Of course, as our Los Angeles cannabis DUI lawyers can explain, a big part of the reason for that is because it’s none so simple to establish marijuana intoxication simply based on the levels of psychoactive THC in one’s body. Unlike alcohol, which cycles through the body very quickly, THC remains traceable for weeks after consumption. A 0.08 percent blood-alcohol level would likely indicate recent excess alcohol consumption. But the same isn’t true for THC. Person A might have higher levels of THC in their bloodstream than Person B, but still be less intoxicated. The level of THC in one’s system simply doesn’t tell the whole story, particularly if one is a regular cannabis consumer.

Despite this, 18 other states have imposed some sort of limit on the amount of THC drivers can have in their bloodstream before they’re considered “under the influence” of cannabis. (THC, of course, is short for tetrahydrocannabinol, the element contained in marijuana that creates the “high.”)

There are some safe driving advocates trying to change that. One of those is the family of a 25-year-old who died tragically in a California car accident in 2020 – a passenger in a truck driven by her boyfriend. He would later say he saw an animal, jerked the steering wheel, and crashed into another vehicle – totaling his truck and killing his girlfriend instantly. The woman’s father believes the boyfriend was stoned, and he’d even spoken to his daughter about not getting into the car with her boyfriend when he’d been consuming cannabis. Her mother said she’d spoken directly to the boyfriend about what they recognized as a serious safety issue.

The boyfriend, according to a local news outlet, reportedly conceded that he’d consumed marijuana the day of the crash – but he was a habitual user of cannabis and his consumption had been earlier in the day. He insisted he was not impaired.

Authorities didn’t buy his story initially, and charged him with felony DUI. However, with no legal limits on THC, prosecutors had a weaker case. He ultimately pleaded guilty to vehicular manslaughter and served one year in jail. It was reportedly the second time a passenger of his died in a crash; the first time was in 2010.

Investigators say his blood-THC level was 18 nanograms. The THC legal limit for drivers in other states is 5 nanograms. But again, as our Los Angeles DUI cannabis lawyers can explain, that doesn’t necessarily mean the driver was impaired. And there’s bipartisan agreement on this from legislators. Numerous studies have been conducted that conclude if you’re trying to ascertain the level of impairment, a sole reliance on the amount of THC in one’s system would be inconclusive. A person’s impairment might last several hours after consuming cannabis, but the THC in one’s system is going to persist in one’s system for much longer than that.

So while the cases like the one mentioned in this article are undoubtedly tragic and devastating for families, broadening California’s marijuana DUI laws would likely have the consequence of prosecuting people for impaired driving when they weren’t truly impaired – and that is not justice.

It’s worth noting that the State of California has set aside $2 million for research this year on the impacts of THC on drivers to determine whether some sort of a fair standard for intoxication can be identified.

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:

Marijuana and driving: California lacks legal THC limit, March 6, 2023, By David Goldstein, CBS News Los Angeles

Certainly, this is big news. But our Los Angeles cannabis business consulting lawyers would urge caution before rushing to your marketing firm for content.

Previously, the company only permitted ads for hemp-derived CBD topical products. This was still more progressive than other social media firms. TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook have had (and maintain) a strict no cannabis advertising policy – so long as it remains illegal at the federal level. (This despite the fact that 21 states allow recreational use cannabis – and more are on the horizon.) It’s likely only a matter of time before these other social media platforms adopt policies similar to Twitter’s.

However, despite giving the green light to “approved cannabis advertisers to target the U.S.,” cannabis companies on Twitter still aren’t allowed to advertise their actual products for sale. The only exception is for topical, hemp-derived CBD products that contain less than 0.3 percent THC (which is the government’s threshold for being classified as a CBD product rather than a more heavily-restricted THC product). Undoubtedly, there’s a market for these types of products, but it doesn’t represent the full array of cannabis products and services.

Further, cannabis companies seeking to advertise on Twitter must:

• Have a proper license.
• Pass through Twitter’s ad approval process.
• Limit their target audience to jurisdictions wherein they are licensed to operate.
• Do not target youth under age 21.

Advertisers are NOT allowed to:

• Create ads that promote or depict people using cannabis.
• Display advertising that shows people under the influence of cannabis.
• Claim any sort of efficacy or health benefits.
• Use any celebrities, images, icons, characters, or athletes in their ads that might appeal to children or those under 21.

These are somewhat similar to Twitter’s restrictions on alcohol advertising, although alcohol products themselves can be marketed so long as companies don’t appeal to minors or imply that drinking alcohol to excess is good.

Los Angeles cannabis consulting lawyers recognize that vague language pertaining to celebrities might be especially tough, particularly given that a number of high-profile athletes and celebrities who have cannabis companies or have been vocal supporters of marijuana use might have broad appeal to both adults and minors. For example, few would dispute that Martha Stewart, who launched a line of CBD products in 2020, appeals to a more mature audience. But what about Sha’Carri Richardson, Kourtney Kardashian, or Wiz Khalifa? They’re all adults over 21 themselves, but does their celebrity appeal to people under 21? The answer of course is subjective, and therein lies the concern.

This is where seeking guidance from a cannabis law firm may be to your benefit.

The rules only apply to the U.S. and companies therein. (Other countries, like Canada, that have more cannabis freedoms have broader leeway to advertise the products on social media platforms.)

Meanwhile, Google has also revised its advertising policy for marijuana companies, allowing FDA-approved CBD drugs and topical CBD products with less than 0.3 percent THC to advertise their products. However, these ads are strictly confined to markets in California, Colorado, and Puerto Rico. (Twitter’s previous CBD product ad policy also limited markets to 7 states – including California – but that restriction has since been removed.)

If you are a Southern California cannabis company hoping to advertise on Twitter, our Los Angeles cannabis business lawyers provide consulting to help ensure your ads are aligned with the law as well as the policies of advertising platforms.

