A new study published in the journal JAMA Pediatrics took a look at how well state regulations intended to keep marijuana out of the hands of minors have been working. The analysis examined the practices of 700 licensed marijuana dispensaries in the state. Researchers discovered that kids can be exposed to both marketing and products, in spite of the restrictions on both.

Dispensaries are required by law to screen out customers who are underage. Many do this with blatant signage, having a checkpoint with mandatory ID (inside or outside), and tailoring marketing efforts where ads are unlikely to reach those under 21.

For this study, researchers close to the legal age cutoff (between the ages of 21 and 23) went into hundreds of dispensaries throughout California to document their screening process. Of the shops they entered, 97 percent were compliant with ID checks. However, only 12 percent verified customers’ ages outside the shop, and nearly 70 percent did not comply in having signs indicating age limits. For the most part, dispensaries were only requiring proof of age once the person was already inside, where both products and marketing materials were in plain view.

What this means, researchers note, is that accidental or not, kids are going to be exposed to an expansive array of cannabis products and marketing materials. That is especially problematic, researchers asserted, because more than one-third of dispensaries sold items in their retail section that might easily appeal to teens and kids. Lots also had promotions, weekly/daily deals, and first-time discounts, which might also be alluring to youth. More than 1 in 5 violated the state ban on free samples for takeaway items. A full 16 percent violated prohibitions for on-site consumption.

Checks on dispensary compliance on these points aren’t mandatory, though our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know that local authorities will conduct them as resources allow. Researchers are urging government authorities to make such compliance checks more of a priority.

Cannabis dispensaries should work with an experienced cannabis lawyer to help ensure they are in compliance with not only the letter, but the spirit of the law as well. This may go a long way in insulating firms from potential liability.

This is especially important given that other researchers have concluded cannabis use among youth has increased in the wake of marijuana legalization, a trend likely to capture the attention of policy makers and enforcement agencies. For instance, one study published in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs surveyed some 3 million 7th-11th grade students in California and found “significant increases” in both past-30-day and lifetime use of cannabis across all demographic groups post-legalization.

By that analysis, students were 18 percent more likely to consume cannabis post-legalization.

To ensure that your business is fully compliant with California laws and local ordinances, consult our experienced team of cannabis attorneys today.

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:

Kids and cannabis: California dispensaries lack adequate screening to keep out minors, study finds, Sept. 1, 2021, University of Southern California

You don’t need to take our Los Angeles marijuana business lawyers‘ word for it. This is according to a new study commissioned by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Despite a few isolated incidents of state law violations (i.e., workers giving out free samples of edibles), the analysis revealed workers at cannabis retail locations are committed to following the rules, protecting minors and staying in business.

Study authors say the largest loophole through which minors obtain cannabis in California is through unlicensed vendors. Consider that black market bud sales are three times bigger than the legal market. They don’t have the regulations and taxes to contend with. They sell products that aren’t verified for safety or quality, but they can sell them cheaper – and they don’t always ensure the people to whom they’re selling are of legal age to do so.

The proliferation of the black market in this state has served as a lesson to other states preparing to oversee the unveiling of similar recreational cannabis industries.

Selling Cannabis to Minors is Illegal in California

Cannabis companies caught selling the drug to minors without a doctor’s recommendation for medicinal use face substantial penalties: Up to six months in jail and a $500 fine for a first-time offense. But what really deters legal cannabis companies is that they risk the lose of their state licenses, which are incredibly competitive, take months to obtain and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. In L.A. , a licensed cannabis shop that even lets a person under 21 set foot in the shop can face not only a fine, but a suspended or revoked license. That’s why many require identification before you even walk in. Operators who have taken the time and spent the money to qualify for a lawful license aren’t going to want to imperil it to sell to a teenager here and there.

On top of that, there is the potential for liability. A business that sells to a minor who is then hurt or hurts someone else could be held legally liable in civil court for that injury. It’s not a chance most shops are eager to take. Many are vigilant about spotting fake IDs and other work-arounds.

Study on Minors’ Access to Marijuana in California

To examine how cannabis shops in California are restricting sales to minors, the study authors recruited a 22-year-old man and 23-year-old woman who were “young-looking” to randomly visit nearly 50 recreational retailers last January. They made stops in stores located in San Bernardino, Los Angeles and Santa Ana. Each of the decoys attempted to enter the shop without ID.

What they found was that about 50 percent of stores required ID to be shown outside the store. The other half required identification once they entered. None of the shops allowed the decoys to shop without showing proper identification.

About a dozen stores had signage posted outside indicating shoppers had to be 21 and older to enter. Others had signs posted inside the shop. The majority had a security guard, while others had salespeople checking identifications. Some stores had electronic ID scanners, while others relied on retail workers to visibly verify the cardholder’s identity and birthdate.

Given that most cannabis crimes have been downgraded to misdemeanors, law enforcement in Southern California doesn’t devote as much energy to enforcement. They will, however, do random age-compliance checks at licensed retailers. In Los Angeles, the city’s cannabis department does this as well.

Meanwhile, compliance with the minimum age for alcohol sales, set nationally to 21 in 1984, was a lot slower to catch on. Even now, depending on the region of the country, violations are common. One recent analysis of underage alcohol sales in New York City found that 60 percent of shops sold booze to underage decoys without ID. However, it’s still largely accepted that the minimum drinking age was a positive thing, and has likely saved thousands of lives on the roads.

