California cannabis distribution lawUnder California’s now-repealed Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (“MCRSA”), would-be distributors would have had a field day (which became the subject of great debate industry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 and 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 the only licensees that 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.

To help you better understand what is going on with California cannabis and what MAUCRSA means for your cannabis business, three of our California attorneys will be hosting a free webinar on Tuesday August 8, 2017, from 12 pm to 1 pm PT. From our Los Angeles office, I will be moderating two of our San Francisco-based attorneys (Alison Malsbury and Habib Bentelab) in a discussion on the major changes between the MCRSA and the MAUCRSA, including on vertical integration and ownership of multiple licenses, revised distributorship standards, and what California cannabis license applicants can expect more generally from California’s Bureau of Cannabis Control as rulemaking continues through the remainder of the year. We will also address questions from the audience both during and at the end of the webinar.

To register for this free webinar, please click here. We look forward to your joining us.

California Cannabis rules

Sign up now for TODAY’s free webinar on California’s Medical and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (“MAUCRSA”), which will take place from 12-1 pm Pacific. MAUCRSA, which effectively repealed the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (“MCRSA”), combines both medical and recreational cannabis into one regulatory scheme. Presented by Hilary Bricken, Alison Malsbury, and Habib Bentaleb (three of our cannabis lawyers who work out of our offices in Los Angeles and San Francisco), this webinar will address what this new legislation means for your California cannabis business. The attorneys will discuss:

  • Vertical integration
  • Ownership of multiple licenses
  • Distributorship
  • Major changes between MAUCRSA and MCRSA
  • What we can learn from the withdrawn MCRSA draft rules
  • General expectations for license applicants as rule-making continues

They will also take audience questions.

Please register for this free webinar here. We look forward to your attendance!

Move over Humboldt, there’s a new contender for pot paradise: Nipton, California?

Late last week, cannabis company American Green, Inc. announced it had purchased the entire town of Nipton, California, for $5 million, with plans to “modernize it into the country’s first energy-independent, cannabis-friendly hospitality destination — all while retaining its historic look and value.” American Green purchased the 120 acre swath of land on the Nevada-California border in the hopes that the idea of a fully supportive municipality will attract other entrepreneurs to Cannabis City, CA and will create one of the country’s top cannabis tourist destinations.

American Green will begin by bottling CBD infused water, but “[u]ltimately, the company would like to offer a variety of commercial and recreational attractions including: CBD and mineral baths, cannabis-product retail outposts, artists-in-residence programs, culinary events, and Bed-and-Breakfast lodging to complete the charming small town experience.” If successful, Nipton just might become a must-stop on the trail from Los Angeles to Las Vegas and beyond.

Strange as it may seem, there is some precedent for a municipality operating a cannabusiness. In 2015, North Bonneville, WA, a small town of about 1,000 residents, opened a government owned cannabis dispensary to help defray rising costs. The Cannabis Corner is still going strong, and is serving as a model for small towns throughout the country. As cannabis legalization continues to spread and as so many small towns continue to suffer economically, our cannabis attorneys have lately been fielding an increasing number of calls from municipalities looking into setting up their own cannabis businesses to stimulate their economies.

Speaking of what is happening with cannabis in California, our law firm will tomorrow be putting on a free webinar intended to help you better understand what is happening with California cannabis (both statewide and in California’s counties, cities and towns). This webinar will be on Tuesday August 8, 2017, from 12 pm to 1 pm PT. and it will focus on what MAUCRSA means for your California cannabis business. Hilary Bricken from our Los Angeles office will moderate two of our San Francisco-based attorneys (Alison Malsbury and Habib Bentelab) in a discussion on the major changes between the MCRSA and MAUCRSA. These three California cannabis lawyers will, among other things, discuss vertical integration and ownership of multiple cannabis licenses, revised distributorship standards, and what California cannabis license applicants can expect more generally from California’s Bureau of Cannabis Control as rule-making continues through the remainder of this year. They will also address questions from the audience both during and at the end of the webinar.

To register for this free webinar, please click here. We look forward to your joining us.

California cannabis eventSign up now for tomorrow’s free webinar on California’s Medical and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (“MAUCRSA”), which will take place from 12-1 pm Pacific. MAUCRSA, which effectively repealed the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (“MCRSA”), combines both medical and recreational cannabis into one regulatory scheme. Presented by Hilary Bricken, Alison Malsbury, and Habib Bentaleb (three of our cannabis lawyers who work out of our offices in Los Angeles and San Francisco), this webinar will address what this new legislation means for your California cannabis business. The attorneys will discuss:

  • Vertical integration
  • Ownership of multiple licenses
  • Distributorship
  • Major changes between MAUCRSA and MCRSA
  • What we can learn from the withdrawn MCRSA draft rules
  • General expectations for license applicants as rule-making continues

They will also take audience questions.

