RICO cannabis landlord
RICO suits are not just busting up gangs these days.

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a federal Nixon-era law originally intended to combat drug cartels and organized crime. Among other features, it allows average citizens claiming a loss in property value to bring suit for triple damages plus attorney’s fees against any “person” or “enterprise” that has a part in any neighboring “racketeering activity” which includes—you guessed it—“dealing in a controlled substance.” Currently, federal law continues to classify cannabis as a Schedule I controlled substance—meaning it has no medicinal value, and is supposedly more dangerous than methamphetamine, methadone, hydromorphone, and oxycodone, among other things.

RICO has been read broadly enough by its patrons to include operators, as well as landlords, lenders, and even government licensing agencies and customers, as co-conspirators in licensed cannabis operations, meaning angry neighbors have found their deliverance when it comes to trying to shut down state-legal cannabis businesses. The painful irony of all this is that anyone with an aversion to cannabis in a state where voters democratically decided to legalize it has unique power to be an American Gangbuster because of an almost-half-century-old relic of the federal War on Drugs; yet, meanwhile, companies that would be investing in local communities are looking north to do five-billion-dollar Canadian Blockbusters. The bottom line is that as long as federal law remains unchanged, it does not matter how state voters decide to govern themselves, or even how sensibly the federal government decides to enforce federal laws prohibiting cannabis. RICO provides a private right of action for any would-be provocateurs that can plausibly claim they have been damaged by a neighboring cannabis business.

So how can landlords and tenants approach this issue when designing a cannabis tenancy? The short answer is that RICO will continue to be a real issue for as long as federal law allows it to be, but the parties can take some proactive measures in drafting the lease to mitigate that threat:

Build in an early termination option for third-party lawsuits. Just as the lease can include early termination options for a variety of cannabis-specific occurrences, it can provide an opportunity for one or both parties to address an undismissed third-party lawsuit by terminating the tenancy. This can include RICO actions as well as standard nuisance actions, which often have longer legs than RICO lawsuits. It can also include indemnification obligations if, e.g., the tenant causes the problem by failing to comply with the lease terms, or if the landlord misrepresents neighborhood sentiment (more on that below).

Vet the neighbors. Just as a tenant would analyze the zoning laws applicable to a proposed use, a cannabis tenant should take some time to see what the neighborhood is all about. Does the community support the use? How are the neighboring areas zoned? Is there any kind of history of bad actors in this space that’s left a bad taste? The tenant will have to make sure the site isn’t within any prohibited buffer zones of schools or youth centers as part of its state license application anyway, and what better opportunity to get to know your potential neighbors? Even some casual exploring is better than nothing, and can save loads of trouble down the road. Depending on how the parties negotiate the lease, it can include, e.g., landlord warranties of no known neighbor objections after diligent inquiries, or a term that puts the responsibility on the tenant to figure out how the use would go over in the community.

Tighten up those compliance obligations. Compliance with state and local law is the key to avoiding enforcement actions, and is equally important when it comes to neighbor relations. State regulations contain strict requirements about security protocols, waste management, hours of operation, and product transportation. Local rules will typically dictate things like parking requirements, odor management, and noise. The stronger and more specific the lease is with regard to complying with these various rules, the better chance you will have that the tenant (i) knows them, and (ii) follows them. Simply indemnifying yourself in the lease makes little difference if you end up losing an otherwise good tenant because they were uninformed.

Research the local politics and get to know local law enforcement. California’s cannabis regulatory regime is unique in that local jurisdictions are still king when it comes to who gets to operate and where. And we’ve already seen a repeat of what’s happened in other states that have legalized: jurisdictions sometimes change their minds and declare previously allowed cannabis operations to be non-conforming uses. Having your finger on the community pulse and knowing the level of support for your local cannabis ordinance when it passed is going to put you in a better position to know whether your cannabis tenant or your cannabis operation is more likely to be a welcome neighborhood feature or a walking lawsuit.

For more on California cannabis leasing, check out the following:

washington residency marijuana constitutional
Could definitely be unconstitutional.

