Posts

What are some upcoming bills that might affect the cannabis industry in California?

/0 Comments/in , /by

There are a number of upcoming bills that could affect the cannabis industry in California. Some of the most notable bills include:

  • AB 195: This bill would allow local governments to ban cannabis businesses within their jurisdictions.
  • SB 126: This bill would increase the tax on cannabis products by 15%. The potential impact of SB 126 on the cannabis industry in California is significant. If the bill is passed, it would increase the tax on cannabis products by 15%. This would likely lead to higher prices for consumers and could make cannabis products less accessible to some people. The bill could also have a negative impact on the cannabis industry, as it could lead to decreased sales and revenue.
  • SB 140: This bill would create a new state agency to regulate the cannabis industry. The new agency would be called the California Cannabis Control Authority (CCCA). The CCCA would be responsible for regulating all aspects of the cannabis industry in California, including licensing, enforcement, and education. The bill would also create a new tax on cannabis products, which would be used to fund the CCCA and other cannabis-related programs. It is unclear whether SB 140 will be passed by the California State Legislature. The bill faces opposition from some lawmakers, who argue that it is unnecessary and would create a new layer of bureaucracy. The bill also faces opposition from some cannabis industry members, who argue that it would create unnecessary costs.
  • SB 141: This bill would allow cannabis businesses to operate in more areas of the state.
  • SB 142: This bill would allow cannabis businesses to advertise on television and radio.

These are just a few of the upcoming bills that could affect the cannabis industry in California. It is important to stay up-to-date on these bills and their potential impact on the industry. If you have any questions about your cannabis business, please contact us at WINTER LLP today.

RE: WINTER LLP Update – Newly signed Cannabis Laws; and Bureau of Cannabis Control Publishes New Distributor Fact Sheets

/0 Comments/in /by

Dear WINTER LLP Clients and Friends,

Please see the following summaries on new laws going into effect in 2020.  This was a very favorable legislative sessions for the cannabis and hemp industries.

Additionally, further below these new laws you can find two new fact sheets published by the BCC related to Distribution.

As always, please let us know if you have any questions, or need any assistance with anything and everything!

 

SB-34 allows cannabis licensees to donate cannabis and cannabis products to medicinal cannabis patients who have difficulty accessing such products.  The purpose of this is to enable ill, low-income individuals to have better access to medical cannabis.  Prior law prohibited licensees from donating any amount of cannabis as a business promotion or other commercial activity.  SB-34 was passed on October 12, 2019 and allows licensees to give medicinal cannabis products away to compassionate care patients.  SB-34 provides for such donations to be excluded from taxes but specifies that if a donation-intended cannabis product is not donated, then the taxes will have to be paid on it subsequently.  It will become operative when necessary changes are made to the state’s track-and-trace system or on March 1, 2020, whichever comes first.

 

SB-153 aims to bring California’s hemp regulations in line with the 2018 Farm Bill.  Prior law established the California Industrial Hemp Farming Act and the Industrial Hemp Advisory Board, but this framework existed before the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill and thus is somewhat non-compliant.  SB-153 was passed on October 12, 2019 and revises the Farming Act to better conform to the Farm Bill through the following: enhancing county agricultural commission reporting requirements, standardizing THC-level testing procedures, establishing violation consequences, placing temporary bans on individuals who have been convicted of a controlled substance-related felony and permanent bans on those who lied on their applications from participating in the industrial hemp program, and California to develop and submit a state plan for industrial hemp regulations to the federal government by May 1, 2020.  SB-153 will go into effect on January 1, 2020.

 

SB-185 closes a loophole within the current cannabis appellation marketing laws.  Prior law aimed to prevent companies from stating or eluding that their product is derived from one place when, in fact, it’s not by requiring that only produced which are 100% produced within the county can bear its name.  An example of this would be a cannabis product named “Humboldt’s Finest” when it is not from Humboldt County.  Prior law also requires the California Department of Food and Agriculture to establish appellation standards by January 1, 2021.  SB-185 was passed on October 12, 2019 and builds on these foundations through various changes aimed to ensure that only products that are grown or produced within a defined boundary can be labeled with a name that includes the territory or any wording that is likely to mislead a customer for this purpose.  SB-185 will go into effect on January 1, 2020.

