If you wish to re-publish this story please do so with following accreditation
AUTHOR:   aBIZinaBOX Inc. and Jordan S. Zoot, CPA
PUBLISHER:  CANNABIS LAW REPORT

 

 

Party Bus Legislation Advances

A bill is moving forward that would outlaw smoking and vaping in commercial vehicles, unless the driver has separate ventilation.

“Much like tours for wineries and breweries, cannabis party buses have sprouted all over California, and a bill designed to rein in the festivities could soon become law. Senate Bill 625, introduced by State Senator Jerry Hill in February, was approved by the California State Assembly’s Appropriations Committee on Wednesday.

The bill, if implemented, would bar passengers from smoking or vaping cannabis products in buses, limousines, and taxicabs, with an exception for limousines and buses whose passenger and driver compartments are completely sealed off and separately ventilated. The bill would also prohibit anyone under twenty-one from being on board in the presence of cannabis smoke.”

 

Federal Drug Czar – “Cannabis Regulation Is Up To States”

Two officials with the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy said in separate interviews that it is up to states to decide whether they should legalize marijuana—comments that run in contrast with the longstanding approach of the “drug czar’s” office to oppose ending cannabis prohibition whenever possible.

The federal government, through the National Institutes of Health, paid to publish a new report—hosted on a dot gov site—that exposes how federal prohibition puts marijuana consumers at risk due to lack of regulatory oversight.

“At the federal level in the United States, cannabis is still considered an illegal drug. As a result, neither the Food and Drug Administration nor the Environmental Protection Agency has provided any guidance on how to regulate contaminants or on which cannabis-related exposures can be considered safe. States have had to determine on their own how to protect millions of cannabis users, and they have come up with widely varying responses. The result is an uncertain and occasionally incoherent regulatory landscape.”

 

BCC Chief Lori Ajax Comments on Weedmaps Decision to Remove Unlicensed Cannabis Businesses

The “announcement by Weedmaps is a step forward for the legal California cannabis industry, which will aid consumers in identifying licensed cannabis businesses when looking to purchase safe cannabis. The Bureau is continuing enforcement activities against businesses not complying with cannabis advertising laws,” California Bureau of Cannabis Control Chief Lori Ajax said in a statement about Weedmaps‘ announcement this week that they (finally) plan to “restrict” unlicensed shops. 

Separately, officials reported that marijuana excise taxes brought in $74.2 million in revenue during the second quarter of 2019, while the cultivation tax generated $22.6 million.

We have recently written pieces about issues which we view as high priority issues as they impact the legal cannabis industry statewide

Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. (“UMMP”) v. City of San Diego. Decision involving the definition of “project” within CEQA.

The CA Supreme Court delivered a major decision in Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. (“UMMP”) v. City of San Diego.  Except for the parties and the limited number of individuals who follow litigation involving environmental law, this case moved through California’s judicial processes with little notice.  The real party in interest in the case is the California Coastal Commission.

We will have more to say about the case in a new post in the next couple of days.

 

Determination of Size of Legal and Black-Market Cannabis Sales Volume in California is a Disaster

We published Blowing Smoke which is our thoughts on the process being used to make the estimates, and it is a mess. The California Dept. of Tax and Fee Administration [“CDTFA”] is cited of a special level of scorn due to poor tax collection process. A brief discussion of the problems with CDTFA can be found at Missing or Uncollected?

 

California Attorney General’s “Guidelines for the Security and Non-Diversion of Cannabis Grown for Medical Use.” contains a discussion on collectives and cooperatives which is is a disaster.

We discuss the issue in detail in “Awful Advice” and Cooperatives – Cannabis.  

“The problem with the preceding paragraph is that the cooperatives referenced in the first and the fourth sentences are Cannabis Cooperative Associations (“CCAs”) organized pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 22 of the Business and Professions Code, and that the cooperatives referenced in the second, third and fifth sentences are cooperatives organized pursuant to other provisions of California law.  It is our impression the provisions of California law that are cited in the second, third and fifth sentences do not even apply to CCAs organized pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 22.

Proposition 64 preserved the rights granted to Californians under Proposition 215.  Old-fashioned Proposition 215 medical collectives and cooperatives continue to be entitled to exist and operate in California.  In addition to Proposition 215 cooperatives, two other groups of cooperatives are entitled under the California law to engage in the distribution of medical cannabis in the cannabis industry.”

Critical Changes – California’s cannabis regulatory agencies have failed miserably.  Every resident of California who bothers thinking about the topic recognizes this failure. This is our summary of the failure the the regulatory agencies and some thoughts on priorities.

Every Californian from Governor Newsom to the small Humboldt County grower who gave up recognizes how badly these agencies have failed.  [See California government report finds regulators are unable to fully oversee the state’s marijuana market ]  We will separately address this report.

Proposition 64 was an ill-conceived, poorly-drafted amendment to California’s Constitution.  The black cloud of Proposition 64 has one serious silver lining.  Proposition 64 preserved Proposition 215.  [ Keeping Proposition 215’s Promise ] Wake Up California Cannabis Growers continues the discussion.

Finally, our view is that the cannabis industry conferences have for the most part become redundant “dog and pony shows” See Cannabis Business Reality – Conference Agenda Mismatch. We would have thought that they would have sessions on

 

Problems with cannabis business licensing in California

Discussion of a coordinated approach to shrink California’s, Black Market

Substantive discussion of the licensing debacle in Los Angeles

Substantive discussion relating to Cannabis Cooperative Associations [“CCAs”] – which would dovetail nicely with the session – “Understanding Vertical vs. Horizontal Integration in a Changing Legal Landscape

We hope that this piece has helped to bring focus to some of the issues within California’s legal cannabis industry that need immediate attention [we haven’t included CalCannabis and CCA licensing, or provisional licenses as we have discussed those topics ad nauseum. However, one more article on “party busses” may well cause us to jump off of a bridge out of shear frustration.