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:

Drugs and Drug Paraphernalia, Ads Content Policies, Twitter

Sales of pot-infused edibles have tripled over the last four years – up to almost $1.4 billion nationally, with increases largely fueled by buyers who aren’t keen on smoking or inhaling their THC fix and are looking for greater variety in options. To excel, many California gummy manufacturers are having to find a niche market: Fruity flavors, fast-acting ingredients, high potency for a decent price, etc. Consumers have their choice of a broad variety of cannabis-infused products – from cookies and chips to suckers and other candies. But gummies seem to be preferred. Fruit chews are the most popular, with caramels and taffy chews coming in No. 2.

Gummies are also very popular when it comes to minor cannabinoid products (those made not with THC, but CBD, CBN, and CBG). Edibles account for nearly one-third of all CBD products – and our Los Angeles marijuana business attorneys know that a significant portion of those are gummies.

But producers and manufactures of marijuana gummy products need to be extremely careful that they are following the letter of the law in the course of doing business. The California Department of Cannabis Control has stringent rules when it comes to process, potency, labels, and sales of cannabis products. On top of that, companies that flagrantly disregard state law may be inviting the eye of federal authorities. Although the U.S. Justice Department is no longer hyper-fixated on the marijuana industry in states where it’s legal to buy/sell/possess, the tenuous peace made possible with the Cole Memo precedent only extends as a courtesy to companies that are following state standards.

Los Angeles Pot Gummy Operator Fined $128 Million

Failure to toe the line on state laws recently led to one Los Angeles County cannabis company being fined an unprecedented $128 million.

According to local news reports, the company was producing cannabis gummies without a license at a Los Angeles facility. The total value of product seized as part of the 2019 investigation was well into the tens of millions of dollars. Local authorities got an anonymous tip that the company (Vertical Bliss, which used to sell Kushy Punch brand products) was producing marijuana gummy products at a facility in Canoga Park. While operators did have a license to produce gummies at a facility in Chatsworth, they didn’t have a license for the Canoga operation.

Authorities with the state’s Department of Consumer Affairs raided the second site, and ultimately seized more than $20 million in illegal gummies. Further, investigators say the licensed facility was receiving/packaging gummies made unlawfully at the second site. Those products were then being pushed into circulation of the legal market.

The state ultimately revoked the company’s licensing before filing a civil lawsuit for a number of statutory violations, as well as unfair competition. The judge issued a $128 million fine that the company now owes the state. It’s believed to be the largest-ever cannabis company penalty in California. But that doesn’t mean it’s over for this firm. The company’s brand of gummies is still being sold – not just in California, but three other states as well.

California Cannabis Laws for Gummies

For companies that produce and sell cannabis gummies in California, being licensed is just the start of what is required for lawful operation. Among the other rules that apply:

• Proper packaging. All cannabis goods need to be contained in packages that are child-resistant, tamper-evident, resealable (if there’s more than one serving in a package), and opaque. (Companies should be especially mindful to avoid copyright infringement as well.)
• Accurate labeling. Very specific information must be on the primary panel and informational panel of all edible products. There also needs to be the universal symbol indicating the contents of the package contain cannabis. Labels also must indicate the source of the cannabis used. Any cartoon characters, candy imitations (even words like “candy”) cannot be used at all. Unproven health claims are forbidden as well. The DCC has checklists, but companies should also run all labels by their Los Angeles cannabis business lawyer as well.
• Proper testing. Routine testing for the safety and potency of all California cannabis products must be conducted according to the specific parameters outlined by state law.

Any company in California engaged in cultivation, production, packaging, sale, or advertising of cannabis gummy products should have an attorney on retainer to review processes and materials. This protects your people, your products, and your production.

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:

Requirements for cannabis goods, California Department of Cannabis Control

More Blog Entries:

Expect Candy Corp. Cases Against Cannabis Companies to Compile, April 27, 2022, Los Angeles Cannabis Company Lawyer Blog

As our Los Angeles marijuana business lawyers can explain, there have been other plaintiffs over the last couple years who have successfully challenged state residency requirements in place for marijuana licensing. They’ve done so by citing the Dormant Commerce Clause, or DCC. This is an implied doctrine in federal constitutional law that prohibits state governments from imposing unfair burdens on commerce between states. The underlying intention of DCC is to promote competition by blocking states from independently regulating interstate commerce. That’s Congress’s job.

Challenges to the residency requirements aren’t exactly the same as challenges to the import/export bans, but they’re pretty close. Constitutionally speaking at least, there appears to be little difference on state residency bans on local marijuana business ownership and bans on marijuana imports and exports.

Per the DCC, Oregon can’t prohibit the export of beef or potatoes or alcohol. Plaintiffs argue that very simply, marijuana should be treated like any of these other exportable goods – notwithstanding the U.S. Controlled Substances Act that categorizes marijuana as a Schedule I narcotic.

The current case challenges the Oregon’s ban on cannabis exports, arguing the law is unconstitutional and further that allowing interstate commerce is in the state’s best interests. Plaintiffs recognize that marijuana remains illegal under U.S. law, but argued the government of Oregon should be supporting the marijuana industry and business owners by stepping back from marijuana export bans. The ban, they say, not only harms the cannabis growers, processors, and wholesalers in Oregon, but also the out-of-state residents who cannot easily access the high-quality product grown and produced in the state without physically traveling there.

There is significant out-of-state demand for marijuana products (particularly in states with more stringent marijuana laws), but Oregon isn’t the only state with import/export cannabis bans.

As our Los Angeles marijuana business lawyers understand, these provisions of the law were largely intended to shield states from federal government action from agencies like the U.S. Department of Justice, which has indicated interstate marijuana trafficking to be a priority for prosecution. However, plaintiffs assert that appeasing perceived federal government enforcement priorities is not a constitutionally adequate reason for a law – particularly when it’s the express policy of the DOJ not to enforce state-legal marijuana activities. This triggers a constitutional separation of powers concern, as it should be Congress (the legislative branch) and not the DOJ (executive branch) authorizing and regulating interstate commerce.

What plaintiffs are seeking is a declaration that the export ban is unconstitutional and an order that the state should be prohibited from imposing a residency requirement for dispensary owners.

Although it’s not clear how the case will be decided, the governor of Oregon has expressed some amount of interest in priming the marijuana market there for engagement in interstate commerce. Three years ago, a bill authorizing the governor to enter into such agreements became law – but it only goes into effect if/when the federal government allows it (and who knows how long that will be). A similar measure was signed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom in September.