Please register for this free webinar here. We look forward to your attendance!

California cannabis commercial leaseA contract isn’t worth much without your being able to enforce it, and the same goes for commercial leases. We’ve written about unique problems in cannabis contracts due to the state-vs-federal illegality problem (see here, here, here) and of how courts have navigated that inconsistency in the context of contract enforcement. But when it comes to commercial cannabis leases in California, landlords and cannabis companies alike want to know how likely it is a court will enforce their lease. The short answer: it’s much likelier now than five years ago.

The main challenge with California commercial cannabis leases, as with all cannabis contracts, goes back to the problem of federal illegality. Because cannabis is still federally prohibited under the Federal Controlled Substances Act, it is federally illegal to cultivate, manufacture, or sell cannabis for any purpose. This means cannabis contracts trigger the doctrine of illegality in contract law, which holds that contracts without a lawful object are void and unenforceable as against public policy. Though enforcement of contracts is generally governed by state law, state law includes federal law under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

Courts have struggled with how to reconcile the different laws, but a consistent theme emerges in California court decisions: commercial cannabis lease agreements will generally be enforced so long as the dispute before the court is purely contractual and so long as the landlord and tenant are in an arms-length transaction for payment of rent. One infamous example of this is the Harborside case, where a U.S. District Court declined to void a commercial lease for a cannabis dispensary on grounds of illegality, where the dispensary was in compliance with California law.

Another more recent example is Mann v. Gullickson, a November 2016 Northern District of California decision involving a dispute between a creditor plaintiff who sold shares in two cannabis businesses to the defendant in exchange for a promissory note. When the creditor sued for nonpayment under the promissory note, the defendant argued federal illegality rendered the contract (the promissory note) unenforceable. Though the court acknowledged it could void a contract if it required a party to violate the CSA by, for example, requiring it to cultivate or sell cannabis, for several reasons, the court declined to do so in this case.

First, the fact that the court could order payment on the note without requiring any cannabis-related actions meant that enforcing the contract would not necessarily further an illegal purpose. Second, even if an illegal purpose were to be furthered, the court found it would be inequitable for the defendant to be unjustly enriched by not having to pay on the promissory note. Third, the court noted that many states, including California, had recently changed their laws to encourage state-legal cannabis business activities, thereby undercutting the defendant’s public policy argument. Fourth, and most interestingly, the court called out the observed effect of changing state laws on federal enforcement: “The federal government’s concern over the CSA’s medical marijuana prohibition has waned in recent years, and the underlying policy purporting to support this prohibition has been undermined.” The court also noted that under the McIntosh case, the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment prohibits CSA enforcement against medical marijuana in the Ninth Circuit (the federal appellate circuit that encompasses California).

The lesson to be drawn from these cases for California commercial cannabis leases is that cannabis leases should be written to keep the landlord-tenant relationship as an arms-length transaction. This means no profit-sharing arrangements, no payments in cannabis product, and no equity shares changing hands; just payment of rent. Ultimately, the best way to avoid enforcement problems for your California commercial cannabis lease may be to include a well-drafted arbitration clause that specifies choice of California state law, among other things, as that can to a large extent side-step the issue of court enforcement, at least until you need to get your arbitration award enforced by a court.

To help you better understand what is going on with California cannabis and what MAUCRSA means for your cannabis business, three of our California attorneys will be hosting a free webinar on Tuesday August 8, 2017, from 12 pm to 1 pm PT. Hilary Bricken from our Los Angeles office will moderate two of our San Francisco-based attorneys (Alison Malsbury and Habib Bentelab) in a discussion on the major changes between the MCRSA and MAUCRSA, including on vertical integration and ownership of multiple licenses, revised distributorship standards, and what California cannabis license applicants can expect more generally from California’s Bureau of Cannabis Control as rule-making continues through the remainder of the year. They will also address questions from the audience both during and at the end of the webinar.

To register for this free webinar, please click here. We look forward to your joining us.