We think it is worth taking another look at whether Washington’s strict residency requirement is constitutional. Since Washington first licensed marijuana businesses in 2014, we have wondered if anyone would be willing to bear the expenses of that particular challenge. And to date, there are no Washington appellate or federal legal decisions determining the constitutionality of the residency requirement. If there were a challenge, Washington would have a tough time defending the constitutionality of the law.

There are two important constitutional concept here: the Dormant Commerce Clause (the DCC) and the Privileges and Immunities Clause (the PIC). We first wrote about one of these, the DCC, three years ago. The DCC is a body of law (all made by judges) that seeks to enforce free-trade rules among the states. The idea is that Congress has the sole authority to regulate interstate commerce, and state laws that blatantly interfere with interstate commerce are potentially unconstitutional. Our analysis of this issue is largely the same as it was in that blog post three years ago. To determine if a law violates the DCC, one first determines whether the law interferes with interstate commerce. Washington’s residency restriction likely does so because it stops out-of-state participants from engaging in commerce in Washington. If a state law discriminates against out of state residents, it is very likely unconstitutional. It can only survive if the state can show that the law is the least restrictive means by which it can achieve a non-protectionist purpose. In the case of Washington’s marijuana residency requirement, there are lots of other states without such a requirement, and they are doing fine.

It looks like the book could be open and shut with the DCC, but people are still hesitant to bring that case. The DCC is tough to understand in practice: It’s a constitutional restriction by inference and counterfactual. So if law by logical proof isn’t your thing, the PIC provides an alternative compelling constitutional argument that Washington’s residency restriction would lose a court battle. The PIC —  Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution — says: “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” The PIC seeks to prevent discrimination by one state against another state’s residents. In addition to protecting civil liberties, the PIC also protects fundamental economic interests.

The weakness in the PIC arguments is that the right to own a marijuana business may not be considered a fundamental economic right that the PIC protects. In past cases, the PIC has successfully knocked out state residency requirements for attorney bar licensure and for employment, but the PIC has failed to stop a state from only giving hunting licenses to its residents. Cases seem to say that commercial activity, as opposed to recreational, is fundamental, but it would be reasonable for the discriminating state to argue that the right to own a federally illegal marijuana business cannot, by definition, be fundamental enough to get this constitutional protection.

The federal illegality of marijuana, of course, is the elephant in the room. There seems to be a misconception that federal courts would never protect a would-be marijuana business owner in a legal battle with the state. That fear, however, is a misreading of constitutional law. Marijuana’s illegality does get in the way of a lot of general legal enforcement. Contracts with an illegal subject matter can be found void as a matter of law. Federal bankruptcy courts will not process marijuana company filings because they cannot appoint a trustee to manage marijuana assets. And in cases where parties seek injunctive relief, courts can use the “clean hands” doctrine to say that they will not issue injunctions to help marijuana businesses because those businesses have not come to the court with sufficiently “clean hands” to receive the benefit of equitable rulings.

However, the Constitution is not a contract or an equitable ruling. The Constitution protects us from state and federal overreach in all circumstances, regardless of what we have done and regardless of what we are doing. To put it another way, let’s say that Washington had a law that said women not allowed to own a marijuana business. Does anyone think that a federal court would not overturn that law? Of course it would. It doesn’t matter that marijuana is federally illegal; the state cannot violate the Constitution with illegal preferences. Similarly, both the DCC and the PIC are constitutional protections. A litigant against the state of Washington seeking to overturn the residency requirement would win or lose on the merits. Even a federal court would not throw out a case simply because marijuana businesses were involved.

california cannabis marijuana development agreement
California municipalities are missing the mark on development agreements.

Development agreements have become a popular tool for California municipalities regulating commercial cannabis activities. We’ve talked a bit about development agreements in the cannabis context here. In a nutshell, a development agreement is a contract between a municipality and developer that freezes applicable rules, regulations, and policies pertaining to a property at the time of execution. Our California cannabis real estate and land use lawyers have come across quite a few of them lately. Unfortunately, many times local jurisdictions are misusing them at the industry’s expense.