Our Los Angeles cannabis legal advocates will be watching these and other developments closely.

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:

Jefferson Packing House LLC v. Kate Brown in her capacity as Governor of the State of Oregon, Nov. 14, 2022, U.S. District Court, District of Oregon, Portland Division

To be blunt about it, Los Angeles marijuana lawyers would count the biggest victories as being the ballot measures in Missouri and Maryland. Legal marijuana for adult recreational use in those two locations brings the total number of states to 21 – ultimately expanding civil liberties and cannabis freedoms for some 7 million Americans.

In addition to this, voters in 10 Ohio and Texas cities (representing nearly half a million people in total) approved bills effectively eliminating penalties for adult marijuana possession.

These wins are most welcome, though not a huge surprise to legal weed advocates. According to a recent Pew Research Center Survey, the overwhelming majority of Americans (91 percent) favor decriminalization of marijuana AND legalization for adult recreational use. Prior to Nov. 8th, 2022, approximately 43 percent of U.S. adults lived in a jurisdiction with access to legal marijuana for those 21-and-over. Adult-use and medicinal marijuana sales soared to $25 billion last year. In the next 8 years, that figure could easily reach $100 billion.

Although Maryland was widely expected to pass the marijuana legalization measure (which it did 65.6% to 34.4%), Missouri was one of four other (more conservative) states with marijuana ballot measures where favorable outcomes were less likely. Legalization in Missouri with the passage of Amendment 3 (53.1 % to 46.9%) came as something of a surprise, but ballot measure failures in the three other states – Arkansas (56.3% to 43.7%), North Dakota (54.9% to 45.1%), South Dakota (52.9% to 47.1%) – were expected.

Details on the New Cannabis Legalization Laws

In Maryland, voters’ approval of Question 4 (legalization of adult use) also triggered the enactment of another piece of legislation that defines legal marijuana possession limits (up to 1.5 ounces of cannabis and/or 12 grams of cannabis concentrates, starting July 2023) and facilitates the automatic review and expungement of low-level cannabis criminal convictions. Adults are also now allowed to grow up to two marijuana plans in their home for personal use.

In Missouri, voters approved the legal possession, cultivation, and licensed retail sale of cannabis for adults, starting Dec. 8, 2022. Those over-21 will be allowed to possess up to 3 ounces of cannabis and grow up to 6 flowering plants, 6 immature plants, and 6 plants under 14 inches for personal use. That program also triggers an automatic review and expungement for non-violent, marijuana-related offenses.

(As an aside, Colorado voters passed Proposition 122, a measure that decriminalizes the possession and use of certain psychedelic plants and fungi for people 21-and-older, and creates regulation for the distribution and state oversight of these substances.)

An End to Federal Marijuana Prohibition on the Horizon?

Meanwhile, President Joe Biden reports he intended to initiate an overhaul of U.S. marijuana laws – starting with a pardon for everyone convicted of simple possession of the drug, at least at the federal level. Despite this, it’s not clear we’ll see total decriminalization or legalization of marijuana at the federal level any time soon. Marijuana retains its classification as a Schedule I narcotic under the U.S. Controlled Substances Act – which means its on part with LSD and heroin and characterized as being highly addictive and having no medicinal value. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration imposes stringent limits on the cultivation of marijuana for research – which has scientists and legal marijuana advocates frustrated, primarily because they are unable to freely explore the mountains of strong anecdotal evidence that cannabis does indeed have valuable medicinal properties.

Rescheduling marijuana and decriminalizing cannabis was one of Biden’s campaign promises. Although he has again underscored his intention, we have yet to see any real action taken at the federal level, and the White House is still screening staffers for marijuana use (at least as of last year). Some of those job candidates were dismissed for cannabis use, and the administration’s employee conduct guidelines clearly state anyone invested in cannabis companies should be denied positions requiring security clearance.

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:

Marijuana and Drug Policy on the Ballot, Nov. 10, 2022, The New York Times

More Blog Entries:

U.S. Cannabis Law Future May Rest With in the Hands of the Courts, Oct. 23, 2022, Los Angeles Marijuana Lawyer

The statute formally goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2024. The law forbids employers from making decisions to hire, fire, or take any other adverse employment action on the basis of a drug test that detects “nonpsychoactive cannabis metabolites” in the test taker’s urine or hair. It’s worth noting that such a test is not an accurate indicator of current impairment (something employers still have control over). Cannabis-positive urine and hair follicle tests are only indicative of recent cannabis use – and “recent” can mean weeks prior.

Our Orange County marijuana lawyers – who also handle Southern California employment law cases – recognize that such tests are not only offensive, but a clear invasion of an employee’s personal privacy over their own body. Recreational marijuana use by adults – just like alcohol use – has been legal in California for years. We don’t penalize workers for after-hours cocktails or wine with dinner. Why should workers be punished for legal cannabis use off-the-clock?

Of course, workers can still be penalized for being under the influence of cannabis on-the-job. Companies are not obliged to continue employing individuals who come to work impaired. But determining impairment involving cannabis is a bit trickier than with alcohol. Alcohol cycles through the human body quickly. Therefore, a blood, breath, or urine test that shows traces of alcohol is decent proof that the consumption was fairly recent. Often the higher the amount of alcohol concentration, the more recent the consumption and/or greater the degree of inebriation.

But cannabis stays in the body much longer. That means traces of it don’t necessarily translate to intoxication. It’s possible that other methods, such as oral swabs, may be able to detect more recent use. But employers pursuing adverse employment action against an employee for cannabis impairment at work will likely want to have additional evidence of on-the-job intoxication beyond merely the results of a chemical test.

A few industries are exempt under the law. Those include the building and construction industry, as well as individuals applying for posts that require federal background clearance. It also doesn’t preempt state or federal las requiring drug testing for receipt of federal funding, federal licensing, or federal contract. (The drug, still, remains unlawful at the federal level.)

Further, California employers can still mandate drug screens as a condition of requirement as well – so long as that testing does not involving screening for nonpsychoactive cannabis metabolites. (This type of metabolite is what becomes of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the chemical compound that causes psychoactive effects, after it is consumed by someone. This metabolite can remain in the human body for weeks after consumption, but is not an accurate indicator of marijuana intoxication.)

