skip to Main Content
California’s Cannabis Distributor Rules Disrupt Model, Allow Licensees to Act As Their Own Distributors

Under California’s now-repealed Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (“MCRSA”), would-be distributors would have had a field day (which became the subject of great debate industry wide). Under the MCRSA, California’s cannabis cultivators and manufacturers would have had to sell their products to licensed distributors who would then sell those products to licensed retailers.

MCRSA distributors had to be separately owned from other licensees and the MCRSA draft rules mandated that distributors take title to all product.

All of that has changed with passage of the Medicinal and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (a/k/a MAUCRSA, SB 94, or the Governor’s Budget Trailer Bill), which combines medical and adult use cannabis laws and rules, repeals the MCRSA, and forces withdrawal of the MCRSA draft rules.

Under MAUCRSA, cannabis licensees can vertically integrate and even act as their own distributor. This ultimately means California cannabis distributors won’t really act as distributors as we know them from the alcohol model. Instead, cannabis distributors will mostly help transport product and be the arbiters of product quality assurance.

Under the common three-tier system of alcohol distribution in the U.S., you have three main actors: importers or producers, distributors, and retailers. Essentially, producers (brewers, winemakers, importers, etc.) sell their products only to wholesale distributors who then sell to retailers (bars, liquor stores, grocery stores, etc.). Only retailers can sell to consumers.

The alcohol distributor is crucial to the distribution chain and therefore immensely powerful. The distributor is solely responsible for setting up the relationship between retailers and producers. It does this by negotiating prices and providing brand selection between the two.

Why have this three tier model? The main reasons for doing this in the alcohol industry were to limit consumer overconsumption with high taxes (you have more taxable events by having a middle man) and by giving profit access to more players.

California’s version of a cannabis distributor under MAUCRSA seems to have all of the obligations of an alcohol distributor but not really any of the benefits of exclusivity or control between licensees. MAUCRSA defines “distribution” as the procurement, sale, and transport of cannabis and cannabis products between licensees.

As of now, distributors are the only licensees that can transport inventory between licensees, and only licensees must make sure third-party testing is completed and that all product packaging and labeling meet state requirements. Interestingly though, cannabis licensees are not required to sell their cannabis or cannabis products to a distributor and may directly sell to any licensee authorized to sell cannabis and cannabis products to purchasers.

Despite this, all cultivation and manufacturing licensees must go through a distributor for testing and packaging and labeling quality assurance, and distributors can charge fees for these services. Distributors will also be the ones to collect and remit taxes on behalf of cultivators and retailers, and they must secure a Board of Equalization permit (in addition to state licensing) to do so.

Under the MCRSA, it seemed existing alcohol distributors and those acting like distributors under Prop. 215’s medical cannabis collective model were well-positioned to become power players in California’s cannabis industry. But now with passage of the MAUCRSA, it’s likely California will issue a slew of cannabis distributor licenses to actors of all sizes, and these distributers will become one-stop-shops for mandatory quality assurance and little more.

If California wants to avoid the same sort of distribution problems that befell Nevada in the early days of its adult use sales, it will need to issue a large number of distributor licenses. There may end up being some market for a distribution-only model (in the alcohol sense) for distributors that can help their cultivator and manufacturer customers expand their markets and gain market share – or that can help retailers secure top quality products and brands at good prices.

But now that it will be so easy for cultivators, manufacturers, and retailers to get around distributors to forge their own relationships with each other, the role of cannabis distributors in California is far from the alcohol model.

 

 

Hilary Bricken

Hilary Bricken is a partner with the law firm Husch Blackwell, where she advises clients in the cannabis, healthcare, and life sciences spaces on transactions, regulatory compliance, governance matters, and other corporate needs. Hilary may be reached at [email protected].

This Post Has 2 Comments
  1. Seems to me Cannabis Distribution, has been going fine in California for decades,
    I am glad that Distribution is no longer Mandatory, Some Companies, would probably benefit from using a Distribution service, But the bottom line is the 15-30% in Fees that they will charge for their services will just end up having to be paid by the consumers.
    With all the Taxes that have already been attached, the price of Cannabis at the retail level is going to be bordering on Ridiculous… I see places in Colorado where they are paying upwards of $32.00 for one Gram !!!
    I would be Extremely Disappointed walking into a Dispensary in California and seeing those kinds of prices…That is a recipe for disaster, if you want to keep the black market around, that is how you do it !!!

  2. The mandatory independent distributor model in MCRSA was a slap in the face to the myriad Californians who have been distributing marijuana for years. It would have cut them off from established business relations while giving control of the market to a brand new set of corporate interlopers with little connection to the industry. The original MCRSA provision was the result of a political power play by the Teamsters Union, who have never been supportive of cannabis reform but who enjoyed special inside connections to key lawmakers in Sacramento. Californians familiar with our alcohol control scheme know that distributors exercise extraordinary power over what products reach the market. The Governor’s office deserves credit for relieving this noose on the market and removing artificial, costly barriers to open distribution.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Stories

Dug In: Big Island Grown’s Deep Cannabis Roots

Big Island Grown (BIG) is a vertically integrated cannabis company based in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii County, on the Big Island of Hawaii, whose reach now extends to several islands in the…

Unlock the Secrets of Social Media for Cannabis Brands

There are three primary ways that brands can use social media platforms for marketing: organic posts, shared posts, and paid posts. With paid posts still off limits to most businesses…

California’s Cannabis Industry Conundrum and the Road Ahead

By Aaron Pelley, Attorney at Harris Sliwoski Despite continuously surpassing every other state with recreational cannabis in terms of total retail sales, California’s cannabis industry has faced continuous and far-reaching…

The High Rate of Dependence Among Medical Cannabis Users

The difference between medicinal and recreational marijuana has always been arbitrary. For example, after legalizing recreational cannabis, California initially required each cultivated seedling to be designated by growers as either…

More Categories

Back To Top
×Close search
Search