But cannabis and alcohol markets can’t necessarily be compared apples-to-apples. Since alcohol prohibition was repealed in 1933, there really isn’t any such thing still as unlicensed alcohol vendors. The same can’t be said of the cannabis industry. In fact, it’s thriving in California. A survey of state law enforcement agencies across the state said that 8 in 10 underage marijuana users obtaining marijuana were getting it from an unauthorized seller. Now that recreational use is legal, unlicensed sellers may feel they have more freedom to operate and flout the rules.

The only way licensed shops will be outpace illegal operations in this state is if we see more cities welcome the industry (resolving the cannabis deserts we have now) and by reducing taxes so that legal operations can start being truly competitive.

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:

Study: California’s licensed cannabis shops aren’t selling to minors, April 7, 2021, By Brooke Staggs, The Orange County Register

More Blog Entries:

California Cannabis Companies Prep for USPS Vape Product Shipping Ban, April 25, 2021, Los Angeles Marijuana Attorney Blog

The state’s recreational cannabis law does expressly prohibits marijuana drive-thru operations – unless a dispensary applied for a permit prior to June 2018, when Prop. 64 rules were finalized. Harborside cannabis dispensary filed its application for a drive-thru shop earlier that year, so it’s allowed to proceed with its marijuana business plan.

Approaching customers will have the benefit of a large, electronic menu, where they can place orders for edibles, vape cards and pre-rolled joints – the same way one might order a Happy Meal (except you will have to show ID to prove you are of age). Passengers, however, will not need to produce identification.

Desert Hot Springs, located in the Coachella Valley geographic region of Riverside County, is a great place to start, considering it was one of the first to welcome legal recreational marijuana with open after Prop. 64 passed in 2016. (Eighty percent of California jurisdictions have decided not to allow cannabis to be sold in their jurisdictions.)

Drive-Thru Dispensaries in Other States Thriving

The first legal drive-thru marijuana dispensary in the country opened in Parachute, Colorado in 2017. The owner told The Washington Post the idea was sparked after he noticed how many after-hours customers came knocking at his dispensary. Drive-thru service, he said, would be a better option for late-night customers. The drive-thru appears to still be open and doing well.

Around the same time, a drive-thru pot dispensary opened in Las Vegas as made from a converted bank teller window, bullet-proof glass and all.

In Florida, there are several medical marijuana drive-thru locations, though none yet for recreational marijuana, as it has not yet been approved there. The owner of one location noted numerous customers were afflicted with debilitating conditions that impacted mobility, making drive-thru and free delivery services essential.

In Vermont, a medical marijuana drive-thru window dispensary handles roughly one-third of the business at one facility. That service too is only for medical marijuana patients, who must first place their orders online. They are then free to come to the drive-thru to pick them up. Turnaround time can be as little as 30 minutes.

In Massachusetts, one purveyor has proposed opening up a drive-thru service in Boston.

Legal Concerns of Drive-Thru Pot Shops

Entrepreneurs wading into this kind of business model will need to take some extra precautions to ensure they’re on the right side of the law. This is especially true in California, where so few facilities are actually going to be getting licenses to engage customers this way.

But some like one in Adelanto, are weighing the possibility of pickup service, similar to the Vermont setup. People wouldn’t actually order at the window; they’d order online and then come to the drive-thru window to pickup, just like at pharmacy.

Cannabis companies that want to try out this type of business model should consult with an experienced Los Angeles marijuana business lawyer to ensure they aren’t running afoul of the state’s provisions against drive-thru services.

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:

Harborside got around a regulatory ban to open SoCal’s first drive-thru cannabis shop in Desert Hot Springs, Dec. 4, 2019, By Melissa Daniels, Palm Springs Desert Sun

The stakes for illegal marijuana businesses in Los Angeles are high. As our L.A. marijuana business attorneys can explain, getting caught can mean loss of businesses, loss of assets (including homes, cars and bank savings), severe fines and even criminal penalties. Some have even designated so-called “go-to-jail-guys” to take the fall in the event they are caught.

City leaders say the only power they wield against the unlawful firms at this point is to make it so that black market sales isn’t worth the profit. Local government only has limited means to make that happen, but the Los Angeles Daily News reports the city has vowed to start with their power sources.

The city announced it would be cracking down on hundreds of illegal marijuana businesses in Los Angeles City by authorizing the Department of Water and Power to shut off the utilities at dispensaries, farm operations and other sites that are allegedly operating unlawfully. If you are own or manage one of the sites where utilities are shut off, it may be a good time to consult with an experienced Los Angeles marijuana business attorney.

L.A. City Council Approves Ordinance to Fast-Track Weed Shop Shutdown

The measure passed 12-0, with city leaders asserting that cutting off electricity and water to the shops should make it impossible to do business.

Last fall, the city police chief informed council members there were hundreds of unlicensed marijuana businesses believed to be running throughout the city. Although the city does allow commercial cannabis to be sold for recreational use, any Los Angeles marijuana business must have the proper licensing from both the city and the state to operate lawfully. Otherwise, they risk not only the sudden impact of this crackdown, but also potential legal action from the federal government, which has been increasingly vigilant in taking action against shops whose practices fail to align with state law.

L.A. marijuana business attorneys at The Cannabis Law Group know one of the driving forces for elected city council officials is the flood of complaints that neighbors make to city hall, asserting that unlicensed marijuana grow and retail operations are crime magnets that make a fair number of residents feel unsafe. Whether that is reality or just perception is unclear. What we do know is that the black market is undercutting the lawful stores that are required by strict state regulations to track, test and pay taxes on their products.