Numerous New California Cannabis Laws Signed by Newsom

The law protecting off-the-clock use of cannabis was just one of nine California cannabis-related policy changes Newsom recently approved. Among the others:

• SB 1326, which creates a process for California to enter into agreement with other states for the purpose of allowing cannabis transactions with entities outside of California.
• SB 1186, which preempts local bans on delivery of medicinal cannabis, effectively protecting patients’ rights to legalized, regulated, medicinal cannabis products.
• AB 1706, which seals old cannabis-related convictions in California.
• AB 1885, which authorizes the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes and provides several legal protections for doctors and surgeons who recommend the use of medicinal cannabis to their patients.

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:

Governor Signs Bills to Expand the Legal Cannabis Market, Address Impacts From Past Prohibition of Cannabis, Sept. 18, 2022, Office of Governor Gavin Newsom

As our Los Angeles marijuana business lawyers can explain, it’s not the first time pot shops have been subject to inspections. It’s just that officials handling it in the past typically gave companies a heads-up – often several days of notice – before showing up. But according to recent reports, there has been a surge of drop-in, no-notice inspections. The 24-to-48-hour heads-up is no longer something your company can count on.

Given that even minor transgressions or oversights might compromise your ability to keep your doors open, it’s imperative that licensed California cannabis businesses be ready for a DCC inspection out of the clear blue sky.

Prime Targets of California DCC Inspections

If a company isn’t following state marijuana law and guidelines to the letter, DCC can issue citations, fines, and even license revocation. As this new aggressive inspection campaign is under way, it’s unclear how nit-picky inspectors are going to be, but we do know the agency has expressly stated there are a few major compliance rules on which they’ll be devoting a heavy focus. Those include:

• Compliance with Track & Trace. Companies need to be fastidious about maintaining their METRC compliance records. That requires plants/batches to be correctly tagged, placed in storage, and submitted into the track-and-trace system. Our L.A. marijuana lawyers know it’s a tedious process about which many clients grumble. However, slip up on this front and it’s likely to cause problems during an inspection. Even seemingly inconsequential requirements like ensuring all tags are clearly visible to anyone within a certain radius of the plant can result in a track and trace violation.
• Property modifications. If you intend to change or update the physical facilities out of which you operate, you must obtain the DCC’s prior approval. This could be anything from knocking out walls to simply moving a certain part of your business operations to a separate side of the building. This is likely going to present the biggest headaches for growers, given that their government fees and size caps are based on their canopy square footage. Manufacturers, meanwhile, will want to make sure they aren’t overstepping the bounds of license by producing products that haven’t been previously disclosed/approved by the state DCC.
• Property access. Your premises needs to be secure. Retail facilities obviously allow patrons to enter off-the-street, but supplies should be adequately secured and there should be numerous protections in place for off-hours. Meanwhile, access to cultivation farms, manufacturing facilities, and lab sites should generally be limited solely to authorized personnel. Businesses should have proper gating, locks, cameras, and alarms.
• Workplace safety. If there are potential on-the-job hazards, they need to be addressed immediately – because of unannounced inspections but also just for the safety and well-being of your staff and customers. No doubt this is a unique industry with special considerations, but state Cal/OSHA workplace safety requirements still apply.
• Records. California cannabis companies can be compelled at really any point to turn over records they are required to keep – from certified lab test results to METRC records to auto insurance records to employee contracts to surveillance videos (which they must keep for a full 90 days). Businesses also need to have their license properly displayed on site.
• Transparent cultivation processes. Cannabis farmers are held to a high standard of accountability when it comes to providing DCC with detailed plans on practices ranging from light and energy consumption to managing pests. If your current operations deviate even in the slightest from the blueprints and plans that DCC has, the inspector is going to catch it. Make sure if you make changes to run it by your cannabis business attorney to see whether you need to submit a review request before pushing full steam ahead.

In a recent DCC informational pamphlet entitled, “What to Expect When You’re Inspected,” the agency conceded that establishing a cannabis company in California is complicated and often very challenging. The agency vowed to work with businesses that may not be compliant to make corrections within a certain time frame. Usually, you’ll have 30 days to respond to any citations. If you don’t already have an attorney on retainer at this point, it’s a smart move to get one before responding to a DCC citation. Ideally, if you work closely with a cannabis lawyer on a regular basis, you can avoid running into most of these issues in the first place.

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:

“What to Expect When You’re Inspected,”Canna Connect, DCC Inspection Checklist

As our Los Angeles cannabis lawyers understand it, the complaints, filed a few months ago with the state’s Department of Cannabis Control and the federal Securities and Exchange Commission, assert that the executives at Weedmaps has opened to the door to black market marijuana purveyors, giving them a platform where customers can find them, as well as products that exceed safe, legal THC levels. The complaints assert that Weedmaps is aware that they are facilitating black market business and sales through their website, but has failed time and again to take action to stop it.

Black market activity, of course, directly harms legal, licensed businesses. This is well-established. The complaint alleges that Weedmaps is giving underground operators an edge competitively by allowing them to advertise on the platform. Inevitably, they’re going to be able to sell their product (which isn’t heavily taxed and hasn’t undergone rigorous testing) at much lower rates. Although Weedmaps purports to serve the legal market, this practice ends up undercutting that stated objective.

You may recall, it’s been a little over four years now that Weedmaps caught the ire of state authorities over allegations of illegal advertisements. The company, based in California, took down some of its online advertising two years ago, prior to going public last year.

The current complaints were made by leaders at a Los Angeles-based licensed marijuana company. They say they first went to Weedmaps directly with their concerns, but the business was unresponsive. As a result, they say, their legal firm has incurred substantial losses, potentially in the tens of millions of dollars. So when it appeared Weedmaps had no intention of taking action, the executives turned around and gave reams of reported evidence and documentation of these violations to state and federal regulators. If the company is found to have engaged in wrongdoing this time around, it could face very substantial regulatory fines.

That isn’t a guaranteed outcome, but it’s worth noting that similar advertising practices were precisely what got Weedmaps in hot water with California authorities back in 2018.

