it as evidence of the defendant’s purpose and intention with regard to the other actions.

RCCC alleged RPG’s efforts ensured they were closed off at every turn by RPG’s actions and eventually lost their permit – and millions of dollars in investments and potential profits. This, they allege, was in direct affront to the California Cartwright Act, the state’s antitrust law prohibiting efforts to block fair competition in the free market.

Why California Cannabis Company Antitrust Cases May be On the Rise

Antitrust cases are intended to ensure free and fair markets in our economy. Congress passed the first antitrust law in 1890, the Sherman Act. Two additional federal antitrust laws were passed in the years after, including the Federal Trade Commission Act, which established the FTC, and the Clayton Act. Although there have been some revisions over the years, these laws are still in effect today and remain the core of U.S. antitrust law.

The laws exist to prevent things like unfair competition, unlawful mergers, and illegal business practices that would deprive consumers and workers of the benefits of free market trade and opportunities. Ultimately, the idea is to ensure there are strong incentives for companies to operate efficiently, keep prices down, keep quality up, and play fairly.

The California Cartwright Act builds upon these principles, with specific prohibitions on things like market division schemes, exclusive dealings, price fixing, price discrimination, and group boycotting.

We’ll start seeing more antitrust cases in the California cannabis industry because the competition is getting increasingly fierce, particularly in regions where potential profit margins are high but permits and opportunities are limited. Cannabis as an industry is highly-regulated and inherently regional, which means it’s going to be inevitable that some firms are going to get squeezed. Whether that amounts to antitrust violations will depend on the specifics of the case.

If you believe your competitors have engaged in unlawful business practices or if your cannabis company has been accused of unfair practices, it’s important to consult with an experienced Los Angeles cannabis business lawyer as soon as possible.

The Los Angeles CANNABIS LAW Group represents growers, dispensaries, ancillary companies, patients, doctors and those facing marijuana charges. Call us at 949-375-4734.

Additional Resources:

California Jury Awards Millions To Cannabis Company In Antitrust Case – Anti-trust/Competition Law, Oct. 6, 2021, 6Park News

It’s called the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act. It’s similar to a bill passed by the House in December. The House’s approval of such a measure isn’t surprising, given its political makeup. The Senate, however, is much more conservative and a different story. How good of a chance does a measure like this actually have of becoming reality?

A poll conducted last year by the Pew Research Center reveals 6 in 10 Americans favor legalizing pot for both medicinal and recreational use. However, the majority party in the Senate has a lot on its plate, with presidential priorities being immigration, policing and infrastructure. Cannabis isn’t on that list, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it won’t have forward momentum.

Marijuana is Legal in Many States – Why Does Federal Legalization Matter?

Federal legalization matters a great deal, despite the fact that 18 states allow recreational use for adults and 37 allow medicinal marijuana. (California was the first to legalize medical marijuana in 1996 and recreational use in 2016).

The problem is that with cannabis designated as a Schedule I narcotic under the U.S. Controlled Substances Act, possession and sale for any reason remains a federal crime – and federal law supersedes state law. Although the federal government has largely stopped prosecuting violators of these laws so long as they are in compliance with state laws, the federal restrictions still throw a huge wrench in the logistics of things like banking, transport of goods and taxes – even in places like California, where it’s legal.

What Would New Federal Marijuana Bill Do?

Congress members of both the House and Senate (including now-Vice President Kamala Harris) have previously introduced legislation that would remove cannabis from its Schedule I classification and expunge the criminal records of those previously convicted for marijuana-related crimes. So far, those have failed.

The most recent effort to do this was last year. This new bill is partially based on that. It remove federal penalties for cannabis, expunge criminal records of non-violent offenders who broke U.S. marijuana laws, establish funding for restorative justice programs, set federal tax rates for cannabis products and allow individual states to decide whether they want to legalize cannabis or not.

So if marijuana is still illegal in one state, it will remain so unless the state government opts to change that. However, in places where the drug is legal, removal of federal prohibition will help resolve transport, banking and tax issues. If the drug isn’t outlawed at the federal level, states would not be allowed to halt interstate transport of the drug. So if a state like, say, Nebraska chooses not to legalize, possession and sales could remain unlawful there, but they could not prohibit the drug from being transported within its borders on the interstate between two states where it is legal.