Development agreement laws were enacted to provide assurances to developers faced with uncertainty in government approval processes for complex and long-term development projects. A development agreement should provide developers with assurances that the developer will see a return on investment by providing vested rights to engage in a particular use on a property. The rights are locked in so that if local laws change in the future (e.g., the voters or legislative body prohibit a particular use), the uses permitted in the agreement can continue for the remaining term of the agreement.

The scant authority dealing with development agreements focuses on the broad purpose of the statute to provide assurances to developers as soon as project commitments must be made. Santa Margarita Area Residents Together v. San Luis Obispo County (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 221, 230.

Development agreements allow municipalities to impose fees without having to deal with the uncertainty and expense of putting the matter before voters (as required with the imposition of a tax), and to negotiate community benefits and public improvements to be provided by developers. They also put municipalities in privity of contract with developers, providing an additional degree of control and remedies for each party that would not otherwise exist.

In the context of cannabis, we are seeing a perversion of the intent of California’s development agreement statutes. Many municipalities require development agreements for commercial cannabis activity regardless of whether there is actual land development involved. The terms are incredibly short (often only 1 to 5 years), the fees are substantial, and developers are not expressly provided with vested rights to operate. In other words, most of the cannabis-related development agreements fail to provide developers with assurances that they will see a return on their investment.

Further, the vast majority of municipalities do not allow any negotiation of commercial cannabis development agreements, which calls into question the validity of any associated fees. After all, the justification for exempting development agreements from the constitutional and statutory requirements applicable to municipal fees and taxes is that the terms are bargained for between the parties.

Stay tuned for the next two parts of this series on demystifying development agreements. In part two, I’ll break down the basics of development agreement laws, and what they mean for the marijuana industry. In part three, I’ll cover some key terms to fight for in development agreement negotiations related to California cannabis use.

WSLCB washington cannabis
WSLCB seems to want it both ways on “residency.”

Despite lobbying efforts to the contrary, Washington has maintained its strict state residency requirement for Washington cannabis business owners. If a person wants to own 0.001% of a cannabis business, the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) requires that person to be a Washington resident and to go through about 1,000 hoops before it authorizes the licensed cannabis business to issue that ownership interest. In general, cash-starved producer-processors looking for investment and out-of-state investors have pushed for the law to change, while more established retailers and certain producer-processors prefer the lack of out-of-state competition. The residency issue is resonating in Olympia, with many legislators openly discussing lifting or altering the state restriction on out-of-state ownership.

While the overall topic of the residency requirement is often discussed, one issue that doesn’t get as much attention is how the WSLCB is currently defining residency. And that’s because they don’t— at least not directly. The WSLCB’s marijuana regulations define the term “residence” as a place where a person physically resides, but that is only in the context of the rule that marijuana licenses cannot be issued to businesses whose location is at a personal residence. The section talking about the residency requirement, WAC 314-55-120(10) uses the terms “resided” and “residency requirement,” but the rules do not define those terms.

Neither does RCW 69.50, the section of Washington’s legislative code that contains its statutes related to regulated marijuana businesses. RCW 69.50.331(1)(b)(ii) contains the legislative requirement that someone must have “lawfully resided in the state for at least six months prior to applying” for a marijuana business license. Whether the drafters of that section meant “resided in Washington without breaking any laws” or “would be considered resident of Washington as a matter of law”, we cannot really say. The statute does not contain any significant guidance on what does and does not constitute residency.

When Washington first opened for licensing, the interpretation of these sections was key. Back then, in 2013 and 2014, the residency requirement was only three months, and entrepreneurs looking to take advantage of the market had been trying to figure out the least that they could do to establish residency in order to qualify for the new licenses. When people asked the WSLCB what constituted residency, they were deferred to other state agencies that had defined residency. I personally have been on multiple phone calls with WSLCB investigators where they deferred to the Department of Revenue’s (DOR) definition of residency.