A spokesperson for the company declined to comment to MJBizDaily. Representatives for the regulatory agencies say they have launched investigations.

MJBiZDaily reported that it had independently verified some of the allegations against the online platform, identifying numerous live pages with advertisements for unlicensed retailers and unlawful products.

Among the ads the publication identified:

• Advertisements for edibles that are far too potent to be legal, including THC gummies and brownies with more than 1,000 milligrams of THC.
• Advertisements for cannabis companies that don’t display the company’s license number, despite a policy that required this in 2020.
• Advertisements that display state license numbers belonging to a different business than the one the ad is about.
• Advertisements for operating hours that are outside the legal parameters, such as cannabis deliveries after midnight.

The complainants say the “trust and safety team” at the online platform is nothing more than a front to assert plausible deniability. In addition to involving state and federal regulators, the complainants say they are considering civil litigation against Weedmaps. 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:

Weedmaps again advertising illegal marijuana retailers and products, complaints allege, July 25, 2022, By John Schroyer, MJ Biz Daily

More Blog Entries:

California Cannabis Tax Cuts May Help Ailing Industry, July 11, 2022, Los Angeles Marijuana Lawyer Blog

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 Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company v. Terphogz, LLC, the Chicago-based candymaker of Skittles launched an advertising campaign that involved the slogan, “Taste the Rainbow.” The advertising and packaging for their fruit-flavored candy shows the slogan with a large S logo. The company alleges that a cannabis company in Medocino is selling merchandize under the name Zkittlez, with illustrations of its goods advertised as looking very similar to the Skittles candy. On its website, which sells cannabis-related items and goods nationally (as well as to residents of Illinois, where plaintiff is based), it sells goods under the brand name Zkittlez, with the similar logo.

The defendants say they do not engage in cannabis sales, but rather license the intellectual property rights to cannabis companies in California nd Oregon. Defendants say they don’t engage in business in Illinois, run targeted advertising there, or run any companies or have professional contacts there. Three of the board members have never been to Illinois. Plaintiffs say, however, that prior to the website being shut down in May 2021, the Zkittlez branded goods were available for shipment to the entire U.S., with recorded gross proceeds somewhere around $32,000. The Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company is seeking treble (triple) damages for the alleged copyright infringement.

The defendants have tried to get the case dismissed. However in November, a judge rejected their motion to dismiss, meaning the case is continuing through the courts.

The plaintiffs here have a strong case, alleging not only trademark infringement, but also undermining of their entire brand, given that unlike their candies, cannabis products cannot safely be consumed by children for recreational purposes.

A recent analysis by The New York Times revealed striking similarities in the packages of cannabis company products and the larger candy company brands. For example, a sour gummy product uses the same color scheme and design for its “Cannaburst” that Starbursts candies use. Same with another cannabis gummy when compared to the Life Savers package. The red flags that these are not candies are in words like “THC” and “medicated” on the front. But those differences alone are unlikely to protect these companies from trademark infringement litigation – which can have substantial costs.

What’s interesting is that similar cases in the past involving companies like Hershey seemed to result in marijuana firms backing down. However, it now seems to be a renewed surge in this kind of practice.

It’s unclear why, but we know this practice is somewhat longstanding. Before marijuana was legal, there was little concern about things like trademarks of “Big Candy” corporations. The “Cap’n Punch” companies of the world – and their consumers – all pretty much took it for the joke it was. Not to say it was legal then, but these companies were never that large to warrant a great level of scrutiny anyway. That has since changed. As longtime Los Angeles cannabis attorneys, we strongly advise legal cannabis purveyors to consult with an experienced legal team before launching any kind of product – particularly one that might be mistaken for another brand.

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:

Big Candy Is Angry, May 21, 2021, By Valeryia Safronova, The New York Times

The study solicitation encouraged study applicants to have a focus on the evolution of cannabis law and policy in the U.S., as well as globally, and the impact that has on public health. In particular, it’s looking for researchers who can help analyze the quality of various regulatory schemes for cannabis product sales, with a special focus on which elements or combos are concretely shown to minimize potential harm to public health.

It’s worth pointing out that this seems to indicate the agency is no longer fighting against an end to prohibition, but rather leaning in to the general consensus that is likely inevitable at some point. The agency outright conceded that cannabis product policies and legislation in the U.S. and around the world have outpaced the public health knowledge we have on the subject.

It doesn’t help that because of marijuana’s status as a Schedule I narcotic, the process for conducting studies on it is onerous. All researchers must comply with the standard 5 milligrams of THC per unit when conducting studies on human subjects. (That rule was put in place last year.)

Shifting Legalization Stances

Legalization of marijuana has been spreading incrementally since 1996. That is, of course, when California became the first state to legalize medicinal marijuana. Now, as of this writing, 18 states allow for recreational adult-use marijuana and 36 allow for medicinal use marijuana. The 2018 Farm Bill passed by Congress legalized hemp (including hemp-derived CBD) growth and sales.

In 2021 alone, we had New York, New Jersey, Virginia, Connecticut, and New Mexico all legalize adult-use marijuana. This is while 68 percent of Americans surveyed by Gallup believe marijuana should be legal for recreational use. What’s more, 18 percent of Americans freely admit to using it – up from 10 percent in 2005. There was also the House’s passage of the Safe Banking Act (which would have given marijuana businesses easier access to banking and axed the punitive tax rules currently applied to them). Even though it didn’t pass in the Senate, its progress was noteworthy. We also saw a proposed draft of a bill that would end federal prohibition – something our Los Angeles cannabis business lawyers and others have been waiting on for decades.

Legal cannabis sales in the U.S. last year crossed the $25 billion threshold – and it’s estimated to quadruple within the next 10 years.

The NIDA study is a strong indicator of what’s to come. But businesses may see some big changes before that. Political experts opine the SAFE Banking Act has a 50-50 chance of passing this year – noteworthy because its chances before this were always an uphill battle. Comprehensive reform at the federal level is unlikely to make progress until the SAFE Banking measure passes with bipartisan support, so our Southern California cannabis legal team will be watching it closely.