What the regulation would not do is stop all regulation of the drug. The FDA and ATTTB would be responsible for regulation of the production, distribution and sale of cannabis at the federal level.

Most advocates support the bill, though some do recommend adding certain restrictions on potency, flavoring of products that could appeal to kids and certain types of ads. A few are raising questions about the potential for more DUIs and how that should be handled. If the drug was legalized, research on both the benefits and harms of the drug would be much more easily facilitated. As it now stands, most scientists can’t study the drug because they can’t gain access to it – or funding.

Does it Have a Shot?

As it stands, the bill remains in draft form, which means it could change quite a bit before it’s actually voted on. That said, most political analysts believe that as it’s currently written, it’s unlikely to pass – though it will obviously kickstart conversations.

Then again, last year’s bill surprised many by passing in the House in the middle of a pandemic – even if it ultimately died in the Senate. Schumer himself said at this point, he doesn’t have the votes that would be needed to overcome a filibuster.

President Joe Biden has expressed support for decriminalization of cannabis, but not full-scale legalization. If the bill did pass, it’s not clear whether Biden would sign off on it.

The Los Angeles CANNABIS LAW Group represents growers, dispensaries, ancillary companies, patients, doctors and those facing marijuana charges. Call us at 949-375-4734.

Additional Resources:

Senate moves to legalize pot at federal level. What are the chances? Aug. 2, 2021, Los Angeles Times/Portland Press Herald

As longtime Los Angeles marijuana lawyers also well-versed in California employment law, we recognize this could be a substantial benefit not only for workers, but cannabis companies as well.

Assembly Bill 1256 would put a stop to the common practice of common employers who require workers to be tested for marijuana use. It would also prohibit employers from using certain kinds of evidence of prior marijuana use (urine tests, hair follicle tests, etc.) from being used to discriminate against the worker or denying them employment opportunities. The measure is sponsored by California NORML.

Urine and hair follicle test are of particular concern for employee advocates because they don’t show any indication of on-the-job impairment due to the psychoactive ingredients of marijuana. Similar issues exist with traffic cases involving drivers suspected of marijuana impairment; there is no “marijuana breathalyzer” that can indicate current impairment, only previous use – which could be anywhere from an hour ago to two weeks ago or even months prior. Blood tests can be more accurate in telling recent consumption, but even the U.S. Supreme Court has reasoned (albeit in a different context) that these are more invasive and should only be a last-resort.

To be clear: Employers still have the right to insist their employees not work under the influence. As noted by the California Chamber of Commerce, state law allows employers to mandate suspicionless drug tests as an employment condition (though they can’t randomly drug test workers except under very narrow circumstances). However, depending on the industry and worker’s role, it could be a clear liability issue if they don’t drug test. But because existing drug screens don’t tell us whether someone is currently under the influence, their application seems overbroad. Some have compared the use of urine tests by employers trying to determine intoxication like finding a beer bottle in a person’s trash and deciding they must be drunk.

The bill contains a provision that allows for a legal cause of action if an employee or prospective employee is discriminated against for their legal cannabis use off-the-clock. As noted by a spokesman for NORML, employees have the right to engage in many other legal activities off-the-clock, from smoking to drinking to firing off guns.

“Use of cannabis should be treated the same way,” the spokesman said.

The chances of AB 1256 being passed this year are uncertain, though sponsors say they are still seeking input from stakeholders, meaning it might not be taken up in earnest until 2022.

If it passes with its existing language, it does contain numerous exemptions, including employers under federal mandate to test for THC and those that would lose licensing-related or monetary benefits for failing to test. Those in the construction or building trades would also be exempted.

The Los Angeles CANNABIS LAW Group represents growers, dispensaries, ancillary companies, patients, doctors and those facing marijuana charges. Call us at 949-375-4734.

Additional Resources:

No more urine tests: Proposed California law would end most workplace marijuana tests, March 1, 2021, By Andrew Sheeler, The Sacramento Bee

The reform that Schumer and other lawmakers are discussing would also have a restorative justice element for those previously convicted of marijuana-related offenses.

