What’s a Washington beverage processor to do?

The Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) is creating a real niche in the beverage product design industry through some of its most recent policy pronouncements. As has always been the case, edible (and drinkable) marijuana products are regulated so that they are not appealing to children. There are a host of old and new policies and rules that focus on avoiding marketing marijuana to kids, some of which are explicit (new policy mandating dull colors), and some of which are subjective (packages and labels cannot be designed in a manner that is “especially appealing to children.”).

But in one of a new set of policies that the WSLCB has issued recently, it has also sought to avoid packaging and labeling reminiscent of products made for adults — alcohol. Under BIP-07-2018, marijuana-infused products must not “Mimic, imply, represent or contain any statement, depiction, illustration, design, brand, or name of a product containing alcohol.”

Further, the WSLCB claims that if a product looks like alcohol, a licensee can’t get its product approved even if it includes a disclaimer on the packaging that the product does not contain alcohol. Even though this is a recent development as a written policy, we know that the WSLCB has been treating this as actual policy for a while. We have seen products turned away because of their bottle shape, the typeface on the label, and the ingredient list.

We have so many questions about this policy. Why? Are there large numbers of people going to marijuana retail stores, buying a product because they think it has alcohol, and going home to be disappointed that it doesn’t? Is this something that the alcohol lobby wants the LCB to do? To what end?

In trying to come up with some reason that this policy makes sense, the most charitable interpretation is that the WSLCB is trying to protect someone who lives with other people and reaches into the fridge to get a beer, only to find later that the beer was in fact marijuana. But even that case doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, as it could apply to marijuana beverages in any sort of container. There are only so many types of bottles and labels in the world, and all of them could conceivably be used for drinks that are either marijuana-infused or not. There’s nothing special about a beer bottle that would make it especially more confusing than a plastic soda bottle.

More importantly, this policy seems to contradict the WSLCB’s policy that marijuana beverages should not be marketed to children. I remember being a kid and being nervous when someone handed me a dark glass bottle of root beer for the first time. I knew that I wasn’t supposed to drink alcohol, and I had to triple check, that there wasn’t any in there because the color and shape of the bottle communicated to me that the drink was for adults-only. The WSLCB seems to be taking that tool away from marijuana beverage processors.

Now the WSLCB seems to be telling people that they can’t communicate with their products that something is specifically for children or specifically for adults. This is where smart product designers come in. Marijuana drink makers in Washington must find some type of middle ground that communicates neither. We’re not sure exactly how they can do that, but we wish them the best.

los ángeles cannabis licensingThe ups, downs, and unknowns around L.A. cannabis licensing have abounded from the passage of Measure M back in March 2017. This is not uncommon, especially in large cities, as regulators determine how to handle things on the fly and as issues arise (see, for example, social equity in L.A. and the ability to re-locate for Existing Medical Marijuana Dispensaries (“EMMDs“). L.A., to its credit, has been transparent and pretty consistent in the way it’s treated licensees and stakeholders. To that end, this month, L.A.’s Department of Cannabis Regulation (“DCR”) released a Phase 2 licensing bulletin that’s significantly important for those Phase 2 would-be licensees that seek a temporary license.

Recall, to qualify for Phase II temporary approval/licensing (which triggered priority licensing for existing “non-retailers” like growers and manufacturers) — folks had to meet all of the following criteria:

  1. Engagement prior to January 1, 2016, in the same Non-Retailer Commercial Cannabis Activity for which it sought a license;
  2. Supplier to an Existing Medical Marijuana Dispensary prior to January 1, 2017;
  3. The Business Premises meet all the land use and sensitive use requirements under cannabis laws and the existing City code;
  4. The applicant’s premises have to pass a pre­-license inspection without any fire or life safety violations either;
  5. All outstanding City business tax obligations were paid to the City and the Applicant had to indemnify the City;
  6. Provision to the City of a written agreement with a testing laboratory for testing all Cannabis and Cannabis products and attests to testing all its Cannabis and Cannabis products in accordance with state standards;
  7. Attestation that the Applicant would cease all operations if denied a State license or City License, and the Applicant cannot do any retail activity at its premises;
  8. Qualification under the City’s Social Equity Program (see here for more info); and
  9. Attestation that the Applicant will comply with all operating requirements imposed by DCR and that DCR may immediately suspend or revoke the temporary approval if the Applicant fails to abide by any City operating requirement.
Number 4 above was causing a lot of heartburn amongst Phase II license applicants in that they didn’t really know what to expect. Pre-licensing inspections can be fairly labor intensive depending on the state of the property at issue versus the build out and business plans of a given applicant, and each City has a different standard for a passing grade. In L.A., pre-licensing inspection (which is a pre-requisite to temporary approval) “may include, but is not limited to [an inspection of the business premises by], employees or agents of the following City or county departments: DCR, Building and Safety, Police Department, Fire Department and Los Angeles County Department of Public Health.” And a pre-License inspection consists of, but is not limited to, the following: “approval of the premises diagram; on-site inspection of all applicable building code and fire code requirements; approval of the security plan; fingerprinting; and approval of the fire safety plan (if applicable).”