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:

Top Federal Drug Agency Funds Research On Differing Legal Marijuana Regulatory Models, Feb. 21, 2022, By Kyle Jaeger, Marijuana Moment

In recent months, there have been numerous reports of technology software companies servicing the cannabis industry facing financial consequences for that partnership. Firms have been dumped by payment processors, classified as “high risk” by credit card brands and banks (requiring higher fees to handle payments), and overall faced difficulty in the course of day-to-day businesses.

As the legalized cannabis market continues to mature, we’re seeing regulatory headaches continue for ancillary businesses like tech companies, particularly when it comes to handling banking and payment processing. This is true even for companies that never touch a single marijuana plant or product. Businesses working with cannabis growers, producers, and retailers at every leg of the supply chain have found themselves suddenly grappling with growing red tape.

The irony for some of these tech companies is that a primary part of the service they provide to the cannabis industry is the ability to more easily maintain and track regulatory compliance. Some of those who are working high up the compliance chain for these firms have literally helped to write the laws for cities across California. And even they are struggling to maintain operations and meet compliance standards.

Although there are many factors involved, it primarily comes down to one issue: The lack of decriminalization at the federal level. Marijuana remains a Schedule I narcotic per the U.S. government. As long as that is true, that puts every company in the cannabis supply chain in a legal bind, particularly in terms of finances. Banks and other financial institutions that work with cannabis companies could potentially be accused of breaking federal money laundering laws.

Last month, Senators blocked marijuana banking reform that was introduced as a part of a defense bill. The bill, Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act, divided some lawmakers and advocates. Although all share the goal of ending cannabis criminalization, there is some pressure to introduce truly bipartisan legislation in a way that’s more incremental. But in the meantime, that doesn’t help companies that are facing the very real – and expensive – consequences of little-to-no progress on this front.

They’re losing their banking and branded card relationships waiting for federal legality. It’s possible that cannabis or partnering tech companies may even be skating on thin ice where fraud laws are concerned if they’re running any type of branded credit card. It’s imperative to work with an experienced marijuana business lawyer who can review all company processes to ensure you’re taking all steps to meet the letter and spirit of the law as a legal cannabis company – or a firm that partners with one.

At the end of the day, every industry has its regulatory risks. For the cannabis industry and those whose work is ancillary to it, the question is what is the nature and degree of that risk relative to the potential opportunities and anticipated ROI. One can reduce the risk to the greatest extent possible by partnering with an experienced California cannabis business lawyer.

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 Companies in California Have Lost Millions Due To Poor Regulations. California’s New Bill Could Change That, Jan. 3, 2022, Keerthi Vedantam, dot.LA

More Blog Entries:

California Cannabis Tax Compliance, Banking Continue to be Challenges in 2022, Dec. 29, 2021, Los Angeles Cannabis Business Lawyer Blog

Our dedicated cannabis lawyers in Los Angeles are committed to assisting marijuana and hemp farmers, producers, retailers, and ancillary firms navigate the changing legal landscape.

Hemp Regulations

The first, Assembly Bill 45, passed easily in both the state House and Senate. The measure is the result of years of advocacy to update the laws for hemp companies in California.

If signed by Gov. Gavin Newsome, the bill would:

• Allow hemp extracts, including CBD, to be used in food, drink, and cosmetic products.
• Establish an outline of rules for farmers, retailers, and ancillary companies for the production and sale of hemp. This would include things like lab testing standards – similar to what is in place for those growing and selling marijuana.
• Require that imported hemp products be held to the same quality and regulatory standards.
• Prohibit the sale of products like delta-8 THC outside of regulated cannabis sales methods.
• Allow the sales of smokable hemp after legislators come to an agreement on a tax structure for inhalable products.

This measure has been somewhat controversial over the last few years. The primary benefit to the marijuana industry is that low-THC hemp products would be subjected to the same rules, testing requirements, and taxing as other cannabis products. Marijuana companies have long argued that these products were not so dissimilar to what they were offering, and yet they’ve been undercut because of comparatively lax requirements for hemp and derivative products.

Proponents of the measure opine consumers will benefit as well from a more regulated marketplace for CBD.

Some hemp farmer advocates were opposed to the measure, but ultimately changed their stance on the law to neutral, after a number of last-minute amendments. As of last year, there were nearly 500 hemp farmers in the state operating on more than 17,000 acres.

Medical Marijuana in Hospitals

The second measure is a bill that would allow for medical marijuana use in medical facilities where terminally ill patients are treated. This has been a fight two years in the making, though with recent passage in the Assembly by a vote of 57-1, it now seems more likely than ever.

The big question, however, is whether the policy would jeopardize any federal funding those facilities receive by doing so, given the fact that marijuana is still legally considered a Schedule I narcotic by federal standards.

Supporters note that for many people in California, especially those suffering from terminal conditions, medicinal cannabis is preferable to other harder drugs. It can provide similar or even superior relief without many of the awful side effects of other drugs.

Although Gov. Newsom is pro-legalization, he rejected an earlier version of the bill over concerns about the implications for federal funding.

The bill is being referred to as “Ryan’s Law,” after the son of state senator and bill sponsor who died of cancer and was initially denied medical marijuana treatment.

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:

CA lawmakers approve hemp regulatory bill that divided marijuana sector, Sept. 9, 2021, MJ Biz Daily

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

The case, California v. Raybon, involves five inmates in a California state prison who were convicted on felony charges after being found with marijuana in their cells. The men appealed to the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento, which overturned their convictions after determining that while they could not legally eat or smoke pot in prison, possession of marijuana is no longer a criminal offense. As our Los Angeles marijuana defense lawyers can explain, this ruling conflicted with those of other appellate courts.

The state supreme court weighed in after a challenge from the state attorney general. In a split 5-2 ruling, the high court held that Prop 64, which legalized recreational marijuana in California, was not applicable to prison inmates. The majority opinion held that there as nothing in the ballot materials for the law that indicated voters had considered or were even aware of how this might impact possession of the drug in prison. The court stated, “it seems implausible that the voters intended to essentially decriminalize marijuana in prison.”