With regard to the utilities at these sites, the city required the utilities department to have written confirmation in hand from the LAPD or other city agency that unlawful commercial cannabis activity was going on there AND a green light confirmation from the Los Angeles Department of Cannabis Regulation that the business does not have a proper marijuana business license per ordinance.

One city council member requested that such actions be followed immediately by the city’s building and safety department to follow up at these locations to make sure the operators haven’t simply hauled a generator on site to keep going.

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

Additional Resources:

LA City Council votes to shut off utilities at illegal marijuana shop, March 8, 2019, By Ethan Varian, Los Angeles Daily News

More Blog Entries:

New Cannabis Laws May Help Black War on Drugs’ Targets a Leg Up on Legal Pot, May 24, 2019, Los Angeles Marijuana Lawyer Blog

From a patient’s perspective, that means the product they are receiving may not be 100 percent safe or accurately-labeled with proper potency levels. From the perspective of marijuana businesses, these other companies have carved an unfair advantage over them because they operate in regions they do not and/or have not had to pay the mountains of fees for taxes, licensing, workers’ compensation and quality assurance testing. From the state’s perspective, these businesses are flouting the regulatory framework of the law.

As reported by Wired.com, marijuana businesses can list their services on the site for free, but top billing requires an advertising fee. Some companies pay as much as $20,000-a-month for top-level billing on the site, which doesn’t vet firms to see which are technically legal and does not indicate those pot shops that pop up first on the site have paid for that placement.

The number of listings on the site have seen some occasional fluctuation with the number of listings, some 2,000 total in Southern California last summer. Of those, Wired reported only 239 were licensed and legal marijuana stores and delivery services. Another 35 were so-called “microbusinesses” licensed to sell marijuana in that particular region; Weedmaps indicated many of those groups were non-profit medical collectives, which were previously legal in California, but were outlawed Jan. 1, 2019.

A competitor of the tech company committed to restricting advertising to only those marijuana businesses that are licensed., citing state law indicating that only lawful operations can legally advertise online. Weedmaps (which began in 1997 by a then-13-year-old) however cites federal law (specifically Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act) in reasoning why it will continue to allow unlicensed retailers to advertise. That statute is the same one that protects other technology firms like YouTube and Facebook from liability based on the content that users post.

It has continued to operate despite cease-and-desist letters from the state’s Bureau of Cannabis Control that outlined an argument that the company was in violation of both California cannabis laws (indicating any marijuana business advertising online was required to include state license numbers on those ads) and that they are aiding and abetting violations of state law. The state has since more-or-less conceded the tech firm’s counterargument that it is not a marijuana company and thus not subject to that particular code. However, it may still be possible action could be taken on the second point.

As of yet, no criminal or civil complaint has been filed against the firm. Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know that may not be the case indefinitely. The California Attorney General is reportedly considering pursuing a case against the company. It’s unclear where such a fight might lead. We opine it could ultimately set significant and far-reaching precedent in terms of the limits of liability for online advertisements against both California and U.S. law.

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

Additional Resources:

WEEDMAPS’ GRIP ON THE HIGH-FLYING CALIFORNIA POT MARKET, Jan. 21, 2019, By Amanda Chicago Lewis, Wired.com

More Blog Entries:

Confer With a Cannabis Lawyer: Capitalizing on the Los Angeles Marijuana Tourism Market, Feb. 1, 2019, Los Angeles Marijuana Lawyer Blog

the growing list of places where either recreational or medical marijuana is legal. Two of the states — Utah and Missouri — currently have no marijuana protections and would be looking to add medical. The inclusion of these two would bring the number of states with some form of legal cannabis to 32. Meanwhile, Michigan and North Dakota are no strangers to marijuana legislation, each one already having medical marijuana permissions in place while looking to move forward into recreational cannabis in November.

According to The Motley Fool, early polling shows Michigan is expected to be a close call in their ballot initiative to legalize recreational marijuana. Proposition 1 would permit use and possession of marijuana for those 21 and older as well as sales and taxation on those sales. Under the measure, 12 plants would be allowed for personal growth in private residences. Like California and other states, though, cities and local governments would have the right to ban or regulate businesses in their jurisdictions. A 10 percent excise tax on retail sales would go toward education and be divided among local coffers.Measure 3 out of North Dakota is the other recreational bill this year. In addition to opening the door to setting up adult-use marijuana regulations, this initiative takes the extra measures of building in an automatic expungement process for those with prior convictions related to marijuana. In California, Proposition 64 allowed those with previous convictions to petition to have their records clear. Later, some cities initiated automatic reviews, and now AB-1793, if passed, would implement an automatic expungement process in the state. Support for recreational legalization is mixed, though our experienced Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know other conservative leaning states such as Oklahoma have proven cannabis is a bipartisan issue.

The medical marijuana measure in Utah is pretty straight forward and in line with other states. Proposition 2, The Utah Medical Cannabis Act, would create a system that would establish a list of qualifying conditions, regulations for doctors, rules for purchasing marijuana, etc. Polls are showing strong support for medical cannabis legalization, making chances for success of this bill higher than some of the others in November.