Plus, applicants must upgrade all applicable electrical and water systems to Building and Fire Code standards before their application will move forward. Again, this is no small task depending on how your building is holding up/what its previous uses and occupancies were.

Temporary approval in L.A. is essential for applicants to also apply for and receive their temporary licenses from the state, which will not be given out or renewed after December 31. This month, L.A. thankfully illuminated for Phase II applicants what to expect for pre-licensing inspections in the City. In its bulletin, the City states:

To be eligible for Phase 2 Priority Processing, among other requirements, an applicant must pass two inspections. One is a DCR inspection to confirm that the applicant’s business premises is built out to substantially match its business premises diagram (i.e., the location and layout of entry points, interior doorways, rooms and walkways match the diagram) and that the business premises is sufficiently secured. The other is a Los Angeles Fire Department Cannabis Unit inspection to confirm that the applicant’s business premises and operations comply with the Los Angeles Fire Code.

The onus here is on the applicant to confirm for the City that it’s ready for pre-licensing inspection. In addition, when DCR confirms a date for an applicant’s inspection, the applicant will be asked to provide its most up-to-date premises diagrams to the DCR (including showing. accurate placement of security cameras). The bottom line of the City’s bulletin is that the physical premises be substantially similar to the premises diagram submitted to the DCR and that the premises be sufficiently secured per City and state law. During the inspection, the DCR will:

  • Walk through each room or area in the premises and assess whether its layout and location is substantially similar to the premises diagram;
  • Determine whether surveillance cameras are recording all areas required to be under surveillance (practically, this is anywhere on the business premises where cannabis goods will be present at any point in time);
  • Determine whether the surveillance system is in a secured area, is functional and can play back recordings upon request; and
  • Determine whether the premises are equipped with a functioning alarm system.

Another big question in L.A. was what the DCR would do with premises that are not 100% built out. The bulletin tells us that:

DCR will inspect the built out area and if all other Phase 2 eligibility requirements are met, grant Temporary Approval for cannabis activities limited to that specific area. Once the remaining areas of the premises are built out, DCR will send out an inspection team again before authorizing cannabis activities in those areas. However, given the large number of Phase 2 eligibility inspections to complete, DCR cannot provide a timeline for when it will be able to schedule a second inspection for an applicant.”

All of this means that it is best to be fully built out (in accordance with your premises diagram and with the fire and safety code) and ready for inspection if you want to get your temporary approval in L.A. anytime soon for your entire facility.

On inspection, also don’t expect to sweet talk the DCR investigator or to learn about the status of your application. Neither will advance your cause with the DCR at this point. Instead, applicants should proceed with business as usual in a professional manner and be as helpful as possible to the DCR investigators and to LAFD.

class action marijuana cannabisMedMen, a popular California cannabis retail company, has been hit with a class action lawsuit from former employees. Class action lawsuits are no joke. These lawsuits involve a few plaintiffs suing on behalf of multiple similarly situated plaintiffs. The claims, money, and other associated costs add up very fast.

In MedMen’s case, two former employees, Chelsea Medlock and Anthony Torres, allege that MedMen failed to pay them for all hours worked, failed to pay overtime wages, failed to provide mandatory meal and rest breaks, and failed to keep accurate records of employees hours worked. Medlock and Torres worsened the blow by bringing the lawsuit as a class action on behalf of all MedMen employees (current and former) from the last four years. If the class is “certified” by the Superior Court of the State of California, where it was filed, the class of plaintiffs could include thousands of employees.

Specifically, Medlock and Torres allege MedMen required them to perform work “off-the-clock” for which they received no pay. Medlock and Torres are seeking minimum wage, liquidated damages, interest and attorney fees for the unpaid time. Although Medlock and Torres have not made specific allegations in the complaint, Starbucks was recently ordered to pay an employee $102.67 for the time the employee spent locking up the store and setting alarms, without compensation. While this amount may seem small, if Medlock and Torres get their class certified, MedMen could be paying out a similar amount or something much greater, to thousands of employees.