 

SB-595 requires a cannabis licensing authority to develop and implement a fee deferral or waiver plan by July 1, 2020, to create a path for low-income individuals to apply for and receive cannabis licenses.  Prior law authorized licensing authorities to collect fees for cannabis license applications.   SB-595 passed on October 12, 2019 and requires them to create a fee waiver program for local equity applicants by January 1, 2021, and to allocate at least 60% of the dollar amount of waiver or deferral fees to equity those applicants. SB-595 will go into effect on January 1, 2020.

 

AB-1529 changes the requirements of labels on cannabis cartridges and vaporizers so that the labeling requirements would be easier to meet for the industry.  Prior law required that a cannabis cartridge or integrated cannabis vaporizer have a black symbol on it that is, at minimum, one-half inch by one-half inch in size that denotes it as a cannabis item.  This marking requirement has proved difficult to accomplish for technical reasons.  AB-1529 passed on October 12, 2019 and changes this requirement by allowing the symbol to be either in black or white, a minimum of a one-quarter inch by one-quarter inch in size, and affixed by way of either engravement, adhesive, or printing.  AB-1529 is classified as an urgency matter and thus goes into effect immediately.

 

AB-420 authorizes the California Cannabis Research Program (CCRP) to cultivate its own cannabis for the research project that is conducted on the grounds of UC San Diego, and expand what studies may examine, including mold, bacteria, and mycotoxins.  Prior law required the CCRP to acquire cannabis from other sources, and to limit the breadth of its studies.  AB-420 passed on October 12, 2019 and allows the program to cultivate its own cannabis, subject to federal regulations, to decrease research and supply chain issues that have previously presented themselves.  AB-420 will go into effect on January 1, 2020.

 

AB-404 authorizes a cannabis testing laboratory to amend a certificate of analysis to correct minor errors and retest samples, as specified.  Prior law requires a testing laboratory to issue a certificate of analysis for selected lots of each batch tested.  AB-404 passed on October 12, 2019 and allows the lab to amend the certificate of analysis once it is issued to correct minor errors and to retest a sample whose test results fall outside of the normal parameters if the lab notifies the bureau that the previous test was compromised and the bureau approves the re-testing.  AB-404 will go into effect on January 1, 2020.

 

AB-37 makes licensees who are engaged in commercial cannabis activities to be eligible to take business deductions for those activities.  Prior law disallowed those who engage in commercial cannabis activity from deducting any ordinary and necessary business expenses related commercial cannabis activity on their tax returns due to the federally illegal status of cannabis.  AB-37 passed on October 12, 2019 and equalizes the treatment of such taxpayers by allowing them to do so if applicable.  AB-37 will go into effect on January 1, 2020.

 

AB-858 adds to the CDFA’s type 1C cultivation a limit of 2,500 square feet for outdoor grow space.  Prior law did not place a canopy size limit on this type of license, also known as a “specialty cottage.”  AB 858 corrects this oversight by limiting the growing space to 2,500 square feet. AB-858 will go into effect on January 1, 2020.

 

AB-1291 requires an applicant for a cannabis license who has 20 or fewer employees to provide a statement that the applicant will enter into a labor peace agreement within 60 days of employing 20 or more employees, and requires applicants who currently have 20 or more employees to provide a statement that they will or already have entered into such an agreement.  Prior law required applicants with greater than 20 employees to submit similar statements but placed no timeline restrictions on the submittal, and did not require anything of the like from applicants with fewer than 20 employees.  AB-1291 passed on October 12, 2019 and includes a time-line specification and a statement requirement for applicants with less than 20 employees for the purpose of preventing and limiting the possibility of arbitrary employment law enforcement.  AB-1291 will go into effect on January 1, 2020.

 

To All Interested Parties,

The Bureau of Cannabis Control (Bureau) recently published two new fact sheets as a resource for those seeking information about the cannabis distributor and distributor transport only license types. These documents include lists of required procedures and guidelines for various distribution activities such as transportation, storage, transfer of cannabis goods, packaging, labeling, and more.

Both distributor fact sheets have been uploaded to the California Cannabis Portal and are located on the “General Resources” page under the “Resources” section. The fact sheets may also be accessed by clicking the links listed below.

Cannabis Distributor (Type 11) Fact Sheet:

https://cannabis.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2019/08/BCC_Distributor_Fact_Sheet.pdf

Cannabis Distributor Transport Only (Type 13) Fact Sheet:

https://cannabis.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2019/08/BCC_Distributor_Transport_Only_Fact_Sheet.pdf

Those looking to get in touch with the Bureau of Cannabis Control may contact us directly through email at bcc@dca.ca.gov.

