#californiacannabis – “The Los Angeles Times has released a heavily researched, heavily reported investigation on the many, many ways that California’s legalization of marijuana has been a disastrous mess.

Titled “Legal Weed, Broken Promises,” the four stories of the series painstakingly illustrate the breadth of the illegal grow operations scattered across much of the rural parts of California, the political corruption and bribery that has come from the way the state has given politicians control over licensing, and the spread of unlicensed dispensaries that are seemingly uncontainable….

But the series is not without its flaws, the biggest of which is a relatively poor grasp of markets and the limits of the power of government to control how people interact with them, which is particularly true in a state as massive as California. There is the assumption in these stories that the breakdown in the system is due to a lack of control and enforcement by police and regulators. The stories are reluctant to address the real sources: The extent of state and local taxes drive up prices, and the ability of local officials to decide who can participate in cannabis is a huge factor in the persistence of the black market. While the stories do bring up these issues to provide some context, they really don’t contend with how much of the California black market is a result of the exorbitant costs to do business legally in the state.”


#californiacannabis – “The bill’s text, however, prohibits the state from entering into any such agreements until “among other things, federal law is amended to allow for, or the United States Department of Justice issues an opinion or memorandum allowing or tolerating, interstate transfer of cannabis or cannabis products between authorized commercial cannabis businesses.” [2]. This is notable because similar other bills in California (see, SHIP Act) and other states (see, Oregon Senate Bill 582) make these permissions contingent upon the amendment of federal law. California’s SB 1326, on the other hand, seems to suggest that even a DOJ memorandum – think: the Cole Memo of 2013 – which “tolerates” interstate transfer of cannabis would be sufficient for California operators to begin exporting their products across state lines under the proposed law.”


Courtesy of Lexology

#californiacannabis – “The regulations cover both environmental exposures and consumer product exposures.

This means that cannabis lounges or any designated cannabis smoking areas may require specialized environmental exposure warnings.

The regulations set forth tailored consumer product warnings for inhalation of marijuana smoke or products with THC intended to be smoked, but also a series of separate tailored warnings for THC that is (1) ingested; (2) vaped or dabbed; and (3) dermally applied.

Therefore, it will be important to determine use / route of exposure of the product before determining which label may apply. Currently, there is no guidance from OEHHA on labeling these particular products that may have multiple uses (e.g., ones that may be ingested and dermally applied), so it will be critical to assess the business and legal risks of choosing a particular label, along with considering what might be the primary use of the product.

A cannabis product that provided a general safe harbor warning and was manufactured prior to October 1, 2023 will be deemed clear and reasonable regardless of when the product is sold to a consumer.

While it will of course be important for manufacturers to maintain the manufacture date information, it will also likely be important that this information is shared throughout the supply chain to distributors, retailers, etc. in the event a lawsuit for failure to warn is brought by a Prop 65 plaintiff.”


#californiacannabis – “California’s cannabis regulator asked a state judge on Wednesday to grant a summary judgment award of $128 million in penalties from a group of unlicensed pot product makers who had effectively admitted to the unlawful activity in court.

The Department of Cannabis Control said undisputed evidence turned up in the course of the litigation left no question that four business entities and three individual owners named as defendants had been making and selling unlicensed cannabis products for approximately one and a half years….

The public agencies alleged in a September 2020 complaint that the entities created more than 3.3 million pounds of Kushy Push-brand marijuana gummies in an unlicensed factory.

According to court documents, investigators raided the factory in October 2019 and found cannabis concentrate, gummies, vapes and equipment for infusing products with cannabis, as well as records indicating that manufacture had been occurring for approximately 18 months….

The state is seeking total penalties of $128,061,000 — calculated as a trebled $81,000 license fee further multiplied by 527, once for each day of violation.”