As our Riverside cannabis lawyers can explain, city council voted 5-2 to green light 14 marijuana shop permits. The city has first passed a moratorium on cannabis companies in 2017 – with the exception of marijuana testing labs. This was despite the fact that Riverside voters supported Proposition 64 (which legalized recreational cannabis) by a 53 percent majority. A year later, the council agreed on an outright prohibition of commercial cannabis operations – except for labs.

Then two years ago, the city caught wind of a citizen-led effort to undercut the municipal ban on marijuana sales. Signatures to move the petition forward were never formally submitted, but the city did start weighing whether it should initiate its own permit program and regulatory framework. (Likely, they wanted to sidestep the reality that it was probably going be done whether they wanted it or not, and best to have some control over the final outcome.)

The city is actively studying how best to support permit seekers who have been disproportionately impacted by anti-cannabis legislation in the past. The initial outlay caps cannabis retailers at 14, but there’s no such limit for the number of labs, manufacturing companies, or distribution firms. Voters will need to consider whether they’re willing to accept taxation for the measure. A vote is expected in November 2024.

One councilmember against the initiative said he doesn’t believe marijuana sales in the city are an inevitability, worried over police and other public services burdening more duties, and lamented the fact that a gateway drug was going to be so easily accessible – particularly for young people. Just recently, the sheriff’s office arrested several older adult teens in Riverside for selling vape pens with concentrated cannabis to minors using a mobile delivery service.

But those who support legal cannabis say that a well-regulated market has proven to offset many of these concerns.

It should be noted that this determination about Riverside City is separate from the rules of Riverside County. (Municipalities may have more stringent requirements than counties, and counties may have more stringent requirements than the state – provided they aren’t infringing on people’s rights.)

In Riverside County, cultivation of cannabis is legal if grown for personal use – indoors and within a single, private residence, obstructed from public view and for non-commercial use by someone over 21 for non-commercial use. Where it’s grown outside of a building, the building must be secured by an opaque fence that’s a minimum 6-feet-high. Commercial cannabis activities are allowed so long as the company has a permit from the county’s planning department (which does incur fees). Storefront retailers may be open to the public, provided they operate within authorized zones. Commercial growing operations can’t have plants that are visible from outside the facility. Cannabis delivery is also legal in Riverside County, so long as it’s done in accordance with California Business and Professions Code – but is not permitted in unincorporated areas of Riverside County.

The legalization of medicinal and recreational cannabis has been an economic boon to Riverside County, resulting in total taxable sales exceeding $100 million in 2019 and $265 million in 2020, according to CaliforniaCannabis.org.

If you are considering seeking a permit to operate a cannabis business in Riverside, our longtime marijuana lawyers can help.

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:

Cannabis businesses in Riverside are on the way, March 1, 2023 by Sarah Hofman, The Press-Enterprise

More Blog Entries:

Can California Cannabis Patents Survive Illegality Doctrine? Feb. 20, 2023, Los Angeles Cannabis Lawyer Blog

There are a few positions, such as policing, to which the rule does not apply. Some state employees are expressly barred from using drugs at all. But otherwise, given that cannabis is legal in California, it appears the state will largely be treating it like alcohol where workers are concerned.

The personnel board, which oversees the civil service rules applicable to state employees, pointed out that urine tests are only going to reveal whether a person has used marijuana in the past. It’s no indicator of whether the person is intoxicated on-the-job, which for most employees would be the only situation in which marijuana use would matter.

Worker Marijuana Use Rules

Workers who use marijuana aren’t likely going to face any criminal repercussions, at least under state law. Simple purchase, sale or use within the state-ascribed boundaries is unlikely to draw much if any attention from federal authorities either. However, because the drug remains illegal under U.S. statutes, employers may have a lot of leverage when it comes to prohibition rules, particularly when there are potential safety issues.

That said, zero tolerance policies are increasingly falling out of favor. As The Los Angeles Times reports, fewer companies are testing employees for the drug as a condition of employment – mostly because to do so would significantly limit the pool of qualified workers from which to choose.

Some cities and states have passed laws prohibiting employee marijuana tests. However, where challenges have gone to court, employees usually come up short, with courts ruling that even though marijuana is legal under state law, its status as illegal under federal law means that it is not protected as “lawful” off-duty activity.