RE: WINTER LLP Update (COMMENTS SUBMITTED RE DRAFT REGULATIONS)

/0 Comments/in /by

Hello all,

We wanted to share with you the formal comments we submitted to the BCC re the recent draft regulations. These comments were submitted prior to the deadline Monday.

In our opinion and experience in this industry, the draconian approach the state has taken on each of these two issues (addressed below) will be catastrophic if approved. Not only to many of our clients, but the entire industry. We are hopeful the state receives many similar comments and backlash from other cannabis professionals, and responds favorably to our comments below.

We will keep you posted as we learn more. And regardless of the outcome, we will figure out a path forward for each of you. We’ve had to retool our legal/business approaches many times over the last 11 years, so that’s nothing new. We will always get you to the finish line in the end.

Here are our comments on these two particular draft regulations:

Letter to BCC re IP Licenses / While Labelling:

Dear BCC,

Please see comments regarding Section 5032(b), Commercial Cannabis Activity.

We do not believe that licensees should be prohibited from (1) manufacturing cannabis goods according to the specifications of a non-licensee (IP licensing); (2) packaging and labeling cannabis goods under a non-licensee’s brand (white-labeling), or (3) distributing cannabis goods for a non-licensee.

The authority upon which Section 5032 is based, BPC Section 26013(c) states: “Regulations issued under this division shall be necessary to achieve the purposes of this division, based on best available evidence, and shall mandate only commercially feasible procedures, technology, or other requirements, and shall not unreasonably restrain or inhibit the development of alternative procedures or technology to achieve the same substantive requirements, nor shall such regulations make compliance so onerous that the operation under a cannabis license is not worthy of being carried out in practice by a reasonably prudent businessperson.” (emphasis added.)

Section 5032(b) unreasonably restrains or inhibits the development of alternative procedures to achieve the same substantive requirements. There are already hundreds of pages of regulations in place to ensure that cannabis products are grown, manufactured, tested, transported, and sold in a manner that will promote public peace, health, safety, and general welfare. Section 5032, which restricts a licensee’s ability to accept IP licensing contracts or white-labeling contracts does not increase the health, safety or welfare of the public. All products that are manufactured or packaged for a non-licensee must still comply with all testing, packaging and labeling regulations. Labels are already required to contain the name and contact information of the manufacturer. Products are not more dangerous to society merely because there is different IP/branding.

Moreover, IP licensing and white-labeling are well-established business practices in almost every goods and services industry in the U.S. and abroad, and have been successfully utilized by the cannabis industry for years. If a manufacturer has sufficient equipment, materials, and employees in place to produce goods for others and achieve economies of scale, the BCC should not limit that manufacturer’s ability to produce goods with different IP. Requiring each brand/company to manufacture goods under their own license dramatically drives up costs (license fees, equipment, employees), slows time to market, while wasting natural and environmental resources to build out these additional facilities. It also creates a monopoly for the limited manufacturers that have obtained licensing to date. This draft regulation will significantly damage the California cannabis industry and put long-standing companies out of business through an immediate devaluation.

If the issue is disclosure of participants in the legal market, the BCC should implement something similar to the Beer Brand Registration model, in which the ABC requires beer brands to register and disclose whether beer is “contract brewed.” Licensees that contract with IP companies or white label companies may be required to fill out a simple disclosure form each year. This would resolve the disclosure issue, while allowing manufacturing licensees, IP companies, and brands opportunities to continue to manufacture safe cannabis products in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Whatever the solution, it cannot be this draft regulation, which if passed will have immediate and catastrophic consequences, including loss of thousands of jobs, bankrupt businesses, and loss of industry leaders, to name a few.

Letter to BCC re Designation of Owner:

Dear BCC,

Please see comments regarding Section 5003(b)(6)(D), Designation of Owner, which states:

Owner means any of the following:

An individual who will be participating in the direction, control, or management of the person applying for a license. Such an individual includes any of the following:

Any individual who assumes responsibility for the license. Such an individual includes but is not limited to, the following:

(i) An individual who is managing or directing the commercial cannabis business in exchange for a portion of the profits.

(ii) An individual who assumes responsibility for the debts of the commercial cannabis business.

(iii) An individual who is determining how a portion of the cannabis business is run, including non-plant-touching portions of the commercial cannabis business such as branding or marketing.