The problem with deference to the Department of Revenue is that the WSLCB generally acts like it wants a narrow definition of residency, whereas DOR wants a broad definition of residency. DOR wants people to be considered residents because that means that they owe sales tax and/or use tax on their purchases. Even the WSLCB’s old rules FAQ still has a link (albeit a broken one) to this Access Washington webpage saying that there are many ways that one can show that he or she is a Washington resident, including registering to vote and obtaining a Washington driver’s license.

Although it provides resources that make it seem like it is easy to prove residency, the WSLCB’s enforcement officers and investigators continue to treat residency as a strict requirement that one physically inhabit Washington virtually every day of the year. We have an administrative case happening right now where the WSLCB claims that our client is not a Washington resident, even though that person owns residential property in Washington and gets all of his or her mail there, is registered to vote in Washington, and maintains a Washington drivers license (and no other state licenses or IDs). They can’t point to a single written definition of residency that this client violates, but they continue to fight on this point.

This isn’t all about one case, one client, or even one issue. The WSLCB is showing time and time again that it likes to live in the zone of vaguely written or non-existent regulations and stringent enforcement of the WSLCB’s interpretations of those vaguely written or non-existent rules. Unless you assume that the WSLCB has malicious intentions in drafting and enforcing its rules in this way (which we do not assume), it does not make sense that they would not adopt a stringent definition of residency if they want to enforce it that way. But until the WSLCB amends its rules by adopting an actual definition of residency, it will continue looking like it is speaking out of both sides of its mouth.

california marijuana cannabis enforcement
Home of fewer illegal grows.

Federal enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act in states that have legalized cannabis has been a huge question mark for years, but especially so in California since the 2016 passage of Prop 64, which legalized medicinal and adult-use cannabis and laid the framework for a new regulatory regime. Almost two years later, that question remains, but certain trends have emerged, were reinforced, and now seem to be forging full speed ahead. Those trends suggest that (1) the Department of Justice is not engaging in a crackdown against cannabis businesses that are in compliance with state and local law, and (2) the state and the federal government have agreed to coordinate on enforcement actions where it furthers the priorities of both entities. So far, those priorities have been organized crime and illegal cultivation on public lands, and this week the latter priority got a big boost from both sides of the equation.

On the state side of things, a proposed state law extending the statute of limitations from one to three years for state enforcement actions against unlawful “conversion of timberland to nonforestry-related agricultural uses”—a move that targets illegal cannabis cultivation on public lands—has passed the state legislature and is now before Governor Brown for signature. The bill also clarifies that the limitations period does not begin to run until the state discovers the violation.

On the federal side of things, the Department of Justice issued a formal statement about the results of its summer-long collaborative project with the state and local governments to target and eradicate illegal cultivation operations on public lands, aka Operation Forest Watch, which we now know has been underway since at least October 2017 and also included the California National Guard. One important reason behind this effort was an unprecedented level of illegal toxic pesticides being used in unlicensed cannabis cultivation, some so powerful that a “quarter-teaspoon can kill a 300-pound bear.” Because cannabis grown using these dangerous pesticides cannot pass California’s stringent quality standards, it has been mostly shipped illegally to the Midwest and the East Coast, undermining both California and federal laws prohibiting diversion out of state.

The big-picture takeaway from this joint operation is that “federal authorities are concentrating their efforts on hazardous illegal grows on public land instead of targeting California’s new recreational marijuana industry, although marijuana remains illegal under federal law.” Another take on it is that federal and state cooperation on cannabis enforcement as it has been structured to date benefits both entities when priorities are aligned: The federal government furthers its goals of protecting public lands and public safety and targeting organized crime; while the state furthers those same goals in its own interests, and at the same time reinforces the state’s regulatory regime by incentivizing licensing and compliance and cracking down on the state’s illegal markets.

It remains to be seen what effect these joint enforcement actions, as well as California’s continued crackdown on unlicensed operators, will have on the state’s cannabis market writ large, but to date they have unquestionably proven beneficial to both parties, as well as all Californians who enjoy and want to preserve our forests.

united nations international marijuana cannabis
Will they get it right this time?