Earlier this year, California lawmakers introduced a bill that would ban employee marijuana tests for many workplaces, with prohibitions on use of the drug limited to those who are either on duty or on standby. However, that bill hasn’t yet come before a committee for hearing.

The state board itself stated it took no position on whether use of the drug was good or bad, but accepted the choice of voters to legalize it and asserted state agencies have no power to discipline workers who use it on their off hours. In the case the board weighed, the worker tested positive for marijuana after returning to the office following two months on leave to take care of his children during the pandemic. A drug test was required because he’d been away from work for an extended period of time. His employer fired him after receiving the results. He claimed it was second-hand exposure to marijuana smoke, something refuted by a physician who reviewed the results. The administrative law judge sided in the worker’s favor, finding that while his testimony wasn’t credible, he shouldn’t have been fired for pot use. His termination was reversed and he was awarded back pay.

If a worker faces adverse employment consequences due to marijuana use, a Los Angeles marijuana lawyer may be able to help.

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 bill would ban most pre-employment drug tests for marijuana, March 1, 2021, By Chip Yost, KTLA

That’s why any individual or investor considering entry into the marijuana industry in Southern California should consult with a dedicated business attorney who has extensive experience specifically in marijuana law.

The Mercury News reported last year that just one in seven cities in California has entered the marijuana industry. That figure hasn’t changed much since then.

Why is this? Because when Proposition 64 passed, it allowed individuals to carry up to one ounce of marijuana on their persons, but it also gave a large amount of discretion to individual cities, resulting in a crazy quilt of regulation that would be confusing even for the most meticulous cannabis business hopeful. Throw on top other uncertainties like CBD regulation (did the 2018 Farm Bill legalize it at the national level or not?) and setting up shop can become a potential minefield.

CannaRegs, a site that tracks development of local marijuana rules throughout California, reports that only half of the state’s 58 counties have agreed to allow some degree of commercial cannabis activity, leaving the remaining areas relatively “dry.” The one exception, as we reported in a recent Los Angeles marijuana attorney blog, is that of marijuana delivery, after the California Cannabis Bureau established a firm and resounding opinion that Section 5416(d) clearly intended to allow marijuana to be delivered to users across the state.

What this means is that if you want to open a marijuana business in Los Angeles or Orange County, it’s not going to be as simple as waltzing into the city office and filing the appropriate state and local paperwork. Even in cities that DO allow cannabis shops and cultivation operations, some are very select about how many and what type they allow. For instance, some will only allow testing laboratories. Others strictly limit operations to medicinal marijuana shops and won’t permit recreational stores. Statewide, almost every jurisdiction has chosen to implement its own rules on top of whatever the state laws are.

Complicating matters are the preferences that are given to minority operators affected by the failed decades-long war on drugs. There are also the tens of thousands of marijuana shops that operated in California’s gray medical shop market for decades before effectively being closed off by today’s industry because they were mostly mom-and-pop small businesses. They are in cities that have capped local licenses or exist in counties with ordinances that ban their business models. Most of those companies are considered pioneers, but they lack the capital to pick up and relocate to another community that might welcome their services.

The end result has been a significant contraction of existing marijuana businesses that at the same time expands opportunities for new firms to enter down the road.

If you’re interested in exploring your legal options for entering the marijuana industry in Los Angeles, contact an experienced Los Angeles marijuana lawyer for a free initial consultation. An attorney who understands local regulations and ordinances in addition to the state laws that at times appear constantly in flux can help ensure you enter the market on stable footing with a solid investment.

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

Additional Resources:

Exclusive analysis: Only one in seven California cities allow recreational marijuana stores, April 15, 2018, By Brooke Staggs, The Mercury News

More Blog Entries:

California Cannabis Delivery: Cities, State Troopers, Consumers and Companies War Over Rules, Jan. 22, 2019, Los Angeles Marijuana Lawyer Blog

Crafting smart policies in connection with drugs is vital. The agency in Washington that plays a major role in crafting drug policy is called the White House Office of National Drug Control policy. According to the Washington Post, this Office is currently facing substantial cuts. If budget cuts which are currently being discussed occur, the cuts could undermine the ability of the federal government to create and enforce the nation’s drug laws.

Will the Office of Drug Control Policy Have Its Budget Cut?

The Washington Post reports a leaked memo reveals the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy could lose as much as 95 percent of the funding the Office has under the current budget. The cuts would save the federal government $364 million.