Meanwhile Missouri is anything but straightforward with three medical marijuana measures appearing on the ballot. The primary differences among the three pertain primarily to the rate at which sales would be taxed, and what that money would be allocated toward. Proposition C would have low taxes, high expenses ($10 million), and revenue going mostly toward enforcement, education, and veterans health services. It would not require a constitutional amendment, though, while the other two will. Amendment 2 is more middle-of-the-road with a slightly higher tax rate of 4 percent, lower (but still costly) operating costs at $7 million, with revenue flagged specifically for veterans healthcare. It is the only one that allows residents to grow their own plants, though it would have to be in a registered facility. Amendment 3 has the highest tax rate at 15% but the lowest costs overall at only $500,000. Revenue for this option would go toward research for incurable diseases. Given overall support nationwide for medical marijuana, one of these three is likely to pass, though confusion over conflicting ballot initiatives could cause issues for the state, particularly if more than one passes.

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

Additional Resources:

Missouri Has Three Marijuana Initiatives on the 2018 Ballot. Here’s the Breakdown, By Danny Wicetowski, Aug. 3, 2018, Riverfront Times

More Blog Entries:

More States Look to Legalize Marijuana in 2018, Jan. 21, 2018, Cannabis Law Group

Delivery businesses specializing in cannabis have a unique set of rules to follow. They must abide by the laws in the local jurisdiction in which their home base is located. But they also have to take into consideration laws that dictate transport. This has led to a particular set of challenges in Sacramento County, according to the Sacramento Bee.

While adult-use marijuana was legalized in the state Jan. 1, under Proposition 64, each local government was allowed to set its own terms. Under the law, deliveries can only be made between cities that allow it. This can be a real disadvantage to patients, some who have difficulty leaving their homes, and business owners. And product must be kept in the city where the business has a license.

In Sacramento County, as of now only the city of Sacramento has plans to receive deliveries. The city has not issued any permits yet, but eight delivery companies have registered while the permit program is being established. Meanwhile Sacramento’s pot czar says many businesses are operating without licenses, and he is on a mission to rein them in. A recent tally on a marijuana delivery website showed about 200 delivery businesses in the county.Our experienced marijuana delivery business service attorneys in Los Angeles know it’s difficult establishing a new company with numerous laws and regulations to consider. We know the challenge intensifies when you have to follow regulations that span across multiple city lines. And when your business is just getting off the ground, fees and taxes can be intimidating. Further, when you see peers skipping these important steps, it might be tempting to follow suit. But doing so can not only get you in trouble, it can hurt the marijuana industry as a whole, hurting other businesses that are in compliance.

Some delivery services might think they fall under the umbrella of a collective, which would allow them to operate without a permit until next year. But there are specific requirements that must be met to be considered a collective, namely that it must be a nonprofit. They would also need to be registered with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration.

Regardless, the days of operating permit-free won’t last for long. Sacramento marijuana regulators are working with city police to establish an enforcement plan. Warning letters have already gone out to operations across the state.

It’s important that businesses who are not operating with a permit or who aren’t sure they are in compliance get legal counsel to advise them on how to move forward. Our experienced attorneys have the know-how to advise you on business plans, assist you with business licensing, and offer guidance on establishing collectives. Otherwise owners could face fines, lose their business, or more. Avoiding these regulations might not seem like a big deal now, but any money being saved in the short term could cost your business big time in the long run.

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

Additional Resources:

Are You Getting Marijuana Delivered to You? If So, It’s probably Illegal, Feb. 16, 2018, By Brad Branan and Phillip Reese, The Sacramento Bee

More Blog Entries:

City of Los Angeles Targets Another Marijuana Delivery Service, May 21, 2016, Cannabis Law Group

businesses opening their doors.

Los Angeles city council approved guidelines for the sale of recreational marijuana late in 2017, and the city hoped to have the regulations put in place by the roll-out of the Adult Use of Marijuana Act on Jan. 1, 2018. However, the city now says it needs extra time to establish the intricate rules.

Therefore, Los Angeles could not start accepting applications right away. Additionally, it usually takes weeks for a business to receive a license and meet standards with local and state officials.Cities throughout California are kicking off sales of recreational marijuana now that it has become legal statewide. However, individual districts have been given the right to reject the state law or control over how they would like to have it implemented in their city. Kern County, for example, banned recreational use and sales altogether.

In March 2017, voters in Los Angeles passed (with 80 percent of the vote) a ballot measure that would get the ball rolling on establishing a marketplace in the city, joining other major areas in the state that have approved commercial sales, such as San Diego, San Jose, Santa Cruz, and West Hollywood, according to the Associated Press.

But it wasn’t until much later in the year that city officials came to an agreement on the necessary guidelines. In the meantime, hundreds of dispensaries have been shut down in Los Angeles as owners tried to get a foothold without the proper licensing.

Officials say it isn’t just the storefronts in Los Angeles that have a ways to go. Details still need to be ironed out with the growers and distributors and how specifically those aspects of the business will be governed and managed. This has left local growers and sellers nervous that they will be at a disadvantage to establishments in other cities who are already able to start operations.

Our Los Angeles marijuana business attorneys are on top of the latest in regulations by the city of Los Angeles, as well as throughout the state of California. It is important if you want to successfully apply to run a cannabis business in Los Angeles that you seek counsel from experienced legal professionals in the industry who will make sure all of your bases are covered. Compliance with the law can make or break your company. If you are found in violation of a regulation, it can be very costly or cause you to lose the business you worked so hard to build.