Cannabis prohibition under U.S. federal law is nonsensical and causes many problems, from oppressive taxation to civil rights violations. Under international law, however, things may be even worse. Fortunately, it was reported this week that the United Nations (U.N.) will finally take a closer look at cannabis prohibition this fall. It was also reported that the World Health Organization (W.H.O.), an agency of the U.N., has recommended that cannabidiol (CBD) no longer be controlled under international law. Both developments are terrific news.

For public international law nerds, like me, the question of why international law is more intractable than U.S. law on marijuana is fun stuff. The short answer is that cannabis, along with opium poppy and coca bush, is restricted not just through “scheduling”, but by the core text of the principal treaty at issue. This means that under international law, 185 or so countries are going to have to agree to amend the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 (“Single Convention”) (specifically, Articles 1, 22, 28 and 49) in order to truly end prohibition. Then, cannabis would also need to be removed from the Single Convention’s Schedules I and IV. All of that is no small feat.

Still, it isn’t impossible that the Single Convention would be amended to loosen or abolish restrictions on cannabis. The treaty was amended once before, by the 1972 Protocol, which inter alia amended Article 22 to require nations to actually enforce laws on their books against both poppy and cannabis cultivation. Since 1961, the U.N. has also taken other action on controlled substances, mainly through the Convention of Psychotropic Substances of 1971 (which will need amending one day, too) and the Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988. So, the U.N. does re-think its stance on controlled substances from time to time, and for better or worse.

Like other international treaties that deal with drugs, the Single Convention is not self-executing. This means that signatory countries must pass domestic legislation to fulfill their treaty obligations. For its part, the U.S. passed the federal Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”) back in 1971. Unlike with the Single Convention, cannabis is not included anywhere in the body of this law. Instead, “marijuana” and other items are listed on separate “schedules” to the CSA. Each schedule then dictates the extent to which those items are controlled. “Marijuana” is a Schedule I drug with “no accepted medical use” and a “high potential for abuse.” That’s not so different than the Single Convention’s placement of “cannabis” at its Schedules I and IV, reserved for drugs that are “particularly liable to abuse and to produce ill effects” and where “such liability is not offset by substantial therapeutic advantages.” It’s important to note that even if the Single Convention were abolished entirely, its legacy would live on in the CSA and other domestic laws of its signatories, until those laws were also repealed.

Because the Single Convention has not been amended with respect to cannabis legality, it is controversial whether the U.S. has acted lawfully in allowing many of its states to promulgate medical and adult use marijuana programs in defiance of that treaty and the CSA. Recent U.S. delegations to UNGASS have made the argument that there is “sufficient flexibility” under the Single Convention to accommodate what has occurred under our federalist system of government. That’s a topic for another day, but suffice it to say that the “sufficient flexibility” argument is a thin one.

Many countries are no longer bothering with legal arguments, and simply ignoring their treaty obligations altogether. Canada and Uruguay are signatories to the Single Convention, and those countries have fully legalized sale and distribution of cannabis. Canada, for one, likely won’t even bother to withdraw from the Single Convention or submit reservations: It will just violate the treaty. Other countries around the world, from Israel to Germany to Columbia to Australia, have also pushed ahead to import or export medical marijuana in recent years. And many more, like the Netherlands and Spain, license or tolerate commercial or quasi-commercial marijuana activities.

Clearly, the Single Convention is outdated when it comes to cannabis prohibition, and global enforcement against licit marijuana economies is both impractical and legally problematic. In the coming months and years, countries will continue to legalize marijuana in abnegation of their treaty obligations, whether for moral or economic reasons. So let’s hope that the U.N. starts by acting on the W.H.O. recommendation to loosen controls on CBD, which shouldn’t be terribly difficult. But most importantly, let’s hope for an enlightened “big picture” approach on cannabis, even if that takes some work.

vape marijuana cannabis
Is the vape industry in real trouble?