The failed “War on Drugs” has inevitably proved to be a war on people (namely, people and communities of color). Ending prohibition is essential, but it’s really just the start. Some of the damage can never be undone, but restorative justice measures that erase criminal records for non-violent marijuana-related offenses is necessary to begin turning the tide and helping the communities that have been decimated by these drug policies.

This is especially important in light of the fact that California, like many other states, have legalized the drug and opened the door for growing, harvesting, processing and sales to turn a profit – while individuals are still serving decades-long sentences for the very same deeds.

Senators planned to release a draft of comprehensive reform legislation sometime in the first half of the year, with the goal of passing that reform later this year.

In addition to tossing prohibition and enacting some form of restorative justice, the lawmakers said the package should have some type of uniform tax and regulatory rules to help make the process easier for those traveling or doing business across state lines. That could potentially mean markets will be substantially more open.

This isn’t the first time Schumer and others in Congress have pressed for cannabis decriminalization laws. This time, though, it seems the measure has a real shot at passing – particularly given the growing public support for marijuana legalization. A Gallup poll late last year revealed nearly 70 percent of Americans were in favor of legalizing the plant. What’s more, every single initiative that involved legalization or decriminalization of marijuana in the U.S. last year passed.

Just this year, voters in both Arizona and New Jersey approved measures to legalize recreational marijuana use for adults. Even historically much more conservative states, like Mississippi, agreed to legalize it for medicinal use. As it now stands, 36 states allow medicinal use of the drug while 15 and the District of Columbia allow it for adult recreational use. Oregon has even taken it a step further by decriminalizing hard drugs.

The Los Angeles CANNABIS LAW Group represents growers, dispensaries, ancillary companies, patients, doctors and those facing marijuana charges. Call us at 949-375-4734.

Additional Resources:

Democratic senators will push to pass pot reform bill this year, Feb. 1, 2020, By Christian Nunley, CNBC

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers can explain that numerous schools have taken action against students for using the drug in violation of campus rules. Representatives for the schools say they have little choice. They risk the loss of invaluable federal dollars if they violate U.S. law, which considers the drug a Schedule I narcotic – something highly dangerous, addictive and with no medicinal value.

This has been a particular problem for those studying certain medical specialties (including nursing) who must submit to random drug testing according to to school policy.

In one case out of Arizona, a student studying diagnostic sonography alleges she was wrongfully expelled for using medical marijuana prescribed to treat chronic pain, the result of polycystic ovary syndrome, characterized by irregular, extended and painful menstrual cycles. There is no known cure and it affects 1 in 10 menstruating women. Even though she told USA Today she is never under the influence of the drug in class (she uses it to help her sleep, she said), the school’s drug policy is one of zero tolerance. When she tested positive for the drug, one of her professors assured her there would be no issue as long as she had a medical marijuana card. The professor was wrong. School administrators showed up mid-lesson and escorted her off campus. She’s now suing, alleging violation of rights under Arizona’s medical marijuana law.

Further, that student (along with several others) said numerous health workers employed by the university gave them the green light to use marijuana for medicinal purposes, so long as they had a medical marijuana card. Then, higher-ranking administrators stepped in and reversed course.

In taking legal action against the school, students expelled for medical marijuana use are seeking reimbursement for tuition spent on various expenses plus additional damages. For its part, the school maintains it has a zero tolerance policy. Many schools maintain codes of conduct that expressly state students with medical marijuana cards can’t use the drug on campus or in residence halls and that those who do will be subject to disciplinary action and/or arrest.

It’s uncertain how the case will play out, but courts and lawmakers have been grappling with this for years. In 2012, lawmakers in Arizona banned medical marijuana on college campuses. However, the state supreme court effectively repealed that law last year in ruling that the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act of 2010 protects students using medical marijuana. That law does stipulate medical marijuana is banned at prek-12 schools, but makes no mention of college campuses. In the state supreme court ruling, justices wrote that the state failed to show a university would lose – or has ever lost – federal funding as a result of a state prosecutor’s choice not to prosecute violations of university policy. Some schools have been reviewing their policies as a result, but clearly some have yet to change.