At its core, California hopes that recreational marijuana will be managed in a similar fashion to alcohol, with an age restriction of 21 or older and cities having the freedom to issue licenses as they see fit. Where recreational activity has not been banned, adults will be allowed to possess one ounce and have six plants in their homes. In Los Angeles, pot businesses would mostly be forbidden in residential neighborhoods. Areas around parks, schools, and libraries would also be off limits.

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

Additional Resources:

Los Angeles won’t join California’s legal pot party Jan. 1, Dec, 22, 2017, By Michael R. Blood, Associated Press

More Blog Entries:

L.A. Slated to Become Largest U.S. City with Legalized Recreational Marijuana, Dec. 7, 2017, L.A. Marijuana Attorney Blog

Some argue that it should be okay as long as you are not under the influence of marijuana while on the job. This is how things work with alcohol. After all, anyone who is 21 or older can legally drink alcohol, but cannot come to work drunk. It is also true that a worker can take his or her prescription Xanax and be at work so long as that is not interfering with their job, and they are not operating heavy machinery. On the other hand, marijuana is still illegal pursuant to federal law, and employers can have a drug free workplace policy and enforce that policy. According to a recent news article from the Sacramento Bee discussing whether a worker can be fired for using recreational marijuana, it will once again depend on where you work and who your employer is.

Under federal law, and even state law, an employer can still test you prior to employment and can also test you while you are already on the job. If you test positive for marijuana even though it is legal under state law to possess and use, the employer can refuse to hire you or terminate you. If you are working in the transportation industry, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) will require all workers to be drug free and will require pre-employment drug tests and random drug tests. If you test positive, you can certainly be terminated.

As our Orange County cannabis attorneys can explain, certain jobs that are federally regulated, such as being an air traffic controller or a school bus driver, simply will not allow anyone who has a regulated position to use any illegal drugs. This includes marijuana, as it is still listed as a Schedule One controlled substance despite that being a ridiculous classification.

Aside from federally regulated jobs in transportation and other industries, there was much contention surrounding workplace drug testing for marijuana. Prior to recreational use of marijuana being legalized in Proposition 64, it was tried in another Proposition back in 2010. That effort went down in defeat, as a majority of voters did not support it. This was partially because of language in the ballot measure that said employers could not fire employees for using marijuana, as it was legal under state law. This time, advocates and drafters didn’t want to be defeated for the same reason, so they did not include that language. Instead, they included language that gave employers much more flexibility in terms of what they would do about marijuana in the workplace.

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

Additional Resources: Can I get fired for using legal recreational marijuana? An FAQ for California workers, May 27, 2017, By Peter Hecht, Sacramento Bee

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

There are grow operations that use massive indoor spaces, some as big as 200,000 square feet, which is around the size of a big box store, to grow marijuana in a traditional growing medium. These indoor grow operations are secure and have special features to keep any types of mites or other pests from getting to the plants. Modern ones require workers to wear clean suits with no pockets, and then they must go through a wind tunnel prior to coming in contact with plants to keep the pests away. The air in these large medical marijuana operations is recycled multiple times a day or even a few times an hour to make sure there is not any contamination. In addition to this technology, the new grow operations treat the air that is removed with commercial scrubbers and even aromatherapy to make sure they are not making the whole neighborhood smell like marijuana. While these new facilities that are being built across the country can certainly be considered cutting edge, they are not cheap. In fact, they can cost more than $10 million each to construct and fully equip.

This is okay for big companies and venture capitalists, but for many smaller operations, they cannot come close to affording anything like this. It is for this reason that outdoor operations are still very popular. However, according to a recent news article from CBS, the City of Santa Rosa is trying to outlaw any outdoor cultivation of marijuana. This includes a patient with the up to six plants he or she is allowed to cultivate as well as any commercial medical marijuana manufacturers.

As if this was not annoying enough to people that want to grow plants for personal use, the city is seemingly doing it based upon the passage of Proposition 64 that gave more rights to medical marijuana patients and now recreational users.

The city says that it is responding to complaints of the smell of outdoor growing, even when we are talking about a couple of plants and certainly no more than six.

One thing to keep in mind, if you are cultivating medical marijuana, is that the local municipality may try to infringe upon your rights when they are not technically allowed to do so. This is not to say they do not have authority, but if you are being told you need to stop cultivating marijuana or are issued warnings or fines, you should speak with an experienced medical cannabis attorney to learn what your rights may be and to see if you have a valid defense or even a claim of your own.

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

Additional Resources:

Santa Rosa Considers Ban On Outdoor Cultivation Of Marijuana, May 2, 2017, By Emily Turner, CBS

More Blog Entries: Report: Colorado Marijuana Laws May Not be Safe, Feb. 5, 2017, L.A. Marijuana Lawyer Blog

Now, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has issued a ruling saying it is a right that should be denied to users of medical marijuana. In Wilson v. Lynch et al., the court ruled that a federal law that prohibits medical marijuana cardholders from buying firearms does not actually violate those patients’ Second Amendment rights because users of marijuana are prone to behavior that is “irrational” and “unpredictable.”

The case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by a Nevada woman who sought to buy a handgun five years ago. However, she was refused the sale after the owner of the store recognized her as being a medical marijuana patient. Plaintiff asserted that in fact, she didn’t really use marijuana, but obtained a medical marijuana card in order to make a political statement, saying she supports the liberalization of marijuana laws nationally.