Like so many other U.S. industries, the U.S. vaping industry is now in the crosshairs of a 25% tariff on products imported from China. The first two waves of President Trump’s proposed tariffs against China covered about $50 billion worth of Chinese products but they did not include any vaping products. After China retaliated and proposed its own equivalent tariffs on an estimated $50 billion worth of U.S. products imported into China, President Trump proposed a much bigger third list of China products to cover an additional $200 billion in imports from China. This third list targets vaping devices, vaping parts, and batteries from China. Because our law firm’s marijuana business lawyers represent so many companies involved in various aspects of the vaping industry, we are hearing a earful about how these tariffs will “decimate” the nascent industry.

The U.S. vaping industry is indeed particularly exposed to these tariffs. Though much of the e-liquid used for vaping is made in the United States, almost all of the vaping hardware is imported from China. Just as Gillette makes the most money selling razor cartridges and not razors, many U.S. vaping companies chose to focus on the higher margin e-liquids, rather than lower margin vaping devices. Some have noted that there are no U.S. companies that produce any vaping hardware products. We are hearing of how many vape and cannabis retail shops will be unwilling or unable to pay the extra 25% tariffs because they do not believe they will be able to pass these extra costs on to their customers. If this does prove true, the vaping industry will indeed be decimated.

Fortunately, there is still time for vaping companies to seek a tariff exemption for certain vaping products. The U.S. Trade Representative will accept comments until September 6 on whether entire categories of products listed on the third wave of proposed tariffs — the $200 billion in imports from China — should be exempted. There likely will be yet another chance to make more product-specific exclusion requests later in the fall.

For an exclusion request to have any realistic chance at being granted, marijuana and related vaping companies should address the following factors:

  • A description of the physical characteristics (dimensions, material composition, etc.) of the particular vaping products and the 10 digit subheading of the HTSUS tariff category applicable to those products.
  • Whether the particular vaping product is available only from China. In addressing this factor, requesters should address specifically whether the particular vaping product and/or a comparable product is available from sources in the United States and/or in third countries.
  • Whether imposition of additional duties on the particular vaping product would cause severe economic harm to the requester or other U.S. interests.
  • Whether the particular vaping product is strategically important or related to “Made in China 2025” or other Chinese industrial programs.
  • Requesters must provide the annual quantity and value of the Chinese-origin product the requester purchased in each of the last three years. If precise annual quantity and value information are not available, USTR will accept an estimate with justification.
  • Requesters may also provide any other information or data they consider relevant to evaluating their request.

The process for reviewing and deciding on these exclusion requests will not result in any immediate decision but the hope is that a favorable decision eventually will allow for refunding the tariffs paid.

The goal is to have the USTR review the comments and grant exclusions, particularly for products that are not made in the United States and can only be sourced from China. The last time similar tariffs were applied on steel products back in the early 2000s, many exclusions were granted that helped ease the impact of the tariffs on downstream users.

There have already been many opposing comments and exclusion requests submitted for the first two waves of proposed China tariffs. Many of the opposing comments have noted how the proposed tariffs on the Chinese products have nothing to do with  Chinese practices of stealing or extorting intellectual property from U.S companies, which are the reasons claimed for invoking the China tariffs in the first place. Many have also objected to how these tariffs are not likely to change how China respects intellectual property  rights, but will have a catastrophic effect on certain American companies.  What was a booming U.S. vaping industry now faces going bust with the proposed tariffs. If you are in the vaping industry, now is the time to do what you can to prevent this.

Editor’s Note: A version of this post previously appeared on our law firm’s China Law Blog. It focuses on the vaping industry but much of it holds true for a host of other U.S. industries caught up in the tariffs as well. The bottom line is that the situation for products and companies that will be hurt by these tariffs is not good and the chances of overturning the tariffs are in most cases less than 50 percent. But in many cases the situation is not yet hopeless and it behooves you to try.

california cannabis marijuana landlord
…In a good way, for cannabis landlords.

Almost two years after the passage of Proposition 64, the 2016 California voter initiative to legalize and regulate medicinal and adult-use cannabis, California has begun to finalize its regulations that will govern the largest cannabis market in the country, though that effort has not been without some hiccups and bumps in the road. But, things are coming along and we anticipate that, as in other states that legalized cannabis like Washington and Oregon, after an initial period of turbulence, the rules will be solidified, prices will clam down, and there will be at least some measure of market stability going forward, notwithstanding those localities that decide to sit this one out. In the meantime, how are marijuana landlords faring in the midst of these industry growing pains? As it turns out, quite well. Here are a few examples.