(iv) An individual who is determining what cannabis goods the commercial cannabis business will cultivate, manufacture, distribute, purchase, or sale.

As we disagree with the addition of Section 5032(b), we cannot agree that individuals who determine how non-plant touching portions of the commercial cannabis business is run, such as branding or marketing, should be considered owners.

The authority upon which Section 5032 is based, BPC Section 26013(c) states: “Regulations issued under this division shall be necessary to achieve the purposes of this division, based on best available evidence, and shall mandate only commercially feasible procedures, technology, or other requirements, and shall not unreasonably restrain or inhibit the development of alternative procedures or technology to achieve the same substantive requirements, nor shall such regulations make compliance so onerous that the operation under a cannabis license is not worthy of being carried out in practice by a reasonably prudent businessperson.” (emphasis added.)

Requiring independent consultants and advisors to register as “owners” is onerous and impractical for a reasonable businessperson. The BCC is overreaching by defining an owner as individuals who determine how “non-plant touching portions of the commercial business” are run, because this could potentially include almost all advisors (attorneys, CPAs) and ancillary business consultants (equipment manufacturers, marketing companies, IP companies, etc.) who provide guidance to permitted licensees. Seeking the professional guidance of independent consultants and advisors is a well-established business practice that does not rise to the level of involvement as an “owner” in any other industry. It does not make sense that they are required to register as “owners” when these ancillary individuals are not required by State law to be on any corporate formation documents, such as Statements of Information, Bylaws, or Operating Agreements. Requiring the registration of these ancillary individuals not only complicates corporate documents and structures, it could potentially lead to unnecessary and frivolous litigation between and against all of the “owners” of a license, especially those with “deep pockets.”

Instead of defining these individuals as “owners,” it should be sufficient that IP companies and brands are disclosed as having financial interests in the business. This would still allow the BCC to track the involvement of these companies, while not further complicating business structures and “ownership” obligations.

WINTER LLP UPDATE: 2018 Cannabis Legislation

/0 Comments/in /by

2018 CANNABIS LEGISLATION

The California State Legislature has passed numerous cannabis-related bills this legislative session. Several of these bills were signed into law by Governor Brown in the final moments of the session. Many take effect immediately, while others take effect January 1, 2019. We will be closely tracking additional cannabis-related bills as they wind their way through both houses of State Congress next year.

The new laws that affect the cannabis industry in California include the following:

ALL CANNABIS LICENSE TYPES

SB 1459 – Provisional Cannabis License:

Effective immediately, all licensing authorities (BCC, MCSB, CalCannabis) may issue “provisional cannabis licenses,” as a bridge between temporary and annual licenses. A provisional license will act in the same manner as an annual license, except that it is not renewable.

To qualify for a provisional commercial cannabis cultivation license, an annual applicant must:

  • Hold, or have held, a temporary cannabis cultivation license for the same premises and the same commercial cannabis activity for which the provisional license will be issued; and
  • Submit a completed state annual cultivation license application (all applicable requirements pursuant to California Code of Regulations section 8102 still apply), including evidence that compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is underway; and
  • Pay the application fee for the associated license type.

AB 1741 – Payment of State Taxes by Means Other than Electronic Funds Transfer:

Effective immediately, state taxing authorities must temporarily accept money for cultivation, sales and excise taxes by means other than electronic funds transfer. This law temporarily waives the current 10% penalty for paying taxes in cash.

AB 2799, CalOSHA Requirements:

Effective January 1, 2019, licensed cannabis business that have at least one employee and manager must complete a 30-hour course from the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (CalOSHA) to ensure compliance with job-related safety and health hazards.

AB 2899, No Advertising During License Suspension:

Effective January 1, 2019, the new law prohibits a cannabis licensee from publishing or disseminating advertising or marketing (including web sites) while the licensee’s license is suspended.

CULTIVATION LICENSES

AB 873, CalCannabis Peace Officer Duties:

Effective January 1, 2009, investigators with the California Department of Food and Agriculture to have arrest and search warrant powers with regard to enforcement of cannabis laws.

DISTRIBUTION LICENSES

SB 311, Distribution to Other Licensed Distributors:

Effective immediately, all licensed distributors are able to transport to other licensed distributors after the required cannabis testing.

RETAIL LICENSES / SPECIAL EVENTS

AB 2020, Temporary Event Licenses:

Effective January 1, 2019, provides that a state temporary event license can be issued in places other than county fairgrounds or district agricultural association events by the local authority, including the retail sale and consumption of cannabis, with the appropriate licenses by its participants. Starting January 1, 2019, cannabis special events can be held at any other venue approved by a city or county.

