In the ruling, the judge expressed doubt that some of the cities that filed the complaint even have legal standing to bring the action. Some have no local ordinances in place that expressly conflict with the California Bureau of Cannabis Control‘s marijuana delivery rule. If they lack legal standing, there is nothing to dispute.

This is a case that will likely have far-reaching implications for legal marijuana sales statewide. The question is whether it’s the state or local governments who maintain control over marijuana cultivation and sale within different jurisdictions.

The 25 local government plaintiffs filed the lawsuit last spring. They are seeking a court order invalidating the BCC’s home delivery rule, which allows marijuana sold commercially to be delivered to any physical address in the state. City and county governments say this is a problem because they say Prop. 64, the law that legalized the growth and sale of marijuana for recreational users, gave them the exclusive right to decide whether to allow cannabis cultivation or sales to take place within their jurisdiction. Further, allowing unrestricted home deliveries would essentially result in a gray market that will be both chaotic and concealed.

But while the 2016 law did give local government agencies the authority to prohibit non-medical marijuana enterprises, state regulators point to another provision of the business and professions code that prohibits local governments from preventing the delivery of cannabis or derivative products on public roads.

The state further argues that because numerous plaintiffs don’t even have a marijuana delivery ordinance, the court is being asked to decide hypothetical scenarios.

Our L.A. marijuana delivery lawyers would point out that by cutting off retail sales at both brick-and-mortar stores and online, these communities have effectively created “pot deserts,” areas where residents are effectively cut off from purchasing marijuana. This in turn helps facilitate black market marijuana sales.

The case will have another hearing in mid-November, but the judge’s tentative order largely echoed the state attorneys’ position: That these matters aren’t appropriate for court resolution because so much of what plaintiffs allege is hypothetical. The court would have to make significant assumptions about events that might – or might not – happen at some later point. Courts don’t decide hypothetical questions. They need to know there is an actual.

Only local governments that already have an ordinance in place contrary to the state’s regulation will be allowed to remain on the case. The others will be dismissed.

Representatives for online marijuana delivery services support the state’s decision, which they say will improve not only access to cannabis but more jobs and higher tax revenues – all things that were part of voters’ intent when they passed Prop. 64.

Marijuana cannot be mailed through the U.S. Postal Service as long as it remains unlawful on the federal level, which has made marijuana delivery services that much more vital. BCC rules require marijuana delivery services to be conducted by employees of businesses that are specially licensed. The Associated Press reports there are roughly 400 marijuana delivery services licensed to operate in California.

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, cities battle over marijuana home-delivery rule, Aug. 6, 2020, By Michael Blood, Associated Press

Meanwhile, amid a spate of arrests by the California State Highway Patrol of marijuana delivery drivers and seizure of their cannabis company goods, the California Office of Administrative Law issued a ruling last week issued a ruling clarifying how marijuana distributors should move about the state. This new rule affirmed the BCC’s regulation indicating these operators can deliver to any jurisdiction, provided the delivery is conducted in compliance with all the BCC’s delivery provisions in place at the time.

It’s been over one year since California opened the largest U.S. retail market for recreational marijuana. Nobody disputes that limited personal possession and private use of the drug is legal almost anywhere (with some restrictions allowable for federal buildings and property, landlords and private property owners). However, the restriction of cannabis sales is within the purview of local communities, per Prop 64 (the measure voters approved in legalizing recreational use marijuana). The question is where deliveries fall in all of this because while it does equate to distribution, actual sales occur elsewhere.

And of of course, as our L.A. marijuana delivery attorneys know, rules for marijuana delivery are likely to be hard-fought as well.

In addition to the California League of Cities, others opposed include state-organized local police chiefs and others in law enforcement. Some say they’d support deliveries for medicinal patients, but not recreational users.

Meanwhile, state-sanctioned marijuana delivery was an important provision pushed hard by cannabis companies and consumers precisely because of the fact so many had banned commercial marijuana activity or hadn’t set up rules necessary to allow legal sales. According to the North Bay Business Journal, advocates on either side are mulling whether to pursue a lawsuit, legislation or both to address the marijuana delivery dispute.

Marijuana Delivery Services Vulnerable to Law Enforcement Stop, Search, Seizure

Meanwhile, other legal woes relating to California cannabis delivery include a class action lawsuit, Goldman et al v. California Highway Patrol, filed in a California Superior Court in San Francisco, asking a state judge to bar the highway patrol from seizing cash and other properties from employees of a marijuana delivery company based in Hubmolt County to the Los Angeles area last year. In the course of those traffic stops, an estimated $257,000 in cash was seized by the state agency. The claim is brought on behalf of cannabis businesses, cannabis medical patients, California taxpayers, alleging unreasonable search and seizure and violation of civil rights. The lawsuit asks for a preliminary and permanent injunction to bar the agency from turning over assets seized from these stops to federal authorities (from whom claimants will have virtually no hope of getting a return).

The hope by plaintiffs is not only recovery of their assets, but also a clear rule that state and local governments should

At least two separate civil rights lawsuits have also been filed in response to these incidents, with drivers alleging their arrests were unlawful.

