#cannabisindustry – ““They’re afraid of compliance in a rugged regulatory environment. They’re afraid of taxes, but aren’t we all? They’re afraid of California employment laws, and they’re afraid of competition. So you look at 800 cultivators, over 1000 retailers, and anywhere from 1300 to as many as 2000 brands out there. And sure it is tough,” he said.
Nevertheless, with 40 million people in the state, and some 20 million between 20 and 50 years, this is where you need to be, this is the  future of cannabis, he said.”


#californiacannabis – “Some cities are under pressure by citizens attempting local ballot initiatives to allow cannabusiness. In Huntington Beach, two residents have been cleared to get signatures to try to force the city to allow marijuana businesses. Voice of OC notes that the two citizens don’t actually appear to be gathering signatures, but nevertheless, Huntington Beach’s government is now going to go ahead and ask voters in a June election whether they want to tax potential marijuana businesses in advance of potentially allowing them to open shop there.
Huntington Beach City Council member Erik Peterson bluntly noted that “The handwriting is on the wall that cannabis is coming, legalization is coming, and that the best thing that the city council can do is get out in front of it.”….
Many cities across the state are mulling over similar changes—Anaheim, Riverside, Santee, and more than a dozen others, if media coverage from across the state is to be believed. Yes, on some level, they’re motivated by a desire for more revenue, but in some cases these leaders are also being responsive to the citizens and finally setting aside marijuana panics. And it has also helped that legal marijuana for the past five years has not caused the nightmares fearmongers’ insisted. If anything, the various problems California has been having with corruption and black markets for marijuana are the result of how restrictive the government has been in the first place.”


#cannabisindustry – “Struggling to enact policy that addresses this dichotomy, the Federal Government and its various agencies have played a game of ping-pong, deferring regulatory initiatives while the under-regulated hemp market flourishes. While the USDA was given primary regulatory authority over hemp, it only concerns itself with the plant and not the derivative products extracted from the plant. The FDA has repeatedly punted on offering specific regulatory pathways for cannabis consumption while making broad statements of its view that infusing CBD and THC into food and beverages violate the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act. Yet, the FDA has taken no material steps to enforce this view and consumable cannabis products with intoxicating hemp-derived cannabinoids are aggressively sold throughout the country.
Unfortunately, intoxicating hemp-derived cannabinoids are only the first point on the spear’s tip. The second point is the continued and unfettered illicit market for cannabis products….
The success of the U.S. cannabis industry demands greater regulatory normalization and consistent application of law because without it, the intoxicating hemp-derived cannabinoid market and illicit marijuana market that comprise the tip of the spear is destined to pierce through the legal industry. Lawmakers must learn and understand the Cannabis Sativa L. plant, its efficacies and its form factors. They also need to incorporate their learnings into more thoughtful and pragmatic regulations. How can we continue to allow Delta-9 THC gummies to be sold in unregulated retail stores simply because the cannabinoid was derived from hemp? Not only does this undercut legitimate licensed businesses but also exposes consumers to dangerous untested products.”


This is why it is SO important to know all of the provisions in the local ordinance for the jurisdiction you are applying for….
#californiacannabis – “Fresno’s complicated cannabis process has a key provision in Article 9, Section 3318 of the city’s municipal code, stating the following:
“At the time of filing, no Applicant or Owner shall initiate, engage in, or continue any communication to or with any elected official or Planning Commissioner, and no elected official or Planning Commissioner shall initiate, engage in, or continue any communication to or with any Applicant or Owner, concerning or touching upon any matter which is the subject of this Article. The application shall be rejected if prohibited communications take place.””