Last Friday, July 13, 2018, all three agencies overseeing California’s implementation of the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (“MAUCRSA“) dropped proposed permanent regulations that will eventually replace the readopted emergency regulations that are active now. For the text of those proposed regulations go here, here, and here. Importantly, these regulations are just proposed; they are not in effect and they won’t be in effect until after the 45-day public comment period so long as the agencies move to adopt them without changes.
The proposed rules don’t make massive changes to the existing regime. In fact, many of these rule additions and clarifications should have already been in the mix as fundamental, common sense standards for operation in line with former federal enforcement priorities. More than anything else, these proposed rules represent technical fixes to pretty large gaps in the existing emergency rules.
All three California agencies tasked with regulating cannabis are now finally on the same page about the disclosure and vetting of “owners” versus “financial interest holders” and, importantly, if an “owner” is an entity only “the chief executive officer and members of the board of directors of the entity shall be considered owners.” In addition, the agencies clarified that none of them will issue temporary licenses after December 31, 2018. This was already in MAUCRSA, but the agencies clarified that temporary licenses with an expiration date after January 1, 2019, will be valid only through that date with no additional 90 day extensions. This is significant since a temporary license is the only way licensees can operate post-local approval but before receiving their annual license. Further, all three agencies are addressing issues regarding the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance prior to licensure and responses to disaster relief, and medicinal and adult-use licensees can still do business with each other to get product to market. Each agency has also upped the required details on annual licensing submissions relative to standard operating procedures (SOPs) and plans.
The highlights of the more specific significant changes/additions/clarifications from the three agencies are:
Hilary Bricken is an attorney at Harris Bricken, PLLC in Los Angeles and she chairs the firm’s Canna Law Group. Her practice consists of representing marijuana businesses of all sizes in multiple states on matters relating to licensing, corporate formation and contracts, commercial litigation, and intellectual property. Named one of the 100 most influential people in the cannabis industry in 2014, Hilary is also lead editor of the Canna Law Blog. You can reach her by email at [email protected].
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Name *
Email *
Website
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Comment *
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.
Δ
March 24 (Reuters) – The global banking turmoil threatens to squeeze U.S. cannabis companies already struggling with meager funding sources by drying up support from regional lenders and tightening fundraising…
Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear signed a bill into law Thursday to make it illegal for people under age 21 to buy products containing delta-8 THC, a marijuana alternative. The bill,…
By Jesse Mondry, Attorney at Harris Bricken As Minnesota approaches the legalization of marijuana, the Minnesota Supreme Court has just ruled on a case we covered in September 2021. The case involves the difference…
Connecticut is joined by only Florida and Maryland in setting the mold limit as high as 100,000 CFU/g. But safety standards vary widely across the nation. Branford resident Alex London…