California cannabis eventYou’ve got only a few days left to register for Tuesday’s free webinar on California’s Medical and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (“MAUCRSA”), which will take place from 12-1 pm Pacific. MAUCRSA, which effectively repealed the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (“MCRSA”), combines both medical and recreational cannabis into one regulatory scheme. Presented by Hilary Bricken, Alison Malsbury, and Habib Bentaleb, this webinar will address what this new legislation means for your California cannabis business. The attorneys will discuss:

  • Vertical integration
  • Ownership of multiple licenses
  • Distributorship
  • Major changes between MAUCRSA and MCRSA
  • What we can learn from the withdrawn MCRSA draft rules
  • General expectations for license applicants as rulemaking continues
  • Audience questions

Please register for this free webinar here. We look forward to your attendance!

Oregon Cannabis and PhysiciansOn Saturday, I gave a fun talk at the National University of Natural Medicine’s Medical Cannabis Conference on “Oregon Cannabis Laws and Naturopathic Doctors.” I say it was fun because almost always, we corporate cannabis lawyers wind up speaking in front of other lawyers, accountants or industry entrepreneurs. Health professionals have a different and unique perspective. This talk was also enjoyable because I got to reacquaint myself with the caregiver side of the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program, a program my firm rarely advises on anymore, because, as a business proposition, it is all but dead.

Perhaps the most fun part of the presentation, though, was the incredible number of questions called out in this one-hour talk on “Oregon Cannabis Laws and Naturopathic Doctors.” Here are some of the highlights.

What’s the deal with CBD/hemp right now? This spring, the DEA announced a new Final Rule regarding its classification of “marihuana extracts,” which caused a bunch of Colorado hemp growers to file suit. Even without the questionable DEA action, though, CBD remains firmly entrenched on Schedule I of the federal Controlled Substances Act. (Bills pop up from time to time attempting to change that.) Like medical marijuana, CBD may be legal under many states’ laws, including Oregon’s, but the federal picture is a whole ’nother story. Therefore, physicians should steer clear of advising patients that CBD extracts, topicals, concentrates, etc., are non-controlled substances when extracted from U.S. hemp– even if one can buy some of these products easily online, or in big box grocery stores.

Who can dispense medical cannabis in Oregon? Only an Oregon Health Authority (OHA) registered caregiver or grower, or a licensed OHA or Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) retail dispensary, can dispense medical cannabis in Oregon. Further, for a patient to acquire cannabis from any of these sources, the patient must first secure an “Attending Physician Statement” explaining that the individual “has been diagnosed with a debilitating medical condition and that the medical use of marijuana may mitigate the symptoms or effects…”. OAR 845-008-0010(4). The term “Attending Physician” is defined as “a Doctor of Medicine (MD) or Doctor of Osteopathy (DO).” OAR 845-008-0010(3). This means that naturopathic doctors, chiropractors, acupuncturists, etc., cannot facilitate access.

What have courts said about physicians discussing medical marijuana with patients? Mostly good things. Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2002) held that the feds cannot revoke a physician’s DEA license to prescribe controlled substances, or investigate that physician, solely for “recommendation” of the use of medical marijuana. Other cases, like Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991) and Planned Parenthood of S.E. PA. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) observe that regulations on physician speech may “impinge on the doctor-patient relationship” and that doctors have a First Amendment right not to speak, respectively. Because the Oregon Constitution has even broader speech protections than the U.S. Constitution, it seems that physicians in Oregon would be within their rights to discuss medical marijuana treatment of debilitating conditions with their patients.

What about other types of claims? In theory, we could see a patient or a patient’s representative bringing a tort claim against a doctor, if the doctor had recommended cannabis while the patient was prescribed other substances, resulting in a negative reaction. Unfortunately, due to the status of federal law, there is a relative paucity of cannabis research as compared to other controlled substances; but if there were not, it is possible cannabis would be contraindicated for any number of scheduled pharmaceutical drugs. Aside from traditional tort claims, we could also see a doctor get roped into a RICO suit for encouraging the violation of federal laws through providing basic patient services. We are not aware of any case involving physician liability for malpractice or RICO claims to date, but it’s possible.

How many cannabis patients can an Oregon physician have? A total of 450, without significant additional compliance hurdles. Yes, that’s a lot!

Washington State New Cannabis lawsIn 2015, Washington passed Senate Bill 5052, which allowed medical marijuana patients and their designated providers to grow cannabis plants for personal medical use and band together to form medical marijuana cooperatives. That bill did not provide a legal pathway for cooperatives, medical marijuana patients, or designated providers to acquire plants. It also did not allow retail sales of plants directly to consumers. In 2016, the Washington Legislature passed legislation allowing cooperatives to purchase plants from licensed marijuana producers, but failed to address the ability of other patients to acquire plants.

