Having begun my cannabis legal career in Washington state, which is a cannabis marketplace that started with a loose collective model and then morphed into the heavily regulated medicinal and adult use marketplace it is today, I know firsthand that it will be no small task to get right on cannabis regulation here in California now.

As we all know by now, cannabis regulations are constantly changing, and in California, such changes seem already to be hitting us nearly every month. California seems hellbent on revising (and re-revising) its regulations so as to get a strong regulatory grip over what will soon be the most profitable and dynamic legal cannabis market in the world (by far).

Cue California Cannabis Regulation Assembly Bill 133, or AB 133, introduced in January and amended multiple times before September, which is the most significant and realistic technical fix bill to California’s cannabis marketplace since passage of Senate Bill 94, or SB 94, this summer. SB 94 represents a regulatory union between medical and adult use cannabis from the get-go. Most other states that have legalized recreational cannabis already had a robust (though unregulated) medical cannabis market that they let remain for a while to the detriment of regulated operators, but California has decided from the outset that the two cannabis industries (medical and recreational) would be combined under one regulatory regime.

However, there are flaws in SB 94 and a lot of gaps and ostensible impossibilities when it comes to logistics and operational standards. Though regulating agencies (like California’s Bureau of Cannabis Control) might normally be expected to interpret and fill in the blanks on legislation via rule-making, California isn’t leaving anything to chance with its proposal of AB 133.

If passed, AB 133 would make SB 94 even more business-friendly for operators and consumers.

AB 133 would do the following:

• Cannabis deliveries would be allowed by a retailer using any technology platform owned, leased, or controlled by the retailer. Currently, retailers can only use technology platforms they own and control to undertake deliveries.
• Holders of multiple cannabis licenses would no longer be required to keep their licenses “separate and distinct.” This likely will mean you can combine your multiple licenses or your adult use and medical operations on a single “premises.”
• AB 133 would repeal the requirement that licensed medicinal cannabis manufacturers only manufacture cannabis products for sale by a medicinal cannabis retailer.
• Verification of local approval would change for applicants that voluntarily provide proof of such approval to the state during the licensing process. Essentially, if you provide this proof to the state of California, it will presume you’re in compliance with local laws unless otherwise notified by the city or the county.
• If you’re a cultivator and your water source stems from diversion, you will have until October 31, 2017 to get that use authorized and to disclose that diversion to the state (rather than the July 31, 2017 deadline that’s already come and gone).
• If you’re under 21, you can be on the premises of an A-licensee so long as the A-licensee also holds an M-license at the same location. And if you’re over 21, you can be on the premises of an M-licensee so long as that licensee also holds an A-license at the same location.
• Caregivers would be allowed on premises to purchase medical cannabis for verifiable qualified patients, but the Bureau of Cannabis Control would set forth the specific rules around these purchases.
• Cannabis cooperatives would be barred from undertaking contracts, etc. with other cooperatives in other states.
• The unlawful possession of concentrated cannabis amounts would be increased from four grams to eight grams.
• The cannabis cultivation tax would apply only to harvested cannabis that “enters the commercial market” and cannabis that “enters the commercial market” would be redefined to be cannabis or cannabis product that completes and complies with a quality assurance review and testing, except immature cannabis plants and seeds,
• You won’t pay your cannabis excise taxes directly to the Board of Equalization anymore; you will instead pay them to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration.

Though passage of AB 133 is not a cure-all for all that ails us in SB 94, it is a good start toward ensuring that some of the wider gaps in California’s existing cannabis legislation are headed off at the pass of rule-making.

Most importantly, California is still on track to be one of the most business-friendly regulatory states, but we’ll see what future rule-making (and local restrictions) do to that status as fall approaches.