This isn’t just an Arizona problem. As it stands, 33 states plus Washington, D.C., allow medicinal marijuana and 11 states (including California) have legalized recreational marijuana – laws that continue to clash with arcane federal drug laws.

In another case out of Connecticut, a nursing student sued university after testing positive for the drug, which she obtained with a medical marijuana card in her home state of Massachusetts. That lawsuit was later settled with the court ordering the school to allow her to return to her rounds. Prior to the settlement, she had stopped using marijuana and passed her drug screens.

In Florida, a woman is suing her former university after she was expelled from the nursing program when she tested positive for the drug – even though she had a medical marijuana card. That lawsuit is still pending.

Most all legal challenges against colleges and universities on this front appear to have been brought by users of medical, not recreational, marijuana. This makes sense considering most states require individuals to be at least 21 to possess/use the drug for recreation, leaving most college students boxed out. Medical marijuana, though, is different. Most state laws say if you’re 18 with a medical marijuana card (or under 18 with a medical marijuana card AND parental approval), you can legally use the drug as medicine.

It should be noted that even if universities insist on having some type of anti-marijuana policy, there is no law that says they have to expel students. Much of this is at the school’s discretion.

A college education is an investment, and students/medical marijuana patients suffer tangible losses when action like this is taken. It’s imperative to discuss your rights with an experienced marijuana lawyer who can advise you of how you might recover those damages and resume your career path.

The Los Angeles CANNABIS LAW Group represents growers, dispensaries, ancillary companies, patients, doctors and those facing marijuana charges. Call us at 949-375-4734.

Additional Resources:

She was expelled for using prescribed medical marijuana, now she’s suing the college, Oct. 28, 2019, By Dave Collins, USA Today

To start, the idea of tracking marijuana traveling throughout the supply chain sounds simple enough. In theory, all cannabis products would be given unique identification numbers, noting from which ‘batch’ or ‘lot’ they were born. Products would then be sent to labs for testing. Next, approved products would be passed from producer to distributor, and finally to retailers for sale. At each step, the state should be able to track each piece of marijuana as it moves through the chain, making sure nothing is being redirected out of state, and ensuring everybody is paying their required taxes.

But in practice, a few hiccups quickly come to light. First up, only businesses holding ‘provisional’ or ‘annual’ licenses are required to subscribe to the track-and-trace system. And until last month, there were more than 600 marijuana businesses operating on ‘temporary licenses,’ who would not have had to track-and-trace. This means, there was no way regulators could comprehensively account for every legal product moving about the state.

While those 600 temporary cannabis business licenses all expired at the end of July, and many of those cannabis business owners await approvals on provisional or annual license applications (another story in and of itself), Lori Ajax, State Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC) chief, recently said it’s a priority of the bureau to get all temporary licenses transitioned onto either provisional or annual licenses, as quickly as possible, so those businesses won’t have to halt their operations.

It’s true that when the provisional or annual licenses are approved, those marijuana business owners are immediately required to begin tracking-and-tracing. And as the CCTT is quite complicated, many companies already required to track-and-trace are hiring full-time employees to traverse the system.

Tagging Products Has Proven a Challenge One common complaint from marijuana retailers holding provisional or annual licenses, is that they must apply unique identification tags to all products. And because until very recently, many holders of temporary licenses weren’t held to those same standards, products would reach stores without said tags, leaving retailers having to sticker and tag products, at their own extra labor costs.

But the problem doesn’t stop there. Now with 600 odd businesses in line waiting for the state to approve their new license applications, and often a need to continue earning a living in the meantime, many are generating lots of paperwork for companies adhering to CCTT requirements while trading with businesses not yet in the system.

On the use of CCTT throughout the marketplace, Josh Drayton, communications director for the California Cannabis Industry Association (CCIA) says it’s a patchwork at present. “We’re not seeing it work it’s way all the way through the supply chain, which ultimately means it’s kind of a broken system at the moment,” he said.

Software Compatibility Also a Hurdle Another shared grievance is that CCTT is not properly set up to work smoothly with a common point-of-sale software system used by retailers. CCTT also does not account for businesses like growers or manufacturers awaiting provisional or annual licenses, who may have missing data. As a result, some retailers using that software are forced to simply ‘create’ information in order to move through to the next step within the CCTT platform.