WINTER LLP UPDATE: FDA approves first drug derived from marijuana

/0 Comments/in /by

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Monday gave a green light to the country’s first drug derived from marijuana.

Epidiolex, manufactured by GW Pharmaceuticals, is intended to treat seizures associated with two rare and severe forms of epilepsy that begin in childhood. The drug is made of cannabidiol (CBD), a component of marijuana that doesn’t give users a high.

The approval could spur more research into marijuana products, though marijuana itself remains illegal.

“This approval serves as a reminder that advancing sound development programs that properly evaluate active ingredients contained in marijuana can lead to important medical therapies,” FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said in a statement.

In a separate statement, Gottlieb stressed the importance of using proper research on the medical uses of marijuana and noted the approval doesn’t mean the agency will be lowering its approval standards for marijuana.

“This is an important medical advance. But it’s also important to note that this is not an approval of marijuana or all of its components,” he said. “This is the approval of one specific CBD medication for a specific use.”

Medical marijuana is available in about half of states. But federal regulations classify CBD as a Schedule 1 drug, which means it has no medical value and a high potential for abuse, because it is a chemical component of the cannabis plant.

This means the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) will have to reclassify it before GW can begin marketing Epidiolex.

The FDA said it is providing medical and scientific information and recommendations to the DEA about CBD.

WINTER LLP Update: Final Cannabis Regulations Approved

/0 Comments/in /by

Dear All,

On January 16, 2019, California’s three state cannabis licensing authorities announced that the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) officially approved state regulations for cannabis businesses across the supply chain. Please note, these new cannabis regulations take effect immediately, meaning the previous emergency regulations are no longer in effect.

First, we would like to address the sections that we previously commented on during the 15-day comment period back in October.

Section 5032(b), Commercial Cannabis Activity.

(b) Licensees shall not conduct commercial cannabis activities on behalf of, at the request of, or pursuant to a contract with any person that is not licensed under the Act.

Such prohibited commercial cannabis activities include, but are not limited to, the following:

(1) Procuring or purchasing cannabis goods from a licensed cultivator or licensed manufacturer.

(2) Manufacturing cannabis goods according to the specifications of a non-licensee.

(3) Packaging and labeling cannabis goods under a non-licensee’s brand or according to the specifications of a non-licensee.

(4) Distributing cannabis goods for a non-licensee.

The Bureau has removed the specific examples of “prohibited commercial cannabis activity,” such as “packaging and labeling cannabis goods under a non-licensee’s brand or according to the specifications of a non-licensee. However, this does not mean that the State is authorizing white labeling/branding for unlicensed brand owners; in fact the opposite holds true. Practically, this means that (1) the operating company (licensed/permitted entity) needs to hold the IP (trademarks, copyrights, brands) instead of the management company; and (2) companies that do not hold a permit/license cannot get their products made by permitted manufacturers (white-labeling) unless they are included as an owner of the license.

The Bureau provided a few examples of an authorized brand owner/licensee relationship:

  • “if a licensee includes as one of their owners a brand owner, the licensee can produce the branded products because in this case the licensee is not engaged in commercial cannabis activity on behalf of an unlicensed person. Because the owner of the brand is an owner of the licensee, there is no unlicensed person involved.”
  • “Generally, where a brand-owner may be dictating the standards and specifications of a product (i.e. providing direction or control), they would likely be considered an owner that would need to be disclosed under section 5003. Where ownership is properly disclosed, such persons would not be considered non-licensees, and would be able to conduct business under their license.”

We understand there is a lot of confusion/debate surrounding this issue. We are reviewing angles and alternatives to work through these vague/troubling rules. Additionally, we are seeking further clarification from the State regarding how IP licensors/licensees may be classified (as owners, financial interest holders, etc.). Please stay tuned.

Section 5003(b)(6)(D), Designation of Owner.

(b)Owner means any of the following:

(6) An individual who will be participating in the direction, control, or management of the person applying for a license. Such an individual includes any of the following:

(1) A person with an aggregate ownership interest of 20 percent or more in the person applying for a license or a licensee, unless the interest is solely a security, lien, or encumbrance.

(2) The chief executive officer of a nonprofit or other entity.

(3) A member of the board of directors of a nonprofit.