Federal law does have a say here. The statute indicates guns can’t be bought by individuals who are either addicts or unlawful users of any controlled substance. Back in 2011, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) issued a clarification indicating this provision did apply to users of marijuana, even if their state had passed laws authorizing legal access and use of the drug for medicinal purposes.

Plaintiff argued this was inherently unfair and violated her Constitutional rights. The 9th DCA disagreed, finding it “beyond dispute” that users of “illegal drugs” – including those who use cannabis – are likely as a consequence of their use to be unpredictable and irrational. Further, regardless of whether plaintiff was actually a user of the drug, the fact that she was a cardholder was reasonable grounds on which to assume she was a user and deny her access to buy a gun.

Of course, our marijuana lawyers know this reasoning didn’t just appear out of thin air. There is a long history of painting marijuana users as unstable and potentially violent. In fact, the 9th DCA based much of its reasoning on the 2004 decision by the 4th DCA in U.S. v. Carter. In that case, justices cited several studies in which users of marijuana (though mostly users of marijuana plus other substances, like alcohol, cocaine and heroin) were more prone to “violent episodes” and arrests.

Interestingly, in the Carter case, the 4th DCA expressly stated that the issue of correlation versus causation was irrelevant, and that a correlation was a fair legal basis on which to deny the purchase of firearms. But researchers have criticized this approach. For example, cigarette smokers might be more likely than non-smokers to commit crimes. Yet the cigarettes in and of themselves are not the cause of the higher crime rates among users.

The 9th DCA turned around to say that causation was in fact a consideration for its findings and that irrational behavior could be a consequence of using the drug. However, there is a far stronger link to suggest that alcohol intoxication has a much stronger link to violence than marijuana. In fact, there have been some studies indicating use of marijuana may actually decrease violent tendencies.

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

Additional Resources:

Why medical marijuana patients can’t buy guns, Sept. 7, 2016, By Christopher Ingraham, The Washington Post

More Blog Entries:

Lack of Diversity in Medical Marijuana Licenses Raises Concern, Sept. 12, 2016, Los Angeles Marijuana Lawyer Blog

The Washington Post recently reported on the issue, beginning with the case of a D.C. law firm employee who, after eight years renting a residence on a quiet street in the Northeast section of the city, was evicted over the discovery of a marijuana joint. The report indicates the woman’s adult son – who had not lived with her for years – was arrested for possession of a firearm outside of a popular nightclub. Two weeks later, D.C. police officers raided her home, looking for more drugs. They didn’t find any when they stormed the home as she and her husband were helping her 8-year-old with his homework. However, they did find three cigarettes – one of them reportedly containing marijuana. No one was arrested or charged.

However, it was just a week later that the attorney general’s office in D.C. labeled the home a drug-related nuisance in a letter fired off to her landlord. That letter cited a nuisance abatement law passed in 1999 that grants the city broad power to prevail in civil lawsuits against landlords that don’t halt illegal actions on their properties. In response, the landlord evicted his tenant.

In the last three years, city officials just in D.C. have issued some 450 nuisance abatement letters to property owners, most citing residential tenants accused of drug or gun crimes. In most cases, these individuals were arrested on felony charges, of which they were later convicted. However, there were also about three dozen cases that involved either misdemeanor marijuana possession charges – or, like in this case, no charges at all.

There was one incident in which a grandmother was evicted from her apartment for possession of one gram of marijuana – which is a legal amount of the drug under D.C.’s marijuana possession laws.

An analysis by Post reporters indicated that some of the letters issued by the attorney general’s office were not the result of careful analysis that differentiated dangerous felons from the rest, but rather a veritable assembly line of paperwork churned out by rubber-stamping government agents. What’s happening is following a police raid at a residence, information is sent to the U.S. attorney’s office, which is the federal entity responsible for prosecution of D.C. crimes. It’s not clear which cases are red-flagged by police, but once it occurs, the referrals are passed from the police to the D.C. attorney general’s office, which is the district’s legal arm. That office is supposed to review the cases and determine whether a property is in fact a nuisance. However, officials with the attorney general’s office have conceded they do not do this adequately. In fact, over the course of the three-years and 450 nuisance abatement letters issued, the office couldn’t point to a single time when they received a referral and declined to issue a letter. However, after the story was published online, the office was able to dig up seven cases over the course of 12 months in which they reportedly resolved the nuisance without issuing a letter to the landlord.

Still, it’s problematic that a policy born of the Zero Tolerance policies that cropped up in New York City and elsewhere as a direct result of the crack epidemic is today being used to evict families of law-abiding marijuana users from their homes. Although these letters don’t specifically require the landlords to evict, many of the letters do contain pamphlets that spell out the eviction process.

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

Additional Resources:

Forced out of a home over a marijuana joint, Aug. 26, 2016, By Derek Hawkins and Kate McCormick, The Washington Post

More Blog Entries:

Federal Appeals Court: Feds Can’t Prosecute Medical Marijuana Cases Absent State Law Violation, Aug. 18, 2016, Los Angeles Marijuana Lawyer Blog

Simultaneously, the Washington Post reports that there have been calls by the head of the legislative black caucus to prohibit elected officials from participating in the industry. Officials who backed the measure are questioning a fellow politician who also supported the legislation – and then later was welcomed aboard a company seeking a license to cultivate and distribute the drug. Del. Cheryl Glenn says the failure of Del. Dan Morhaim to make his dual roles clear. Both Glenn and Morhaim are Democrats from Baltimore.