So Was Track-and-Trace Just a Sweetener? One of the promises California’s 2016 Proposition 64 made, was that the state would always be able to locate every piece of marijuana sold, all the way ‘from seed to sale.’ Creating a tracking system then, was always going to be necessary to meet this promise.

Helping to prevent cannabis flowing out onto the black market was another reason. But so far, activity on the illicit market has shown little signs of slowing. One analyst estimates the underground cannabis market in California totals $3.7 billion per year, which outdoes the legal market fourfold.

Some believe the track-and-trace system was only offered up as a way of getting legalized marijuana over the line.

The Burden of Compliance Others believe that requiring compliance with an inventory control system places a needless burden on legal cannabis businesses committed to operating within the law. Amid the many opinions on the matter, one thing is certain, a slow transition to the new system has brought with it a whole lot of new red tape. And manufacturers and vendors may just have to prepare for further hiccups and delays as the industry presses ahead.

Legal Implications Thus Far Thankfully, marijuana businesses still getting up to speed with CCTT have been afforded some leeway. The BCC seems to understand this is a process, and hasn’t made an example of anyone as yet. But there are no assurances from the authorities that this is in fact the case. Most affected by this issue are businesses either moving to, or waiting on their, provisional and annual licenses following the expiration of their initial temporary licenses, as well as any new cannabis business operators coming into the fold. As a result, all industry stakeholders will watch carefully to see just how effective the CCTT system can be as it becomes more widely embraced in the coming months.

Need Legal Help Tracking and Tracing For Your Marijuana Business? Our California marijuana lawyers can help answer any questions you may have.

The Los Angeles CANNABIS LAW Group represents growers dispensaries, ancillary companies, patients and those facing criminal marijuana charges. Call us at 949-375-4734. Additional Resources: California’s Cannabis Track and Trace (CCTT) System Proposition 64

CBD is naturally found in cannabis plants, and is widely known for its relaxing properties. But CBD won’t produce a ‘high,’ as it lacks the psychoactive tetrohydrocanabidiol (THC), found in marijuana. CBD-derived products have quickly grown in popularity, thanks largely to a wide range of potential health benefits, including relieving pain, anxiety, seizures and brain injuries.

According to Michael Lux, partner at Crowe accounting firm, the next 6-12 months will involve strategic minority investments in the CBD space. He noted too that while the majority of CBD companies are of interest to investors, they are still less than five years old, so they’d likely need a little more time before preparing to engage in full exit strategies.

US Farm Bill Opened the Gates Over the last eight months, a slew of beauty, personal care, and pet brand products have quickly become available across a variety of retail stores. In part thanks to the US Farm Bill, which was passed in December last year. This bill essentially relaxed restrictions, allowing licensed cannabis growers to produce hemp on an industrial scale, without fear of prosecution. It also relaxed restrictions around selling hemp-derived products interstate. The passing of the US Farm Bill was a tipping point, enabling CBD-derived products to go mainstream.

A recent Forbes report even projected the combined U.S. CBD sales market would likely exceed $20 billion by 2024.

Too Early for Buyouts Meanwhile, one industry banker noted it will be some time before makers of CBD products start to see buyouts from traditional consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies, especially with regard to food and beverage products. Mostly because the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is still working to outline its CBD regulatory framework, and that tweaking will likely be ongoing. Just last month the FDA announced it has prioritized efforts to establish clearer CBD guidelines, and plans to publish a report this fall.

Until then, companies selling personal care CBD products are particularly well poised to attract strategic investments. That’s because regulators are far more comfortable with non-ingestible products, which significantly minimizes an investor’s risk.

Regulators Pave the Way Once the FDA clarifies its regulations on CDB-derived products, we can expect strategic buyers to show interest in acquiring CBD brands across consumer, pharmaceutical, and food and beverage industries. In the meantime, there are five key regulatory concerns most investors are monitoring before investing in CBD businesses:

1. Drug Enforcement Administration regulation of CBD – marijuana is currently considered a Schedule 1 drug and is not approved for medical use in the U.S.; but hemp is defined as the plant, or any part of the plant containing a THC concentration of no more than 0.3 percent.
2. FDA regulation of CBD products – advertising or using CBD as a dietary supplement is currently prohibited.
3. Some state laws restrict CBD product sales – North Carolina, Maine and New York restrict CBD products, just to name a few, and could severely impact overall CBD product sales.
4. FDA limits advertising and label claims made on CBD products – the agency will diligently pursue companies making unsubstantiated marketing claims.
5. Regulation of CBD products will continue to evolve – a specific internal agency working group will continue to explore options for dietary supplements containing CBD to be marketed lawfully.