Availability of insurance. Landlord insurance is essential in any tenancy. It protects the landlord against liability for injuries and property damage that occurs on the leased premises, and it covers losses to the building such as fire or burglary. Just months ago, California approved the first lessor’s risk policy for cannabis landlords to be written by a traditional state-admitted carrier. That may not sound like a big deal, but it really is: admitted carriers are held to high standards, and for the California Department of Insurance to agree to allow (and therefore essentially underwrite) such policies to be issued despite the subject activities being federally illegal is encouraging for the industry. The state also recently approved a business owners policy for cannabis operators, which is good for tenants.

Mainstream investor acceptance. One does not have to look to Canada to see mainstream investment success for U.S. cannabis companies. Real estate investment trusts (REITs) are highly regulated investment vehicles that can also be subject to federal scrutiny. In the U.S., only a handful of publicly listed REITs include properties leased to cannabis tenants, and now one of the country’s preeminent financial publications is openly recommending investment in a cannabis REIT, on the premise that businesses that lease to cannabis tenants “don’t actually ‘touch the plant’ which makes it a safer bet for long-term investors.” With the proviso that the CSA doesn’t necessarily agree with that assessment, this is one of many watershed moments in the normalization of commercial cannabis, with due respect to the republican former Speaker of the House becoming a board member of a cannabis investment fund.

Emergence of renewed federal enforcement priorities. Since the rescinding of the Cole Memo at the beginning of 2018, it has slowly emerged that federal cannabis enforcement priorities in California will be aimed at aligning with the state’s own enforcement priorities, as well as traditional federal prerogatives such as protecting federal lands and preventing organized crime. Notably, these articulated enforcement priorities have not included any mention of pursuing landlords of commercial cannabis tenants that are in compliance with state laws.

Advancement of tenancy-friendly state legislation. Recently, the state legislature has advanced a proposed law encouraging shared tenancy resources and tenant cost savings, e.g. bathrooms, break rooms, locker rooms, hallways, or loading docks. This is obviously an encouraging development for tenants, especially in places like the Bay Area where commercial space is at a premium. But it is also good news for landlords, who can market their properties to multiple tenants, rather than try to lease larger multi-unit spaces to a single tenant because of the inability to share common areas.

As long as cannabis remains federally illegal there will always be a measure of uncertainty and risk involved in commercial cannabis leasing for both landlord and tenant. But the trend lines do seem to be pointing towards normalization, which in turn points to decreased risk. Only time will tell.

For more on California cannabis leasing, check out the following:

cbd marijuana hemp webinar
We can explain.

Cannabidiol (“CBD”) products are suddenly everywhere. But as much as opportunity and possibility have opened in the hemp-derived CBD industry, so too have legal pitfalls and snares that can confuse just about anyone breaking into this new market. When it comes to navigating the trails that are still being blazed, many are left wondering, “Is it legal or not?”

At a time when the popularity of CBD and hemp products meets legalization, the importance of this question cannot be overstated. Unfortunately, the answer is not an easy one. Individuals and companies alike are stepping forward with innovative ideas and using these products in health supplements, topical ointments, and even food and beverages. What they often find at all stages of production (manufacturing, distribution, and marketing), is that the law can be ambiguous and varied, especially when divided by state lines and the unavoidable intersections with federal law.

Our attorneys have been at the forefront of the struggle to effectively interpret and understand these challenging legal circumstances. On August 16th at 11 am PST, Harris Bricken attorneys Daniel Shortt and Alison Malsbury will present a webinar entitled “CBD Legal or Not: How State and Federal Laws Govern the Manufacture, Marketing & Distribution of CBD Products.”

Whether you are an individual or part of a company, working with U.S. or foreign grown products, an attorney or a government official, this webinar will equip you with the knowledge you need to successfully untangle the legal knots that may be preventing you or your clients from realizing the full potential of this industry. Our attorneys will discuss current state and federal laws, marketing do’s and don’ts, trademark protections, and FDA regulations. They will also address audience questions throughout the presentation.