A man who served in the Office during both the Bush and Obama administrations has discussed with Washington Post the implications of budget cuts to this office. He explained three key ways in which the Office of Drug Control policy shapes federal drug policies.

The Office of National Drug Control Policy is described as “the only repository of detailed knowledge on the country’s drug problems.” The Office provides key details about addiction treatment, the number of people requiring treatments, and the costs and benefits of different kinds of addiction programs. Because it is a vast repository of knowledge, the Office helps the federal government to make policies.

The Office is also able to make it faster for programs which are effective to be expanded so the programs can be utilized on a national scale. Finally, the Office is able to coordinate all drug policies across the federal government. If different agencies have conflicting, overlapping programs, for example, the Office will choose which should be eliminated. As a central repository of knowledge, the Office is also able to monitor progress on goals so the federal government can be held accountable. It would be more difficult to measure the effectiveness of different initiatives if there is no central office responsible for drug policy.

Regardless of what occurs with the White House Office of National Drug Control policy, our marijuana defense lawyers believe efforts to reform marijuana laws on the federal level should continue. The fact the federal government is still classifying marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance is bad public policy and, if the federal government is going to reduce efforts made to address drug issues, putting an end to federal investigations or prosecutions of legal marijuana businesses would be the best first step to take.

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

Additional Resources:

I worked with the drug policy office Trump wants to gut. Here’s why it matters for the opioid epidemic., May 8, 2017, By Keith Humphreys, The Washington Post

More Blog Entries: Marijuana Sobriety Tests Still Elusive, Feb. 28, 2017, Marijuana Attorney Blog

That’s because federal law – specifically 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which is part of the Gun Control Act – criminalizes the possession or receipt of a firearm by an unlawful drug user or person addicted to a controlled substance. Of course, many states have now legalized the drug, but it still remains outlawed by federal statute. Those purchasing a new firearm are asked to fill out federal background check forms that specifically ask whether the purchaser uses marijuana for recreational or medicinal purposes. If they do, they are not allowed to purchase the gun.

This conflict was recently questioned by Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican who says she didn’t vote in favor of marijuana, but now she is worried about its impact on the Second Amendment rights of citizens. Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in Wilson v. Lynch that the Second Amendment rights of a Nevada woman were not infringed by the federal government’s ban on sales of guns to medical marijuana card holders. The ruling is applicable to nine other states, including California.

Plaintiff in that case sought to purchase a firearm for self protection after obtaining a medical marijuana card. However, the gun dealer declined, citing U.S. law prohibiting sales of firearms to drug users. The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has instructed gun stores and sellers that they can safely assume a person who has a medical marijuana card uses the drug.

The appellate panel ruled that Congress made a reasonable conclusion in finding that use of marijuana and other drugs increases the risk of behavior that is both unpredictable and irrational, with which guns should not be associated. The courts also held that it was reasonable for the ATF to instruct sellers that medical marijuana cardholders use the drug.

Plaintiff’s attorney in that case said he plans to appeal.

Although both marijuana consumers and gun owners don’t always find themselves on the same side of the cultural divide, they can be one-in-the-same and many are troubled.

As noted by the founder of NORML, a marijuana advocacy group, the fact that users of marijuana are essentially being forced to forfeit their Second Amendment rights is unfair. Further, those who use the drug as medicine are being asked to decide between their health and their Second Amendment rights, which is nothing short of offensive.

The form gun buyers fill out when they visit a licensed firearm dealer is called an ATF Form 4473. In that form, Question 11(e) asks whether the person purchasing the weapon is an unlawful user or addict of marijuana. Anyone who answers “yes” cannot buy the gun. There aren’t exceptions for those who lawfully use the drug under state law.

The issue can be a tricky one. For example, even the National Rifle Association didn’t respond to requests for comment by the Wall Street Journal.

Murkowski sent a letter several months ago to the Attorney General, asking for a reconsideration of this policy. Murkowski said she does understand the concerns about marijuana and firearms, but said the same could be argued with regard to alcohol.

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

Additional Resources:

Legal Marijuana Poses a Problem for Gun Buyers, Nov. 14, 2016, By Gary Fields and Kristina Peterson, The Wall Street Journal

More Blog Entries:

San Jose, Other Communities, Ban Marijuana Before Vote, Nov. 12, 2016, Orange County Cannabis Lawyer Blog