Medlock and Torres also allege in their lawsuit that MedMen failed to pay employees required overtime wages. In California, employers must pay overtime rates to non-exempt employees who work in excess of eight hours per day. Medlock and Torres also allege they either were not provided the required meal and rest periods, or were not paid for the meal periods they had to work during. Medlock and Torres have not identified specific dates these alleged violations occurred, but if done over a significant period of time, the back wages and penalities owed will add up quickly.

In addition to their claims relating to their wages, the plaintiffs allege they were not provided accurate wage and hour statements as required by the California Labor Code and failed to provide accurate payroll records. Failure to provide accurate wage and hour statements can result in a penalty of up to $4,000 per employee.

Finally, Medlock and Torres allege that MedMen failed to timely issue final paychecks. Failure to issue final paychecks can result in penalty wages of up to thirty days of pay at the employee regular rate of pay.

In short, Medlock and Torres’s claims are numerous and serious. If they have merit, MedMen will have to pay pack wages and may be hit with treble damages, attorney fees, and interest. Of more important, if the class is certified, MedMen will have to pay those types of damages to potentially every employee they employed in California over the last four years.

Cannabis companies are growing. With growing businesses come more employees. More employees means a higher chance of litigation. For these reasons, if you are ever unsure whether your employment practices are compliant with state and federal law, it is best to have a cannabis employment attorney evaluate and provide advice. You may be able to stave off litigation, or, if you are hit with a lawsuit, you’ll have procedures in place to adequately fight it before it gets too far.

farm bill hemp california cbdThe federal 2018 Farm Bill is likely to become law in the very near future. If it does, it will redefine the hemp industry nationwide. We intend on writing more in the near future as to the specifics of the 2018 Farm Bill, but one interesting question is what effect it will have on California’s industrial hemp and CBD policies.

As anyone in the California hemp business knows, the Department of Public Health (“CDPH”) issued a FAQ policy guideline over the summer which took the position that industrial-hemp derived CBD in food products is unlawful. The FAQ justified this position in part because the federal Controlled Substances Act included industrial hemp as a Schedule I drug, and in part because the federal Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) had concluded that it was unlawful to place THC or CBD into food products.

The 2018 Farm Bill, if it passes, will essentially amend the Controlled Substances Act to take industrial hemp out of the definition of marijuana. In essence, this would make industrial hemp derived products lawful products. The question then is: Will the 2018 Farm Bill negate the FAQ?

The answer is probably not. Even though the Controlled Substances Act may be amended and some of the underlying support for the FAQ may be undermined, that won’t change the fact that the FDA has not concluded that CBD in food products is lawful. While the CDPH certainly could change its position, the de-scheduling of industrial hemp won’t necessarily change the FDA’s positions right away. In the meantime, it’s safe to conclude that the FAQ still stands.

Ultimately, the 2018 Farm Bill is likely to have far-reaching impacts throughout the industrial hemp industry. We’ll make sure to keep you updated along the way.

oregon cannabis license marijuanaRunning a cannabis business is difficult and many people fail. There are a myriad of reasons why these ventures bottom out, although owners tend to blame federal law issues first of all. It’s true that federal law creates a tough environment for cannabis businesses (banking issues, tax issues, branding issues, etc.), but federal prohibition also kept big money sidelined at first, giving small business a real head start. My personal view, after seeing many spectacular business failures and slow motion crashes over the past several years, is that most are some combination of the following: 1) a challenging legal and regulatory environment, 2) saturated markets, and 3) operator error.

A start-up cannabis business cannot control the first two items listed above, but should be able to navigate them. The third item is a different animal. Margin of error tends to be slim for most new ventures, and self-inflicted wounds are difficult to overcome. This blog post covers the five biggest mistakes we continue to see in early stage Oregon cannabis business, and gives suggestions to avoid them.

  1. Failure to properly estimate license transition timelines

Because the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) “paused” review of applications submitted after June 15, 2018, most new market entrants are buying their way in through asset or stock sales from existing licensees. The OLCC has a small and overtasked team of change-in-ownership investigators who work with both buyers and sellers on these transactions. Recently, agency higher-ups have advised us that these changes can still happen in as quickly as four to six weeks. However, that almost never occurs. Four to six months seems more common.