To register, please go here. Move fast, as early bird pricing ends on August 3rd!

In the meantime, for more on CBD law, check out the following:

Washington State Cannabis Lawyer
Talking with Washington State cannabis enforcement officers is like playing with fire

Many of my firm’s recent Washington State cannabis enforcement cases contain a commonality. During the investigation stage, Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) enforcement officers tell licensees that their main goal is to achieve compliance. They say they aren’t looking to get anyone’s licenses cancelled — they are just trying to get a full picture so they can help licensees come into compliance with the rules. As we have stated in prior posts, many seemingly benign actions can give rise to license cancellation. But despite these assurances, licensees often find themselves blindsided by cancellation notices after they thought they were participating in a project with their officers to achieve compliance. When the licensees press their enforcement officers, the officers blame “politics” at the WSCLB offices in Olympia. It’s as though the WSLCB enforcement officers are playing the role of the car salesman going upstairs to fight for a price reduction only to be rebuffed by faceless management.

What is really going on here? As with everything else in the cannabis industry, it’s complicated. One thing to remember is that there is a real split in the WSLCB between its licensing division and its enforcement division. “Licensing” people are your standard bureaucrats, throwing up a varying array of obstacles to opening a cannabis business while assessing whether a businessperson and his or her plans merit a license to produce, process, or sell marijuana. “Enforcement” people are, for lack of a better word, cannabis cops.

Being cops, they see their role as rooting out activity contrary to law, and they will portray themselves however they deem necessary to get as much information as possible. Their behavior can range from be-your-buddy good cops to intimidating and threatening bad cops. The same officer often finds himself or herself playing both roles in some circumstances all geared to getting licensees to reveal behavior that may violate the rules. Institutionally, police forces often pressure their officers to continuously find bad behavior and officers that aren’t reporting enough violations face consequences at work for falling behind. We would be naïve to think WSLCB officers don’t face these same internal pressures.

The status of WSLCB officers as regulatory enforcement police puts licensees in a tough position. Most of the public knows that if they are accused of a crime by a regular police force, they shouldn’t say anything and should ask to speak with an attorney. But there is a fundamental difference between criminal enforcement and regulatory enforcement. The right to remain silent and the right to speak with police only with an attorney present are criminal rights. Marijuana business licenses, however, are privilege licenses. If you don’t toe the line, regulators can take that license away. For example, WAC 314-55-050(7) says that the WSLCB can cancel a marijuana license if a licensee denies a WSLCB enforcement officer access to any place where licensed activity takes place or fails to produce any required record licensees are supposed to keep.

Licensees need to keep both of these fundamental facts in their minds when dealing with WSLCB enforcement officers. The licensee has to understand that regardless of what they say, the goal of the WSLCB officer is to find bad acts and either fine the licensee or shut them down. But the licensee cannot ignore or shut out information requests from enforcement officers. Strategically, walking this tight rope requires licensees answer every question from an enforcement officer honestly and never lie, while also avoiding answering more than is asked. It’s not always possible to have an attorney present when dealing with an enforcement officer, but lawyers — especially those experienced in dealing with the WSLCB do help in these situations. Primarily, they know how to consistently frame a business’s activities as compliant within the framework of the rules (assuming the activity really is arguably compliant). Licensees often get themselves into trouble when talking to enforcement officers without an attorney present because they forget the fundamental truth — WSLCB enforcement officers are looking for a reason to submit a violation notice.

If the WSLCB wanted, it could institute a more collaborative relationship between officers and cannabis licensees. At WSLCB meetings, the WSLCB’s enforcement and licensing directors often make it sound as though the goal of enforcement personnel is to achieve compliance more than to shut down cannabis businesses. Actions to date, however, don’t back that up. So long as it appears that issuing violation notices is the primary goal of WSLCB enforcement officers, cannabis licensees need to approach each interaction with an enforcement officer as potentially adversarial because to do otherwise is to put your cannabis license at risk.