Washington lawmakers recently addressed this issue with Senate Bill 5131, which allows qualifying patients and designated caregivers to purchase cannabis plants directly from licensed marijuana producers. A “qualifying patient” is a person who has been recommended medical marijuana by a healthcare professional and a “designated caregiver” is a person the qualifying patient designates in writing as authorized to procure medical cannabis. Qualifying patients can enter into a medical marijuana authorization database and receive a recognition card from the state. Not all qualifying patients enter the database and so some qualifying patients do not hold recognition cards. Carrying a recognition card brings advantages, such as tax discounts and the right to purchase larger quantities of marijuana in a single transaction.

All Washington marijuana patients can grow marijuana for their personal use, unlike recreational users, but qualifying patient cardholders can grow more. Cardholders may cultivate six cannabis plants at home (up to fifteen plants if their physician recommends it) which can yield a maximum of eight ounces of useable marijuana. Cardholders can also join state-registered medical marijuana cooperatives to cultivate marijuana with four other patients. Patients who are not cardholders may grow up to four cannabis plants and possess up to six ounces of useable marijuana produced from those plants, but cannot join a cooperative.

SB 5131 also allows qualifying patient cardholders to purchase immature plants and clones:

Qualifying patients and designated providers, who hold a recognition card and have been entered into the medical marijuana authorization database, may purchase immature plants or clones from a licensed marijuana producer as defined in RCW 69.50.101.

The Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (LCB) recently issued an interim policy statement that describes how members of cooperatives, cardholder, and cardholder’s designated providers can purchase cannabis plants and seeds but makes no mention of how patients without qualifying patient cards can purchase seeds. The LCB is mandating that Washington State cannabis producers receive documentation before selling plants or seeds. Members of a cooperative must show a valid recognition card and a copy of the letter from the LCB confirming the person is part of a registered cooperative. Qualifying patients must show a valid recognition card. It appears that there still is no means for patients who do not enter the database and receive a recognition card to legally obtain seeds to grow their own medical cannabis.

The LCB’s policy statement provides additional guidance on the sale of plants and seeds. Immature plants or clones are defined as plants that have no flower, are less than 12 inches in height and less than 12 inches in diameter. Producers must abide by security and traceability requirements including a 24-hour waiting period imposed on all cannabis transfers. Patients and providers must notify a producer 24 hours before picking up plants or seeds. All transfers must occur on the producer’s licensed property and deliveries are prohibited. Cooperatives, patients, and caregivers are not permitted to purchase more plants than they were authorized to grow by a physician or under Washington law. The patient or caregiver must buy the plant in person and producers cannot sell to anyone other than those who called in on a product. Sales tax applies to the sale of plants or seeds, but the state’s marijuana excise tax does not.

You can find more on SB 5131 at the following links:

Oakland cannabis lawyersCalifornia has 58 counties and 482 incorporated cities across the state, each with the option to create its own rules or ban marijuana altogether. In this California Cannabis Countdown series, we cover who is banning cannabis, who is waiting to see what to with cannabis, and who is embracing California’s change to legalize marijuana — permits, regulations, taxes and all. For each city and county, we’ll discuss its location, history with cannabis, current law, and proposed law to give you a clearer picture of where to locate your California cannabis business, how to keep it legal, and what you will and won’t be allowed to do.

Our last California Cannabis Countdown post was on San Francisco and before that Sonoma County, the City of Davis, the City of Santa RosaCounty and City of San BernardinoMarin CountyNevada County, the City of Lynwood, the City of CoachellaLos Angeles County, the City of Los Angeles, the City of Desert Hot SpringsSonoma County, the City of Sacramento, the City of BerkeleyCalaveras CountyMonterey County and the City of Emeryville.

Today’s post is on the City of Oakland.

Welcome to the California Cannabis Countdown.

Location. With a burgeoning nightlife, beautiful Lake Merritt, and a slightly more reasonable cost of living than San Francisco, there’s much to love about Oakland. But yes, losing the Raiders and the Warriors is going to hurt – perhaps another category for chronic pain and suffering?