Even a non-cannabis business sale can be delayed by many things, from diligence issues to lease negotiations to ironing out terms in final agreements. In the Oregon cannabis industry, administrative vetting and disclosure requirements must be added to that list. Delays are almost always on the buyer side, stemming from initial business structuring, filling out OLCC business structure and individual history forms, submitting fingerprints, etc. Buyers should create realistic timelines to avoid hemorrhaging cash during this phase, and should strongly consider working with someone who has navigated the change-in-ownership process before. It’s a singular process and there is definitely some art to it.

  1. Paying lawyers to expedite your OLCC application

This is a bad idea, but many people do it. Whether for new applications (pretty straightforward) or change-in-ownership (harder) many new businesses spend significant money on lawyers to guide them through the application process. Our Portland office philosophy has always been not to blow through client retainers on ministerial work: We want people to succeed so we can work with them for years. For that reason, we have trained licensing paralegals who push these applications through efficiently and expertly. Attorneys only come in for unusual situations. The bottom line here is that new businesses should save their legal budgets for work that cannot be done by non-lawyers.

  1. Starry-eyed forecasting

You are not going to sell your marijuana for $2,000 a pound in Oregon. Forget it. You also do not have a strain of marijuana that you will patent and license one day to big pharma. You are not the only person trying to run down hemp for distillate, and, closer to home, you should not budget a six-figure salary for yourself or anyone else in the early stage. Although the market challenges have been well publicized, too many people believe that an OLCC marijuana license is tantamount to a license to print money. It’s not. All of this means that it is crucial to dial in your research and expectations before starting out – especially if you are taking on investment and the legal risk attached to that.

  1. Employment issues

For whatever reason, employment practices are often subpar with cannabis businesses. There are a couple of important things to note here. The first is that employee actions, even if unauthorized, can lead to license revocation in Oregon. This means you must ensure your employees are well versed in compliance, and you have to watch them. The second thing to note is employment law is complex and seems to change as often as cannabis licensing rules. We have a host of new employer requirements coming online January 1, 2019 in Oregon, for example. Whenever there is a dispute, courts and administrative bodies tend to favor employees, so it’s important to keep your team in order.

  1. Bad (or no) business agreements

You do not need a tall stack of complex documents to start a cannabis business. You do need the basics, though, and those agreements should be solid. If you are renting property, get a tailored industry lease. If you are organizing an LLC, get an operating agreement that covers matters important to your business, such as management, distributions, protocol for when someone jeopardizes the OLCC license, etc. Or, if you have a white label agreement, ensure that all processes and intellectual property ownership are delineated. The list goes on.

Starting a business can be expensive, and people tend to skim on legal. But nearly all of the cannabis litigation matters my firm is currently handling stem from defective contracts, and from people operating informally in that sense. Reasonably tailored contracts should be a part of any new business plan, and they should not break the bank. These contracts will set both guidelines and expectations for the business, and they operate like insurance when things go wrong.

california cannabis licensing rulesThis past Friday, California’s three agencies charged with writing and enforcing cannabis regulations—the Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC), the Department of Public Health (DPH), and the Department of Food and Agriculture (DFA)—made public their respective proposed final regulations, which are currently pending a 30-day review by the Office of Administrative Law before becoming law. Some of the most significant and controversial changes appear in the BCC’s proposed final regulations, which govern a variety of licensees such as retailers, distributors, testing laboratories, and microbusinesses, and which we will be writing about in the coming days.

As for the DFA, which issues and enforces rules for cannabis cultivators, the proposed final rules are substantially the same as the modifications the agency proposed back in October. While “substantially the same” might sound innocuous, it amounts to acceptance of the October modifications, many of which were significant. Below are some initial takeaways.

Cultivation license “stacking.” It looks like the “stacking” work-around for the acreage cap is going to be permanent. Remember the controversy surrounding the state’s decision not to limit accumulation of small cultivation licenses by a single licensee so as to essentially create a loophole to the 1-acre cap, to the benefit of big farms. However…

Shared facilities limitations. It also looks like the DFA’s proposed modifications regarding shared spaces between licenses are also going to be permanent, creating a challenge for license “stackers”. As we explained here, what the DFA was proposing (and which now appears likely to become final) was restricting the ability of a single licensee holding multiple licenses from being able to use shared facilities for its various licenses. And whereas the areas excluded from shared use under the October modifications included immature plant-growing areas, processing or packaging areas, and administrative holding areas, it looks like we can now add to that list areas used for storage of harvested cannabis, which is an item that was removed from the allowable list of shared usage areas this time around (although there is some ambiguity in how that particular regulation could be interpreted).