Had the public intended to alter the laws and policies regarding possession of cannabis in prison settings, they would have stated so explicitly, the court ruled. Further, it would make no sense that voters would wish to continue to criminalize the consumption of cannabis in prison, yet allow inmates to legally posses it.

The court stated it was sympathetic to the assertion that state law allows for a wide disparity in the way it treats possession of cannabis outside a correctional facility versus how it is managed inside, but noted the same is also true for other substances – alcohol included. These inmates were given an eight-year prison sentence for possessing less than one gram of cannabis. The court agreed that this could be viewed as “unduly harsh.” However, the court stipulated that it was not in the business of judging the wisdom of public policies. Instead, it’s the court’s responsibility to interpret the statutory language.

The two dissenting justices disagreed with the ruling in part. They did not take issue with the matter of the drug’s legality; in fact, they conceded that marijuana was not legal for prisoners under Prop. 64. The dissent was based on concern about how prosecutors might opt to file charges when statutes overlapped, favoring those that allowed for harsher penalties.

Still, the majority ruling was no real surprise. Many other state appellate courts have held the same, and arguing the legality of keeping marijuana in prison was always going to be something of a long shot.

Those who are charged for possession of marijuana in prison will require the services of an experienced marijuana criminal defense lawyer, as they will continue to face the harshest penalties on the books. Our dedicated team of L.A. 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:

California v. Raybon, June 11, 2019, California Court of Appeals for the 3rd Appellate District

This is something our Los Angeles marijuana DUI attorneys have argued for years. Now, this same conclusion was backed by a federally-funded study. Backed by a grant from the National Institute of Justice, researchers tested the THC levels of 20 individuals who either vaporized or ate varying levels of THC. They were then subjected to numerous cognitive and field sobriety tests, similar to what are used by law enforcement.

The groups that received higher doses of THC (above 5 mg) were adversely impacted in terms of their sobriety – their psychomotor skills were visibly impaired – the level of THC in their blood and other biofluids didn’t reliably reflect that. Thus, the amount of THC in one’s blood was not a good indicator of marijuana intoxication.

There is little question that marijuana impairment does impact the skills needed for safe driving, including reaction time and spatial awareness. However, what the researchers determined was the amount of THC in the subjects’ blood, urine and saliva failed to correlate with how well they performed in field sobriety tests when they were clearly intoxicated – no matter how much THC they actually ingested.

What this does is raise substantial questions about per se marijuana DUI laws that are in place in six states, including nearby Nevada and Washington. These laws prohibit people from operating a vehicle if they more than a certain amount of THC in their blood. California does not have a per se limit when it comes to driving under the influence of marijuana.

The results of the study come as no surprise to our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers, nor are they a shock to longtime marijuana rights advocates. The fact is, the science was never there to support per se laws for marijuana impairment. Instead, these laws are based on arbitrary limits.

Beyond this, though, the researchers found that several, standard field sobriety tests – standing on one leg, balancing, walking and turning – weren’t affected by one’s cannabis impairment for any of the study participants, regardless of how much THC they ingested. In other words, many of the same tests used to determine if someone was driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol were not effective in singling out marijuana impairment.

Last year, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published a study that indicated low levels of CBD don’t have any real impact on driving. Beyond that, a modest level of THC had a “modest in magnitude” impact that was similar to those who had a blood-alcohol concentration of about 0.05 percent. Even congressional researchers concluded three years ago in a published report that we don’t have conclusive evidence about the levels at which cannabis impairs one’s ability to drive. We also know that in states where marijuana has been legalized for recreation, traffic fatalities have not risen.

All this said, even most supporters of marijuana rights are careful to warn against driving under the influence of any substance, marijuana included. But it’s determining what “under the influence” means with regard to cannabis in a legal sense that has been throwing so many for a loop.

If you have been arrested for a marijuana DUI in Southern California, our dedicated marijuana DUI defense 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:

Testing People For Marijuana Impairment Based On THC Levels Is ‘Not Reliable,’ Federally Funded Study Finds, June 4, 2021, By Kyle Jaeger, Marijuana Minute

As our Los Angeles cannabis business attorneys can explain, cannabis advertising is not something companies should engage in until they’ve consulted with an attorney and are certain their approach is within the boundaries of the law. Having an attorney on retainer assures you can run decisions like this by someone who will be on hand to give you solid advice for whatever issues arise.

The good news is that despite blanket bans on marijuana advertising, many cannabis companies are still finding creative ways to get their brand some traction. For example, some businesses have orchestrated workarounds with state Sponsor a Highway programs. That gets them brand visibility while also complying with the law.

That said, while the strategy is creative, it’s really just a temporary fix. Further, it’s likely the issue will continue to become more fragmented and complicated as states continue legalization.

Cannabis businesses should be prepared to grapple with three sets of regulations: Federal, state and local.

Some baseline rules to bear in mind:

• Advertising limited to target audiences 21 and older. This comes straight from Prop. 64, Section 26151. It states that cannabis ads are only allowed where at least 72 percent of the audience is suspected to be over 21. This covers ads in print, radio, broadcast, cable and digital communications. Direct, individualized dialogue or communication must use some type of age verification method. Companies are also restricted in the release of marketing approaches that might be attractive to kids.
• Prohibition on false and misleading statements. Advertisers can’t make claims that aren’t supported by the truth. Companies can’t make misleading or unsupported claims about the health benefits of their marijuana product.
• Ban on giveaways. Cannabis companies can’t give away products or accessories as part of their promotions. The only exclusion to this is donating cannabis to a patient who benefits from medical marijuana.

Full details on cannabis advertising in California are spelled out by the California Legislature, but you should talk to your attorney as well.

Understand too that some “workarounds” may only work in the very short term. For example, some dispensaries, growers and distributors use their creativity to market products on platforms like social media or search engines without directly identifying their product as pot. If you do this, you’re taking a major risk because:

• Your ad is likely to get pulled soon after launch.
• You may face penalties for actions like this, including being kicked off of those platforms entirely.
• If you make it sound like you’re selling an everyday product or supplement, you might run into serious legal trouble for misleading consumers.

The bottom line is that if you are in any doubt, it’s imperative to be cautious. Marijuana business owners have worked so hard to jump through all the legal hoops to throw it all away for a poorly-planned ad.