These issues combined have proven impediments in a legalization process that has been marked with numerous missteps and delays since Maryland voters approved medical marijuana three years ago. Now, the state is clearing 15 companies for cultivation of the drug and another 15 companies for marijuana processing. None of those 30 companies are owned or operated by an African American – despite the fact that one-third of the population in Maryland is black.

Glenn, in addition to calling out Morhaim for his public support of a measure in which he stood to personally profit, urged Hogan to call for a special legislative session in the coming weeks to discuss the lack of minority ownership of marijuana companies. She added it may be possible to authorize regulators to dole out additional licenses to companies owned by minorities. If the governor refuses this request, the next regular session for lawmakers in that state won’t begin until January. That seems more likely because a spokesman for the governor said that while lack racial diversity in the marijuana industry is a concern, it doesn’t warrant a special legislative session. He has, however, asked his chief lobbyist and an adviser to hammer out possible solutions. Still, the governor doesn’t have any direct power to address the issue because the state’s Medical Cannabis Commission is operated separately from the governor’s office. The governor appoints the executive director and commission members, but doesn’t have any input in which companies get a license.

Another reason why this is especially pressing is because the medical marijuana law that was passed in 2013 specifically stated that regulators need to actively seek ethnic, racial and geographic diversity within the industry.

Commissioners granted the licenses on a preliminary basis using outside reviewers who combed through the applications (names redacted). They did consider geographic diversity by granting licenses to lower-ranked applicants who were located in in more rural counties, to ensure there would be growers in other areas of the state – and not all concentrated in Baltimore. However, when it came to consideration of minority-owned marijuana companies, the commission didn’t give extra weight based on race, due to the advice of the state’s attorney general. The attorney general warned it may be unconstitutional to award licenses partially based on the owner’s minority status in an industry that had no history of racial discrimination. However, an attorney general spokeswoman now says that didn’t mean the commission couldn’t consider race. Instead, it could have researched whether there exists a historical racial disparity in industries similar to medical marijuana or in other states that have medical marijuana programs. That would have settled the “no history of racial discrimination” issue.

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

Additional Resources:

Hogan, Frosh concerned about lack of diversity in Maryland’s medical pot licenses, Aug. 26, 2016, By Fenit Nirappil, The Washington Post More Blog Entries: Marijuana Asset Forfeiture Reform Bill Passed by California Assembly, Aug. 20, 2016, L.A. Marijuana Lawyer Blog

Thankfully, that is starting to change as states pass reforms that bolster the position of marijuana dispensaries – medicinal and recreational – in our communities.

The effect that is having on the marijuana industry is being explored in the Winter 2016 issue of the Washington and Lee Law Review. The study, “Trademark Laundering, Useless Patents and Other IP Challenges for the Marijuana Industry,” delves into some of the intellectual property challenges the marijuana industry faces and how the industry is tackling those issues today. Because cannabis remains a Schedule I narcotic under federal law, despite progressive state-level reforms, those who grow and sell the drug or its derivatives have found themselves unable to secure banking services, saddled with onerous tax burdens, unable to count on the enforcement of contracts they sign and trouble finding good marijuana lawyers who are willing to take on the complex and ever-changing regulatory landscape. In all of this, intellectual property protection has been largely put on the back burner.

Mostly, this has to do with the fact that the majority of intellectual property rights are federal, and that means this sort of protection has been generally out-of-reach for those in the marijuana industry. So while companies may have been subject to some of the intellectual property law burdens, they have rarely been able to enjoy its benefits.

Let’s look at trademark protection. There are one of two ways to secure a trademark in the U.S.: One is to register it with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The other is via the use of the Lanham Act, which is a measure that protects the use of unregistered trademarks. Protecting a trademark involves proving that its use in commerce is distinctive and regularly associated with a particular product or company and used in commerce. However, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has a history of refusing to issue trademarks to companies that engage in illegal commerce. For the marijuana industry, that means they can’t get approval of a trademark because, under federal law, they are engaged in illegal commerce. As far as invoking the Lanham Act, that can only happen if the company is engaged in interstate commerce. Yet state-level legalization of marijuana – either as medicine or for recreational use – applies only to activity within that state. In fact, state-level laws are explicit on that fact.

Meanwhile, companies that provide services to marijuana businesses – but don’t actually grow marijuana – have gotten trademarks and patents on phrases that include the term “marijuana” and images of marijuana plants. This is true even though they don’t sell marijuana, and it means they are going to have a long-term advantage of consumers recognizing their brand, while those actually growing, buying and selling the actual product are at a distinct disadvantage.

Plus, they can still be liable for trademark infringement. For example, one company got into hot water by calling its marijuana-infused peanut butter cups “Reefers,” a clear play off the Reese’s trademark product.

This has given rise to another practice that is being dubbed, “trademark laundering.” This involves securing trademarks for legal goods that are then used in connection with cannabis sales. So for example, a company will get a trademark for a chocolate product that doesn’t contain any cannabis, but will then turn around and use the trademark for an edible chocolate product with marijuana.

Intellectual property concerns should be discussed with an experienced L.A. marijuana attorney.