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

Additional Resources:

Marijuana is legal in California. So why is the CHP arresting delivery drivers? Jan. 21, 2018, By Andrew Sheeler, Sacramento Bee

More Blog Entries:

Cannabis Companies’ Success in Combating RICO Lawsuits, Jan. 8, 2018, California Cannabis Delivery Attorney Blog

California cannabis users while stirring up the same old fear-based tropes from the anti-marijuana camp. The California Bureau of Cannabis Control is reviewing a set of proposed regulations that would allow licensed marijuana businesses to deliver cannabis products to any California private address, according to a report from Associated Press. The new regulation would cover even cities and local jurisdictions where sales have been banned.

According to the proposed amendment, CA Code of Regulations, Title 16, Div. 42, Ch. 3, Sec. 5146 (d), “A delivery employee may deliver to any jurisdiction within the State of California.” This is a slightly more clear direction than previous verbiage which stated that deliveries could be made using any public roads, which could be (and was) interpreted to mean that drivers could pass through, but not necessarily stop and make a delivery in a jurisdiction in which a sales ban was in place.It’s clear to our legal team that this proposal is an effective way to bridge the deep divide between Californians who support cannabis and their inadequate access to medical and recreational products. Residents 21 and older in all jurisdictions have been permitted to consume cannabis in a private residence since the implementation of Proposition 64 earlier this year. Deliveries simply give all Californians, even those in cities with sales bans, an option. Instead of picking up marijuana at a dispensary and driving it back to their home, someone else would do the transporting. It seems rather simple, and yet some local officials and law enforcement are portraying this as complete meltdown of law and order.

Based on the ridiculous theatrics of critics in regards to this proposal, it is obvious their local bans never had anything to do with the alleged negative effects of allowing marijuana retailers and cultivators to locate in their city. It was their way of making it as difficult as possible for law-abiding citizens to have access to products that, when consumed properly, are perfectly safe for both medical and recreational use.

There’s a reason California did not allow cities to ban personal use or growing a limited number of plants in their private residences. The state, and the citizens who voted in favor of Proposition 64, believe consuming cannabis should not be a crime. It seemed right, though, for local governments to have autonomy in how to regulate businesses in their own city limits. They have abused this freedom, though, to the point that about 40 percent of Californians have an hour or more drive to even find a legal dispensary. Cities know this ludicrous burden could be lifted by allowing businesses licensed by the state to deliver to homes. The fact is, though, for many cities, the burden is intended to be a makeshift prohibition on the drug entirely.

Our Orange County marijuana delivery business attorneys know even living in a state with some of the best cannabis laws in the country does not make us immune from attacks on the industry. Some will do anything to undermine what liberties have been achieved. Our experienced lawyers are here to help delivery companies and other marijuana businesses navigate the gray areas of the law and help protect you from unnecessary attacks.

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:

Santa Clarita Marijuana Delivery Services In ‘Legal Limbo’ As California Regulates Weed, By Devon Miller, Sept. 6, 2018, KHTS Santa Clarita

More Blog Entries:

New Regulations Require Cannabis Delivery Services to Rethink Their Business Models, Oct. 9, 2017, Cannabis Law Group

Many cities especially are passing regulations in order to limit the influence of the state on how the city chooses to oversee marijuana delivery services, growers, collectives, and edible and concentrate producers. Delivery services in particular must navigate a continually growing list of rules, ranging from methods by which the businesses can make deliveries to where they are allowed to set up. In Hesperia, California, for example, the city council approved an amendment that expands the area approved for establishing delivery services and affirms cannabis activity regulations, according to an article from The Daily Press. Marijuana delivery businesses in the cannabis Commercial Industrial Business Park zone district of Hesperia must be located at least 600 feet away from residential and agricultural zones, schools, day cares, playgrounds and parks, places of worship, among other restrictions. These rules are in line with regulations on other restricted businesses in the city, such as adult businesses, residential care units, and liquor stores. The majority of the city council voted in favor of expanding the area in which delivery services could operate, citing medical marijuana use and a desire to show compassion and offer relief to residents who are suffering. But the one dissenting councilperson brought up a recurring concern that such expansions not only increase accessibility for medical users, but could also open up the possibility for more irresponsible marijuana use. He cited an alleged increase of homelessness and a leap in drug violations in schools in Colorado in the five years since legalization occurred in that state. He pointed the finger at an increase in drivers involved in fatal crashes testing positive for marijuana use, though it’s not clear if it is correlation or causation that has led to this jump. While the compassionate response toward medical cannabis users has helped to further the cause in a positive way, there are still many negative perceptions and misunderstandings that have led to a myriad of added regulations and restrictions. This is why it is so important for entrepreneurs looking to set up marijuana delivery services to speak to a cannabis lawyer. It is challenging enough to keep up with California state laws, but when laws differ from city to city, it’s extremely difficult to keep up. An experienced marijuana business lawyer can give you the guidance you need to prevent potential future legal trouble that can be very costly or endanger your business. Not to mention, it’s essential for business owners to remember that marijuana is still a Schedule One substance on the U.S. Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (USCSA), opening the door to many more legal considerations when properly setting up your marijuana delivery business. Our cannabis business attorneys will show you how to navigate potential federal legal obstacles while also being compliant with state and city regulations. The Los Angeles Cannabis Law Group represents growers, dispensaries, collectives, patients and those facing marijuana charges. Call us at 949-375-4734.

Additional Resources:

Hesperia council votes to expand cannabis business zone, November 26, 2017, By Rene Ray De La Cruz, The Daily Press

More Blog Entries:

New Regulations Require Cannabis Delivery Services to Rethink Their Business Models, October 9, 2017, by Cannabis Law Group