Legal Implications Thus Far While CBD businesses continue to blossom, investors will become increasingly active in the growing CBD sector. Investors, like so many other industry stakeholders will watch closely on how ongoing regulations will impact the marketplace. It is clear that no matter how the industry progresses, regulators and legislators will play a large role in defining just how products are developed, where they can be sold, and what can be touted in advertising and marketing efforts.

Need Legal Help Investing in or Acquiring a Commercial Cannabis Business? Our California Hemp & CBD attorneys can help answer any questions you may have.

The Los Angeles CANNABIS LAW Group represents growers dispensaries, ancillary companies, patients and those facing criminal marijuana charges. Call us at 949-375-4734. Additional Resources: 2018 US Farm Bill FDA Guidelines

A study published in the June 20 issue of American Journal of Public Health, looked at U.S. federal health data for more than 200,000 high school students between 1991-2017. The results show marijuana use among teens within that time frame, has increased tenfold.

Study author, Hongying Dai, of University of Nebraska’s College of Public Health in Omaha, noted the “surge” in teens using marijuana is troubling, and “highlights the importance of marijuana prevention among youths.”

To date, a plethora of studies have investigated the long-term effects of marijuana use in teens. Concern often centers around effects of the drug on the prefrontal cortex areas of the brain, which control judgment and decision-making, and continue to develop well into a person’s early 20’s. Marijuana use in such studies, has also been linked to an increased incidence of mental health disorders, including depression, psychosis and other long-term psychiatric effects.

Common Side Effects of Cannabis Use in Teens The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), for example, warns of the following common side effects found among teens using marijuana:

• Disjointed thinking and difficulty problem solving;
• Decreased memory function and challenges learning;
• Impaired co-ordination;
• Difficulty maintaining attention;
• Decline in academic performance and higher drop-out rates;
• Increased risk of mental health issues (depression, anxiety and psychosis);
• Impaired driving ability and increased danger on the road (decreased co-ordination, reaction time and concentration); and
• Potential for addiction.

Despite the associated health risks, as opinions towards and regulation surrounding marijuana use are relaxed, teens nationwide are increasingly using the drug.

Interestingly, in her analysis of the data, Dai also noted “the percentage of high school seniors perceiving regular marijuana use as harmful, fell from 78.6 percent in 1991 to 29 percent in 2017.”

National Incidence Data on Teens and Marijuana Other key findings from Dai’s study of the U.S. federal health data show:

• Teens admitting to using marijuana within the last 30 days has increased from 0.6 percent in 1991 to 6.3 percent in 2017
• More than double the number of young people are using both marijuana and alcohol (7.6 percent in 2017 vs. 3.6 percent in 1991)
• Between 1991-2017, marijuana usage rates increased more significantly among teens within minority populations
  • Use among black teens is up from 2 percent to 13.5 percent
  • Use among Hispanic teens rose from less than 1 percent to 9 percent
  • Use among white teens increased least from 0.3 percent to 3.7 percent

Changes in public opinion toward marijuana, as well as the relaxing of restrictions surrounding marijuana use, have likely contributed to the uptick in teenagers using the drug, said Dai. It appears there is more work yet to do, in educating teens on the dangers they face if using marijuana before reaching adulthood.

Marijuana Use by California Teens For a snapshot of marijuana use specifically among Californian teens, a separate study by the Californian Department of Health Care Services and the California Department of Education showed differing results. In its independent California Healthy Kids Survey, the 2015-17 study surveyed 45,264 students, comprised of randomly selected seventh, ninth and eleventh graders. Key takeaways included:

• A 47 percent decrease in cannabis use among seventh graders from 2013 to 2017;
• Pot use among ninth graders dropped 25 percent within the study period;
• Eleventh grade cannabis use dipped 16 percent during the same time frame; and
• Teens reportedly using cannabis multiple times within the last 30 days, fell across all grade levels.