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

Additional Resources:

“Trademark Laundering, Useless Patents and Other IP Challenges for the Marijuana Industry,” Winter 2016, Washington and Lee Law Review

More Blog Entries:

Latest Effort to Open Banking to Marijuana Businesses Sputters Out, July 31, 2016, Los Angeles Marijuana Lawyer Blog

Syndros is the liquid version of a drug called Marinol, which was approved back in 1985 as a synthetic cannabinoid. However, Marinol only comes in pill form. Syndros is the liquid form. Marinol was approved in the mid-80s to treat the same conditions as Syndros.

Interestingly, the approval of this liquid synthetic came around the same time the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) refused to reclassify marijuana as anything but a Schedule I narcotic, despite petitions from lawmakers to knock it down to a Schedule II. In the agency’s refusal to take this action, officials cited lack of proof that marijuana serves any legitimate medical purpose. Yet we are making synthetic versions of it for uses that are clearly legitimate and medical?

Syndros is being produced by a company called Insys Therapeutics, which is seeking to corner the legal market on legal synthetic marijuana. The approved form of its drug is generically referred to as dronabinol. The drug has proven effective in helping to treat the anorexia and weight loss that often plagues AIDS patients. It’s also proven helpful in combating the vomiting and nausea suffered by patients with cancer who are undergoing chemotherapy. Often, these patients do not respond well or adequately to conventional treatments for these symptoms.

The newest version of Marinol is going to be marketed as “easy-to-swallow,” and also having the benefit of faster absorption than the pill counterpart. The drug has a Schedule III classification, indicating it has medicinal benefits and is also low-risk for abuse. Meanwhile, marijuana is still ranked as having the same abuse risk and lack of medicinal value as heroin.

Although there is evidence to suggest certain patients prefer the dronabinol to actually smoking marijuana – and that’s something that legitimately deserves exploration – that is also substantial evidence indicating that the plant-based medications are vastly superior to these synthetic versions of it. In many cases, patients who have been prescribed dronabinol and later switch to cannabis – or visa versa – generally agree that the synthetic version is nowhere close to as effective as the real version. That tells us there may be other compounds besides THC present in the plant that are of great value. But the research on the plant has been so limited, largely due to the drug’s classification. Only one school is authorized to grow the plant for research purposes, and the supply is always terribly low. The DEA did announce recently that it will give the green light to other schools to grow the drug so the research supply will be boosted.

That’s a start, but in the meantime, you have companies like this one, slated to make a $700 million annual profit of Syndros, when it is in fact a sub-par alternative to the real deal. What companies like this have essentially done is break down the plant into its “good” and “bad” components, disregarding its effectiveness as a whole. But of course, this allows them to keep tight reigns on the market. But what it also does is keep the door open to the black market, which the government has been able to profit from through criminal prosecutions and property seizures. And then of course, as our marijuana lawyers in L.A. know, there are the obscene taxes imposed on legal marijuana businesses in California and beyond.

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

Additional Resources:

FDA APPROVES LIQUID MARIJUANA FOR AIDS AND CANCER PATIENTS, July 28, 2016, By Mike Adams, High Times

More Blog Entries:

Poll: Marijuana Use Among U.S. Adults On The Rise, Aug. 8, 2016, L.A. Marijuana Lawyer Blog

Newsome said a change in the law is essential because of the utter failure of the so-called War on Drugs.

At a conference in Oakland, sponsored by the National Cannabis Industry Assn., approximately 2,000 entrepreneurs and industry activists nodded as Newsome described the existing drug policies in California and the U.S. as essentially a war on the poor and on minorities.

“It’s got to end,” Newsome said.

Newsome is eyeing a 2018 bid for governor. He said California has the advantage now that it didn’t have when it became the first state to legalize the drug for medicinal purposes back in 1996: Examples. As it stands, Colorado, Washington, Alaska and Oregon have all approved marijuana for recreational growers and users, with certain restrictions. We can look to see what has worked in those states – and what has not. And beyond that, Newsome said, “You are seeing that the sky is not falling.”

That’s a dig at those who act as if so many ills will befall California if voters approve recreational marijuana. For example, one of the top concerns voiced is that it will result in widespread teen use of the drug. But research has proven that is not the case. In fact, Colorado’s Department of Health recently released a survey of high school students statewide that showed marijuana use among youth had actually dropped – from 22 percent in 2011 (the year before recreational marijuana was approved and three years before it actually became available) to 21.2 percent in 2016.

In California, an initiative to approve recreational marijuana is close to being qualified. That much is expected. But will it pass? Newsome said it’s definitely not a sure thing. He warned supporters not to become complacent.

Newsome noted that while the movement has received substantial financial help from Facebook President Sean Parker, he isn’t going to be able to fund the entire campaign. Industry insiders and supporters need to step it up because, Newsome said, “There is a lot at stake.”

The measure to which he is specifically referring is the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, which is expected to be on the November 8th ballot. It was crafted on the basis of recommendations issued by the Newsome-created Blue Ribbon Commission on Marijuana Policy. The measure calls for:

• Allowing adults over age 21 to possess, transport and use up to 1 ounce of cannabis for purposes of recreation;
• Allow individuals to grow up to six plants.

The measure is supported by the Marijuana Policy Project, the Drug Policy Alliance and the California Cannabis Industry Assn. It is opposed by a number of law enforcement groups, including the California Police Chiefs Assn.

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

Additional Resources:

Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsome calls on cannabis community to campaign for legalization in November, June 21, 2016, By Patrick McGreevy, The Los Angeles Times

More Blog Entries:

Cannabis Tech Development Keeping Pace, June 11, 2016, Los Angeles Marijuana Lawyer Blog