History with Cannabis and Current Cannabis Laws. Ever since the voters of California passed the Compassionate Use Act in 1996 (Proposition 215), Oakland has been on the forefront of legalizing cannabis use. In 1998, the Oakland City Council passed Resolution No. 72516 C.M.S. in support of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Collective when the federal government sued the collective (and five other entities) seeking an injunction to get the collective to cease distributing and manufacturing cannabis. By making an attempt to come to the aid of a medical cannabis collective, Oakland firmly signaled it would fight for Oakland residents’ right to medical cannabis. In November of 2004, Oakland residents passed ballot measure Z. Ballot Measure Z was a continuation of Oakland’s dual-pronged approach to cannabis: focusing on social justice reform and proper regulation. The ballot measure made citations and arrests of private adult cannabis use Oakland’s lowest law enforcement priority and set the groundwork for establishing a system to license, tax, and regulate cannabis. Oakland followed up Measure Z by enacting Ordinance No. 12694, which established a community oversight committee with the role of assisting the city council in fulfilling the objectives of Measure Z.

Medical cannabis dispensaries in Oakland are currently regulated under Title 5, Chapter 5.80 of the Oakland Municipal Code, which became effective in July of 2011 and was most recently amended on March 28, 2017. The City of Oakland — more than most California jurisdictions — has shown a willingness to assist those most disadvantaged by the disparate enforcement of cannabis laws. When Chapter 5.80 was amended in March of this year, the City Council sought to remedy the disadvantages faced by residents via an equity permit program, which provides as follows:

  • Defines an equity applicant as one whose ownership has an annual income at or less than 80 percent of Oakland’s medium income adjusted for household size and has either lived in any combination of Oakland police beats 2X, 2Y, 6X, 7X, 19X, 21X, 21Y, 23X, 26Y, 27X, 27Y, 29X, 30X, 30Y, 31Y, 32X, 33X, 34X, and 35X for at least five of the last ten years or was arrested after November 5,1996 and convicted of a cannabis crime committed in Oakland;
  • Allows Oakland’s City Administrator to issue no more than eight new brick and mortar dispensary permits per year, with half of those dispensary permits going to equity applicants;
  • Allows applicants to apply for an onsite cannabis consumption permit;
  • Allows for delivery-only cannabis dispensaries;
  • Requires applications for cannabis dispensaries be subject to a public hearing.

Medical cannabis cultivation, distribution, testing, and transportation are currently regulated under Title 5, Chapter 5.81 of the Oakland Municipal Code, which became effective in July of 2010 and was also amended on March 28, 2017. Chapter 5.81 also included an equity permit program. Other of its highlights include the following:

  • A collective or cooperative of qualified patients or primary caregivers may cultivate medical cannabis covering an area of no more than 250 square feet inside a residential unit or if in a nonresidential building on one parcel of land without a permit (subject to numerous operating standards);
  • Allows for usage of both volatile and non-volatile solvents in manufacturing medical cannabis products;
  • Permits facilities that hire and retain formerly incarcerated Oakland residents to apply for a tax credit or license fee reduction based on criteria established by the Oakland City Administrator;
  • Mandates that no cannabis or cannabis odors shall be detectable by sight or smell outside a permitted cannabis facility;
  • Allows for more than one medical cannabis operator to situate on a single parcel of land, however, each such cannabis operator must obtain a permit for its applicable permit category; and
  • Requires cannabis cultivation and manufacturing applicants to obtain approval from the Alameda County’s Department of Environmental Health and its Department of Agriculture.

Proposed Cannabis Laws: On July 20th of this year, Oakland’s Cannabis Regulatory Commission met to discuss the ongoing implementation of the Equity Permit Program to see if it is accomplishing its goals. The Commission is also in the process of assisting the City Council with adopting a regulatory structure for the adult use of cannabis. Some of the issues the Commission highlighted for the City Council to review are the following:

  • Whether Oakland will create a licensing category for micro-businesses. Under California’s Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA), a micro-business operator may act as a cultivator, retailer, distributor, and non-volatile manufacturer.
  • Whether the Oakland City Council will limit or cap the number of adult use cannabis dispensaries?
  • Whether to allow cannabis dispensaries to operate as both a medical and an adult use dispensary?

To help you better understand what is going on with California cannabis and what MAUCRSA means for your cannabis business, three of our California attorneys will be hosting a free webinar on August 8, 2017 from 12 pm to 1 pm PT. Hilary Bricken from our Los Angeles office will moderate two of our San Francisco-based attorneys (Alison Malsbury and me) in a discussion on the major changes between the MCRSA and MAUCRSA, including on vertical integration and ownership of multiple licenses, revised distributorship standards, and what California cannabis license applicants can expect more generally from California’s Bureau of Cannabis Control as rule-making continues through the remainder of the year. We will also address questions from the audience both during and at the end of the webinar.

To register for this free webinar, please click here. We look forward to your joining us!