(4) The trustee(s) and all persons who have control of the trust and/or the commercial cannabis business that is held in trust.

(5) An individual entitled to a share of at least 20 percent of the profits of the commercial cannabis business.

(6) An individual who will be participating in the direction, control, or management of the person applying for a license. Such an individual includes any of the following:

(A) A general partner of a commercial cannabis business that is organized as a partnership.

(B) A non-member manager or managing member of a commercial cannabis business that is organized as a limited liability company.

(C) An officer or director of a commercial cannabis business that is organized as a corporation.

(D)Any individual who assumes responsibility for the license. Such an individual includes but is not limited to, the following:

(i) An individual who is managing or directing the commercial cannabis business in exchange for a portion of the profits.

(ii) An individual who assumes responsibility for the debts of the commercial cannabis business.

(iii) An individual who is determining how a portion of the cannabis business is run, including non-plant-touching portions of the commercial cannabis business such as branding or marketing.

(iv) An individual who is determining what cannabis goods the commercial cannabis business will cultivate, manufacture, distribute, purchase, or sale.

The Bureau has removed section D, “any individual who assumes responsibility for the license” completely. The Bureau addressed comments as follows: “A salesperson earning a fractional share in profits would not be considered an owner under this section but would be a financial interest holder. Commenter’s comment demonstrates that rather than providing clarification, subsection (b)(6)(D) created more confusion. Therefore, the Bureau has determined that it is necessary to withdraw the subsection.”

Therefore, consultants, Marketing Managers, etc. will not have to be disclosed as “owners” unless they fulfill one of the other definitions of an owner (20% or more profits, 20% or more ownership interest, board of directors, etc.)

Second, please find a brief summation of some important regulatory changes for each license type. Please note that this is not a comprehensive summary and we advise you to contact us with any questions regarding your specific operation.

BCC Regulations (Retail, Delivery, Microbusiness, Distribution, Testing)

  1. Annual License Application Forms. All BCC applicants will be required to use the applicable forms supplied by the Bureau to submit Transportation Procedures, Inventory Procedures, Non-Laboratory Quality Control Procedures, Security Procedures, and Delivery Procedures.
  2. Cal-OSHA training. Businesses with more than 1 employee must complete a Cal-OSHA 30-hour general industry outreach course within one year of receiving a license.
  3. Business/Owner Modifications. If one or more of the owners of a license change, the new owners shall submit their required information within 14 calendar days of the effective date of the ownership change, but may not need to submit a new license application if at least one existing owner is not transferring his ownership interest.

Distributors

  1. Pre-rolls. Distributors may package and label pre-rolls that consist exclusively of any combination of flower, shake, leaf, or kief for retail sale.
  2. Exit Packaging. Until January 1, 2020, the child-resistant packaging requirement may be met through the use of a child-resistant exit package at retail.
  3. Distributor to distributor transfer. After a batch passes testing, the goods packaged as they will be sold at retail, may be transported to one or more licensed retailers, distributors, or microbusinesses (previously was only retailers). However, cannabis goods that have not been transported to retail within 12 months of the date on the Certificate of Analysis must be destroyed or re-tested.
  4. Ownership of Vehicles. All vehicles used to transport cannabis goods must be owned or leased by the licensee.

Delivery

  1. Delivery to prohibited cities. A delivery employee may deliver to any jurisdiction within the State of California.
  2. Value of Goods. A delivery vehicle may not carry cannabis goods in excess of $5,000 at any time.

Testing

  1. Sampling. Once a representative sample has been obtained for compliance testing, the testing laboratory that obtained the sample must complete the regulatory compliance testing.
  2. Final Form. All testing of the samples shall be performed on the final form in which the cannabis or cannabis products will be consumed or used.

Temporary Cannabis Event

  1. Other venues allowed. Temporary cannabis event may be held at county fair event, district agricultural association event, or at another venue expressly approved by a local jurisdiction for the purpose of holding a temporary cannabis event.