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:

Marijuana companies still face advertising and marketing obstacles, but options exist, July 2, 2021, MJBizDaily.com

As of the beginning of this month, recreational marijuana was legal in 18 states, while medical marijuana was legal in 36. Since March of this year, five more states have enacted or introduced legislation that would legalize production, sales and use of the plant. Further, more than 9 in 10 Americans queried by the Pew Research Center believe cannabis should be legal at least for medicinal use.

Despite all this, though, marijuana continues to be classified as a Schedule I narcotic under federal law. As our Los Angeles marijuana business lawyers can explain, that’s the same category used for drugs like heroin – highly addictive and with no medicinal purpose. Obviously, the label isn’t congruent with the reality, and there is a clear disconnect between federal and state laws that has proven a fine line for cannabis companies to walk.

Last year, when House Democrats passed a marijuana legalization bill, it was ultimately stymied by Republicans in the Senate. Even Republicans who generally support legalization opposed the MORE Act, citing concerns about certain taxes intended to cover social equity programs. This year, though, Democrats control both Chambers – and the White House. All of this has risen the hopes of cannabis activists about federal legalization.

However, some are not so sure. For example, some opine the line of questioning by Thomas had less to do with the issue of marijuana legalization and more with his well-known problems with federal overreach in general. Beyond that, many lawmakers consider cannabis legalization a low priority, especially in this moment as the country is still struggling to its feet after the pandemic.

And then there is the fact that Joe Biden has stopped well short of voicing support of full legalization, though he has vocally backed medical marijuana rights and decriminalization.

As for Thomas’s line of questioning (in a case involving a challenge to tax rule 280E preventing marijuana businesses from writing off common expenses), it’s important to remember that the courts do not make the laws. They can set legal precedent, but really they’d need sort of “the perfect case,” perhaps involving an in-all-ways stand-up marijuana business owner complying with all applicable state laws and industry standards yet is still being dragged by federal repercussions. But this scenario may be unlikely considering federal authorities haven’t routinely arrested or prosecuted business owners operating under state-legal programs since the Obama years. And even small changes to 280E tax cases and banking cases don’t seem to be making the sort of sweeping changes that some activists had been hoping for. That puts the ball back in Congress’ court, which means change could be slower.

But how much does it actually matter in a state like California, where cannabis is already legal for adult recreational use? A lot, actually, particularly with regard to banking and taxation – both of which currently aren’t on the side of cannabis businesses as a direct result of marijuana prohibition.

Although some credit unions and smaller banks will take on marijuana businesses (albeit quietly), credit card corporations and major banks won’t touch the industry, for fear of being slapped with federal money laundering charges because of the drug’s continued federal classification.

Beyond that, legalization could allow cannabis companies to grow beyond state borders. A cannabis farm in California can only sell its product in our borders. If they wanted to sell to marijuana shops in Nevada or Oregon, they have to invest additional funds to also grow in that state. California is renowned for having some of the best marijuana crops in the world. Export of those products would be a huge boon for state revenue – but that can only happen if the U.S. makes it legal.

If you are operating a marijuana business and are having difficulty navigating the legal market, our Los Angeles cannabis 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:

Could cannabis be made legal in U.S. under Biden? Signs are mixed. July 2, 2021, By Brooke Staggs, The Orange County Register

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

More than likely though, this will change – not so much a matter of if, but when. For one thing, we’re looking at a brighter than ever possibility of federal legislation that would end prohibition and legalize the drug. Beyond that, however, there’s a clause in the U.S. Constitution that bars states from unfairly restricting commerce between states under something known as the dormant commerce clause. State laws that restrict marijuana commerce with other states are probably unconstitutional under this clause (though it hasn’t been tested). As of right now, though, states don’t have any significant incentive to change it because it’s bolstering the economy of their own citizens. There haven’t been any lawsuits to challenge it either (yet) probably because litigation is expensive, it’s unknown how the value of limited licensing in marijuana-legal states would be impacted and fiercer competition is still an unknown for these burgeoning industries.

How Marijuana Trade Between States Would Impact the Legal Industry

As longtime Los Angeles marijuana business lawyers, we’ve seen the industry ushered through many major changes. Interstate commerce would be another significant one for nearly every sector. High-quality boutique offerings could find a bigger market. Larger firms that commoditize cheaper products would be in high demand. We’d likely see an immediate demand in more efficient supply chain and logistics experts.

Retailers might not see an impact right away (unless they are close to a state border). Even if/when marijuana prohibition ends at the federal level, most retail is likely to stay local. It’s probable that federal lawmakers would want to impose limitations or an outright ban on shipping marijuana via mail. (The same is done for tobacco products.)

What is less clear is how the value of state-issued permits would become.

Working With a Marijuana Business Lawyer on Strategy to Prepare

Although there is much we still don’t know about what interstate marijuana commerce will mean, we know enough to say that preparing for it with the help of your Los Angeles marijuana business lawyer is wise.

Some things you may want to think about include the fact that we could see interstate trade of cannabis even prior to legalization at the federal level. For example, Oregon has begun the process of entering trade agreements with neighboring states where the drug is legal. It will be important for all marijuana companies to have a good sense of how big they want to get and what their target market is. In an interstate market, there will be room for those mass-producing cheap products, but there will also be space for suppliers who are highly niche and pricier.

One thing you won’t want to overlook is branding. You want to establish strong brand awareness, but also be careful not to inadvertently run afoul of trademark laws. This could become an even sharper concern if cannabis companies in California are suddenly in competition with those in neighboring states. Before, them sharing the same name or trademark may not have mattered. Increasingly, it will.

Distribution is also something to start looking into now if you plan on interstate trade. Having a few delivery drivers likely isn’t going to cut it, depending on the size of your operation. Some companies may benefit of working with a dedicated third-party logistics (3PL) firm.

Understand that with federal legalization, the market could see a very quick rush of investors. Competition may rapidly consolidate. Things may happen fast, and you want to be ready for all of the potential implications. Our dedicated Los Angeles marijuana business 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:

How interstate commerce could upend the marijuana industry, Feb. 3, 2021, Marijuana Business Daily