#psychedelics – San Francisco – “San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors on Tuesday unanimously approved a resolution to decriminalize psychedelic plants and fungi and implored local law enforcement to deprioritize pursuing individuals for using, cultivating or distributing plant-based drugs, including psychedelic mushrooms and cacti.

The resolution applies to the “full spectrum of plants, fungi and natural materials that can inspire personal and spiritual well-being, can benefit psychological and physical wellness and can reestablish humans’ inalienable and direct relationship to nature,” according to the text….

The resolution urges local law enforcement agencies to deprioritize “the investigation and arrest of adult persons for planting, cultivating, purchasing, transporting, distributing, engaging in practices with” the plant-based substances at issue.”

https://www.law360.com/california/articles/1528224/sf-supervisors-ok-psychedelics-decriminalization-measure?nl_pk=87a814fe-acbd-41b5-9dff-8f51227935f5&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=california&utm_content=2022-09-08

#californiacannabis – “A Los Angeles County judge has dismissed a hemp product company’s dispute with a processing firm over a business agreement to provide a certain cannabinoid produced from raw materials, finding that the interests in the case “weigh strongly against” California jurisdiction.

Judge Thomas D. Long sided with defendant Old Belt Extracts LLC’s motion to dismiss on Sept. 1, finding that North Carolina is a more fitting venue for the dispute with plaintiff Delta Technologies LLC.

“Although the Defendant may have had sufficient minimum contacts with California, exercise of California jurisdiction would be unreasonable,” the order said. While the court concluded that there is a connection between California and the claims at issue, Old Belt Extracts’ main place of business is in North Carolina, as is evidence, the order said.

The decision stems from a May complaint in which Delta Technologies alleged that hemp processor Old Belt Extracts didn’t live up to its end of an extracting deal for raw materials by dragging its feet on producing the extracts it promised. Delta Technologies said it doesn’t believe the extract came from its materials.”

https://www.law360.com/california/articles/1527658/-ponzi-cannabis-extract-suit-belongs-in-nc-calif-judge-says?nl_pk=87a814fe-acbd-41b5-9dff-8f51227935f5&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=california&utm_content=2022-09-08

#cannabispolitics – California – “The governor of California signed a bill on Tuesday that includes provisions mandating that social workers who are called to investigate child welfare handle parental marijuana use in the same way that they do for alcohol….

Under the now-enacted law, the state Department of Social Services (DSS) is required to update “all regulations, all-county letters, and other instructions relating to the investigation of a minor” to stipulate that “when a social worker is investigating an alleged case of child abuse or neglect, a parent’s or guardian’s use or possession of cannabis is treated in the same manner as a parent’s or guardian’s use or possession of alcohol and legally prescribed medication.””

https://www.marijuanamoment.net/california-governor-signs-child-welfare-bill-treating-parental-marijuana-use-just-like-alcohol/

#californiacannabis – Prop 65 – “Over the past 10 years, Proposition 65 plaintiffs have turned their sights on the cannabis industry, issuing over 200 notices of violation for a variety of chemicals in products from smokable marijuana flower and CBD oil to vape pens and hemp-based personal care products. While there were spikes in the number of notices issued in 2014 and 2017, there has otherwise been a slow but steady increase in the claims relating to cannabis products since 2018.

While the majority of the notices target a few obvious Proposition 65 listed substances — e.g., marijuana smoke and THC — there are also notices alleging that cannabis products expose consumers to substances such as beta-myrcene, lead, carbaryl, carbon monoxide, soots, tars and mineral oils.

Some plaintiffs have issued notices for cannabis products relating specifically to the chemical content of the packaging — for example, while the cannabis product itself may not have a Proposition 65 listed chemical, the plastic carrying case for the product contains phthalates.[1]

There have also been several notices targeting marijuana delivery services for failure to display Proposition 65 warnings on their websites.[2] As a reminder, Proposition 65 requires that companies selling products over the internet must provide warnings on their websites. The warnings must be displayed to the purchaser prior to completing the purchase.[3]

Additionally, in June, a Proposition 65 notice was issued to an indoor cannabis cultivation facility for causing exposures to diesel engine exhaust, allegedly from the diesel generators used in their growing operations.[4]”

https://www.law360.com/california/articles/1526213/cannabis-cos-should-brace-for-more-prop-65-scrutiny-suits