MCSB Regulations (Manufacturing)

  1. Cal-OSHA training. Businesses with more than 1 employee must complete a Cal-OSHA 30-hour general industry outreach course within one year of receiving a license.
  2. Cannot use CBD from hemp. Manufacturers may only use cannabinoid concentrates and extracts that are manufactured or processed from cannabis obtained from a licensed cannabis cultivator (and not from hemp cultivators).
  3. Retail Food/ABC Premises. A manufacturer shall not manufacture, prepare, package, or label cannabis products in a location that is operating as a retail food establishment, or that is licensed by the Department of Alcoholic and Beverage Control.
  4. Requirements of Operating Procedures and Policies have changed (new written protocols required).
  5. Final Form. Cannabinoid content may be included on the product label or added to the product at the distribution premises after issuance of the regulatory compliance testing Certificate of Analysis.
  6. Child-Resistant Packaging. Until January 1, 2020, the child-resistant packaging requirement may be met through the use of a child-resistant exit package at retail.
  7. Edible cannabis product label may not contain a picture of the edible product.
  8. New Labeling and Packaging Requirements. We strongly encourage you to contact us with any questions regarding the new comprehensive packaging and labeling checklist and/or to have us review your packaging and labeling for compliance with the new regulations.

CalCannabis Regulations (Cultivation)

  1. Cal-OSHA training. Businesses with more than 1 employee must complete a Cal-OSHA 30-hour general industry outreach course within one year of receiving a license.
  2. Separate processing areas for each license type. Processing areas, packaging areas, and storage of cannabis subject to administrative hold areas may not be shared among multiple licenses held by one licensee (need to identify separate areas for each license)
  3. Common areas. Pesticide and chemical storage areas, composting areas, and secured waste areas may be shared between licenses held by one licensee.
  4. Light deprivation. Outdoor licensees may not use light deprivation.
  5. Processing. Cultivators may process cannabis, which includes all activities associated with the drying, curing, grading, trimming, rolling, storing, packaging, and labeling of flower, shake, leaf, pre-rolls, and kief that is obtained from accumulation in containers or sifted from loose flower with a mesh screen.
  6. New Labeling and Packaging Requirements. We strongly encourage you to contact us with any questions regarding the new comprehensive packaging and labeling checklist and/or to have us review your packaging and labeling for compliance with the new regulations.

As always, we hope that you find the above useful in navigating this rapidly-evolving landscape. This is by no means a comprehensive summary of all of the changes that were implemented; it is simply a quick overview of relevant rules that may be applicable to our Clients.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have further questions or need clarification regarding any of the new regulations.

WINTER LLP UPDATE: Licensed Weighmaster Q&A

/0 Comments/in /by

Dear All,

Some of you may have received emails from the State requiring you to register as a “licensed weighmaster.” We have prepared the following Q&A which will hopefully answer some of your questions about this requirement. Please review carefully, and do not hesitate to reach out with further questions or if you require assistance in registering as a licensed weighmaster.

  1. What is a licensed Weighmaster?

The Division of Measurement Standards (a division within the CA Dept of Food and Agriculture) administers the Weighmaster Enforcement Program. This program licenses individuals or firms as Weighmasters, who are responsible for weighing, measuring, or counting bulk commodities and issuing certificates of accuracy. Weighmaster certificates are then used as the basis to buy or sell the commodity identified on the certificate.

  1. Do I need to register as a licensed Weighmaster?

Pursuant to the Emergency Regulations released by Manufactured Cannabis Safety Branch (Section 40277) and CalCannabis (Section 8213), “For bulk shipments of cannabis and cannabis products, a licensee shall be licensed as a weighmaster, and a certificate shall be issued by a licensed weighmaster.” Therefore cultivators, manufacturers, distributors, and microbusinesses will all need to register as licensed Weighmasters. Please find further information and the application at https://apps1.cdfa.ca.gov/weighmasterpublic/newapplication. Please additionally note there are also County-specific requirements (see #9 below).

  1. What do I need to weigh? (non-exhaustive list)
    1. Containers/packages of trimmings
    2. Containers/packages of flowers/buds
    3. Dried flower
    4. Edibles
    5. Topicals
    6. Shatter
    7. Oils
    8. Tinctures
    9. Extracts
  1. What needs to be on the Weighmaster Certificate?

Please see your County website for requirements. Samples here and here. Copies of voided certificates, issued certificates, and all records need to be maintained for four years.

  1. When do I issue a Weighmaster Certificate?

Whenever payment for your product is dependent on a written or printed weight, measure, or count (any bulk shipments/sales/transports).

  1. What is a Deputy Weighmaster?

All persons who determine weight, measure, or count and/or will be signing weighmaster certificates must be licensed as Deputy Weighmasters. A weighmaster may employ any person to act for them as a deputy weighmaster and shall be responsible for all acts performed by that person. There is no age limit.