These findings were gathered within the sixteenth biennial, statewide, nonpartisan Californian student survey, which was funded by state taxes.

The obvious question then, is in a state that has regulated and legalized the use of marijuana among adults since 2016, why are Californian teens apparently using pot less than their counterparts across the country? One reason may be that deregulation removes the lure of rebelling with marijuana use during adolescence. Another points to California’s continued advertising budget allocation, to educate its young people on the side effects associated with cannabis use, and to discourage pot use among its youth.

It will be interesting to observe whether the 2017-19 CHKS survey results show a continued trend of declining pot use among teens across California, or if an uptick matches the national data analyzed by Dai. Keep an eye out for those 2017-19 CHKS survey results, which are expected to be released sometime next year.

Need Legal Help For Cannabis Possession? Our Southern California marijuana defense lawyers can help answer any questions you may have.

The Los Angeles CANNABIS LAW Group represents growers dispensaries, ancillary companies, patients and those facing criminal marijuana charges. Call us at 949-375-4734. Additional Resources: The Center for Disease Prevention and Control-Marijuana Fact Sheet California Healthy Kids Survey 2015-2017

They’re suing.

In a lawsuit filed late last month, church leaders allege a multi-agency task force reportedly destroyed numerous cannabis plants – which the faithful consider sacred – during the execution of a search warrant.

Named defendants include the county as well as the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The church asserts government agency defendants breached their Constitutional 1st Amendment religious freedom rights as well as violations of due process under the 5th Amendment. Further, they relevant information intentionally withheld from the judge – specifically, that the raid was being conducted on a religious organization – in order to obtain the warrant without due consideration this information would have required.

The church’s cannabis lawyer explained to a local news outlet that congregants view marijuana as a sacrament, much in the same way a number of Christian and Jewish faithful view wine as a sacrament.

They aren’t alone. At The Cannabis Law Group, we recognize numerous well-established religions that view cannabis as a religions sacrament, rite or possessing some other sacred properties. These include:

• Hindu
• Shikhs
• Rastafari
• Sufi
• Taoists

Authorities reportedly targeted the church grounds because they were cultivating marijuana without a permit/license in violation of state law. Although it is true that most sacraments aren’t kept in significant quantities, the Sacramental Life Church in question is reportedly part of an association of some 40 other fellow churches. As many members of these other churches are located in more urban areas, they do not have the means to obtain the plant grown via processes that adhere to their faith. The group believes the way the plant is cultivated is essential to its sanctity.

It was the destruction of those plants on which the church is alleging constitutional violations. Plaintiffs allege that even if the warrant was valid, raiding law enforcement did not have the right to destroy the plants, in effect executing the punishment and depriving them the benefit of making their argument in court.

Plaintiff attorney says the county was put on notice that the greenhouse grow site was a church because he’d personally written identified it as such in paperwork filed with the county’s code enforcement office last year. The filing was in response to an abatement notice.

It was the CFDW (which can pursue action on either civil or criminal cases) that filed the search warrant. It was also the agency that allocated funds to rent a helicopter to take the overhead photographs used to secure the warrant.

A spokesperson asserted that in the course of carrying out cannabis enforcement operations, not only is crop eradication AND property damage is allowed according to agency policy, destroying cannabis plants on site – with no trial – is agency policy. The only procedure necessary, the spokeswoman said, was securing the the requisite samples and photographs, as required by law.

Cannabis attorneys can explain that while all commercial cannabis growers do need to have both state and local licensing in order to farm the substance, the question here is whether the agency, in destroying the plants before a trial, deprived the church of its right to dispute the claim of illegality before its property was utterly destroyed.

Still pending are the state and civil charges filed by the CFDW against the church.

The Los Angeles CANNABIS LAW Group represents growers, dispensaries, ancillary companies, patients, doctors and those facing marijuana charges. Call us at 949-375-4734.

Additional Resources:

Attorney: Cannabis Church Lawsuit Could Have Far-Reaching Effects, July 11, 2019, By Eugene Denson, North Coast Journal