Penned by Hilary Bricken at Harris Bricken. who writes 2 May 2021

In January 2020, Governor Newsom introduced that he meant to have the Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC), California Department of Food and Agriculture’s CalCannabis Program (CDFA), and California Department of Public Health’s Manufactured Cannabis Safety Branch (CDPH), consolidated right into a single hashish company: the Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) (as summarized in the Governor’s 2021 budget summary). Consolidation was slated to be accomplished by July 2020 as a way to implement hashish rules and oversee licensees in California. That effort was stalled by the introduction and persevering with impression of COVID-19.

The 2021 price range abstract typically covers what the trailer invoice will do relating to California hashish, and shoots for July of this 12 months for the proposed consolidation into the DCC. Not surprisingly, all of the rules now in play below the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act will mechanically be adopted by the DCC upon its creation until and till repealed, changed, amended, and so forth. It’s no secret that a few of the present MAUCRSA rules want severe revisions to make sure that licensees are profitable and that the rules are literally clear. So, when the DCC involves life, whereas nobody actually is aware of what’s round the nook (though we not too long ago wrote about how not less than cannabis contracts shall be affected by the consolidation), listed below are a few of the regulatory fixes (relatively than statutory) we predict we would possibly see:

  1. Transfer of Licenses. Right now, California doesn’t enable for state license transfers. Instead, the BCC, CDPH, and CDFA pressure hashish licensees to interact in enterprise purchases if a hashish license is to vary arms in any respect. These enterprise purchases are tortured by regulatory ambiguities round the idea and definitions of “owners” and “financial interest holders” and unique house owners having to stay with the entity for the preservation of “continuity of operations”. And it looks like each time you work together with one among these businesses, you get a distinct response from each single analyst about what’s and isn’t allowed in the definitive acquisition doc. If the DCC is sensible, it’ll take a web page out of the books of Oregon and Washington and get rid of the present change of possession rules, and it’ll enable for straight license transfers. The capacity for third events to simply purchase state licenses would lighten the load for hashish companies and regulators alike, and it could put a cease to the arbitrary regulatory backwards and forwards and oftentimes bad buyer and seller behavior we see round adjustments of possession.
  2. Better Enforcement and Interpretation Consistency. Thankfully, we’re certain to see constant enforcement priorities and interpretations from a single company. What’s aggravated licensees is that each one three businesses proper now appear to method seemingly similar guidelines in a large number of how round enforcement and interpretation. Maybe greater than an outright regulatory repair, the emphasis on this “might see” is that one regulator will certainly restrict the variety of wild authorized and regulatory takes we’ve seen. Of course, totally different DCC analysts might also give totally different interpretations round varied DCC rules, however not less than we’ll know that between cultivators, producers, distributors, labs, and retailers that authorized and regulatory licensing definitions will all be the identical throughout the board.
  3. IP Licensing Clarity. With its ultimate adoption of the present rules, the BCC actually muddied the waters to a sure extent relating to occasion disclosures round mental property licensing agreements (earlier than that, the company precipitated an business freak-out round the subject). To tie issues up, we have now a lone “fact sheet” the place the BCC tells us the following: “Licensees may enter into intellectual property licensing agreements with unlicensed entities. However, the intellectual property holder cannot exert control over the licensee’s commercial cannabis operations. If the intellectual property holder is exerting control over the licensee’s commercial cannabis operation, then the intellectual property holder must be disclosed as an owner on the license.” The enjoyable half is that “control” isn’t outlined, so there’s been myriad confusion round whether or not “owner” disclosure is critical when IP licensing agreements come into play in California. And after all the IP licensor workouts some degree of management relative to the licensee’s hashish operations the place the IP licensing settlement will dictate what the licensee can and can’t do with the licensed mental property. As a outcome, the DCC ought to actually clear up the situation as soon as and for all as soon as it comes into energy the place California hashish branding is large enterprise and getting extra severe all the time.
  4. Borderless Delivery Solution. Another California hashish debacle is the borderless supply rule that the BCC adopted as a part of the ultimate guidelines. It was a closely adopted lawsuit when the BCC defended its borderless supply regulation in Fresno County Superior Court in 2020. See here. The finish results of the battle was that, though the BCC maintains a regulation that retailers can ship hashish into any metropolis or county in California, cities and counties stay free to ban supply anyway (which was already the case as a result of California has such sturdy native management limits in relation to hashish). In flip, whereas the BCC gained’t bust retailers for participating in supply in jurisdictions that ban it, these retailers can nonetheless get into main hassle in these cities and counties. I wouldn’t be shocked if the DCC tries to revisit this situation by rulemaking the place retailers will surely profit by with the ability to ship anyplace with out authorized consequence.
  5. Billboards. I used to be not too long ago interviewed on KCRW about the dueling billboard payments in Sacramento. In 2020, a San Luis Obispo County choose dominated that Prop. 64 bans hashish billboard adverts on California’s interstate highways (right here’s the BCC mandatory notice to licensees on the lead to the case). Now, AB 273 (which not too long ago failed in session however might be reconsidered) would ban all hashish billboards, and AB 1302 would enable them with sure restrictions round interstate highways and California borders. No matter how this one shakes out, will seemingly see the DCC react with corresponding rules in the future, and that’s going to have an effect on the advertising selections of a whole lot of licensees.
  6. Limitations on Type 3 Cultivation Licenses and Beyond. CDFA exercised its authority to restrict cultivators to at least one Type Three license per premises. To get round that, giant scale cultivators simply stack limitless, smaller license sorts on a number of premises to combination actually acres of cover. As a outcome, there’s a risk that DCC simply ditches the present one Type Three limitation and will get with actuality. Further, Type 5s shall be accessible in 2023 and we have now zero regulation round these license sorts, so the DCC might nicely simply get into Type 5 limitations as soon as it involves energy.

Definitely you’ll want to keep tuned as this huge consolidation involves fruition.

The put up California Cannabis Changes: What Might We See From the DCC? appeared first on Harris Bricken.

Source:  https://www.lexblog.com/2021/05/02/california-cannabis-changes-what-might-we-see-from-the-dcc/

Source link