  1. What are the fees for a weighmaster license?

Fixed location $75

Each additional fixed location $30

Location other than fixed $200

Deputy $20

  1. How long is a license good for?

The license is good for one year and must be renewed annually.

  1. What kinds of scales do I need? Do I need to register the scales with the County?

More information about the types of scales suitable for commercial purposes can be found here. You must only use weighing devices that have been approved, tested, sealed, and registered with the County Sealer (please find your County and see requirements).

  1. What will happen if I don’t register as a Weighmaster or fail to issue Weighmaster Certificates?

You may be found to be in violation of BPC 26031 (repeated offenses may result in revocation of your State cannabis license), and the violation is punishable by fines up to $1000 and/or six months in jail.

Again, should you need any assistance with the application process (State or County), please let us know.

Thank you, stay safe, and good luck out there! Todd Winter, WINTER LLP.

WINTER LLP UPDATE: Coastal Zone Ordinance – Effective Date TBD (Not Yet)

/0 Comments/in /by

Hello All,

As I am sure you are all aware by now, last week the Coastal Commission approved Monterey County’s Coastal Ordinance. This is obviously extremely good news. However, there are still a few more steps that need to be taken by the County before the Ordinance goes into effect. Note, some lobbyists are telling clients the Coastal Ordinance is in effect now. That is NOT accurate.

The County still needs to go through the formal adoption process to approve the ordinance, including a formal hearing and vote by the Board of Supervisors. This hearing is currently scheduled for the March 13th Board of Supervisors meeting. After the Board formally adopts the Coastal Ordinance, it must then go back to the Coastal Commission for final certification.

Based on this timeline, it appears as if the Coastal Ordinance may go into effect sometime in April at the earliest, depending on how long it takes for the Coastal Commission to conduct their final review/approval. Once that is completed, the County can accept your full permit applications.

So, we recommend starting on those now with our office so we are as far along as possible (hopefully complete) by the time April/May rolls around.

As always, we will continue to keep you posted with any new developments, and please feel free to reach out to us with any questions.

Thank you. Todd Winter, WINTER LLP.

WINTER LLP UPDATE: California Trademarks (Success); and CBD Trademarks Federally

/0 Comments/in /by

Hello everyone,

As a follow up to our warning email below regarding cannabis trademarks in California, we would like to report that, thanks to the trust of couple of our clients, and with some painful conversations and written arguments with the California Secretary of State, we have now successfully prosecuted a few California state level trademarks for clients.

We still maintain the analysis below w/re to the enforcement and value of state vs. federal trademarks. But I wanted to assure any of you that may be on the fence about filing for California state level trademarks, we believe we have educated the Secretary of State’s office sufficiently to provide you with a positive path forward for In Use Cannabis-specific Trademarks, if you wish to proceed. Please let us know.

Additionally, we are also excited to announce we have overcome the USPTO’s prior objections to clients’ CBD related trademark applications. Previously the USPTO had refused CBD marks based on the FDA/DEA positions. But with only a slight modification to our current filings, we have overcome these objections, and our CBD related trademarks are now moving their way through the USPTO towards full federal registration.

Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you.

WINTER LLP UPDATE: URGENT – CANNABIS CONSULTANTS / PACKAGING / LOBBYISTS / ETC.

/0 Comments/in /by

Hello Everyone,

It is becoming painfully obvious to us that the so called cannabis consultants, packaging and design companies, lobbyists, and others target marketing cannabis clients in our industry, do not possess the level of knowledge or expertise necessary to legitimately and correctly advise cannabis companies in California w/re to local permitting, state licensing, real estate compliance, trademarks, and most recently packaging. We, as a firm, are spending a tremendous amount of our time fixing problems for clients who have engaged non-experts in these areas.

PLEASE BE ADVISED, 100% of ALL client PACKAGING that HAS been sent to us for COMPLIANCE review HAS FAILED. Every single package we have reviewed has been non-compliant forcing clients to spend 1,000’s to fix. Don’t let this happen to you.

We understand you are all under severe pressure and time constraints to get licensed and get your products out in the market and flowing again. But in doing so, please don’t rely on these companies for legal compliance, permitting, state licensing, trademarks, or packaging. It will cost you much more time and money in the end. We can literally save you 10’s of thousands in design and packaging costs alone, if you just send us your designs/packaging for review first.

Please let us help you on the front end of your projects to avoid unnecessary delays, costs, and/or worse loss of permits and licensing.