What this means overall is that things are going to be more difficult for licensees holding more than one license (especially of the same type), as they will now have to arbitrarily create various dedicated areas on the cultivation premises to serve each specific license, even if they’re the same kind of license with the same kind of operation in every respect.

Structures on site.  There is an interesting difference in the BCC proposed final rules compared to the DFA rules when it comes to the permanency of structures on the licensed premises. The BCC is aiming to require that all structures included as part of a BCC-licensed premises would have to be permanently affixed to the land, and this would specifically exclude things like shipping containers, mobile trailers, and non-affixed modular structured. We had suspected that the DFA might follow suit in its final proposed rules, especially because such structures are popular for cannabis farms, but it has not—no such explicit restriction appears in the DFA’s proposed final regulations.

Ownership, Financial Interests and Disclosure. There is also an interesting difference between ownership and financial interest holder disclosure requirements between the BCC and DFA proposed final rules. We previously wrote about how the BCC’s proposed final rules could sweep some landlords into the definition of “owner” or “financial interest holder” depending on the landlord’s relationship with the tenant. But another important difference between the BCC and DFA rules that we thought would be reconciled in the final rules but apparently will not be is the extent to which entities (as opposed to persons) that qualify as “owners” or “financial interest holders” of BCC licensee must undergo vetting and disclosure all the way up the chain of entity ownership, whereas there is no such explicit requirement for DPH or DFA licensees. We will be writing more on this specific difference in the coming days. Stay tuned.

employment law oregon cannabisOwning a cannabis business can present formidable challenges. Adhering to the OLCC rules can be complex in and of itself, but your business must also comply with an array of state and federal employment laws and regulations.

If you are an OLCC licensed cannabis business with employees, Harris Bricken employment lawyer Megan Vaniman will present a free webinar tomorrow, December 12, 2018 at 12pm PST to help you better understand these issues. Throughout the presentation, Megan will discuss how to navigate employment law for cannabis businesses, and provide you with tips and tricks to ensure compliance. Topics Include:

  • What to consider when hiring
  • Oregon’s sick leave requirements
  • Oregon and Portland’s “ban-the-box” ordinance
  • Final pay checks
  • Independent Contractor vs Employee designation

Moderated by Harris Bricken cannabis attorney Vince Sliwoski, Megan will also address audience questions throughout the presentation. Please register by clicking here. For any additional questions regarding the webinar, please contact firm@harrisbricken.com. We hope you can join us!

marijuana montana employmentMedical marijuana is legal in Montana. Unfortunately, that does not prevent local employers from terminating workers for legal, off-work use of marijuana in the state.

In 2010, while already employed by Charter Communications, LLC, Lance Carlson was issued a medical marijuana card under Montana Medical Marijuana Act to treat chronic low back and stomach pain. The medical marijuana card allowed Mr. Carlson to legally use marijuana to treat the conditions. In 2016, Mr. Carlson was involved in a work-related motor-vehicle accident. A urinalysis that followed the accident tested positive for THC. Mr. Carlson was promptly terminated as a result of the drug test.

Mr. Carlson initially brought suit against his former employer in Montana state court, alleging the former employer had wrongfully terminated him in violation of the Discrimination Under the Montana Human Rights Act— specifically, that his employer had discriminated against him because of a disability. The case was removed to Federal District Court. Charter Communications quickly moved for a motion to dismiss arguing that the Montana Marijuana Act allowed them to terminate Mr. Carlson for his medical marijuana use. Mr. Carlson appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit, in an unpublished opinion, upheld the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit specifically relied on the carve-out of Montana’s medical marijuana act that states employers are allowed to prohibit employees from using marijuana. Mr. Carlson challenged that exact regulation as unconstitutional. However, the Ninth Circuit determined it was constitutional because it was “rationally related to Montana’s legitimate state interest in providing careful regulation of access to an otherwise illegal substance for the limited use by persons for whom there is little or no other effective alternative…”

Given the general trend for acceptance of marijuana, the Ninth Circuit decision is disappointing, even though it is unpublished and therefore sets no legal precedent. However, the problem does not generally lie with the Ninth Circuit, but instead with Montana’s state law. Now is the time to lobby Montana officials to have the Montana Medical Marijuana Act revised to protect employee’s off-work medical marijuana use.

Montana is not alone in allowing employers to terminate employee for their legal off-work use of marijuana. Oregon, similarly, has a statute that does not require employers to accommodate employees’ off-work use of medical marijuana. Way back in 2010, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the statute prohibiting disability discrimination in employment does not protect medical marijuana users. Washington’s laws do not require employers to accommodate employee’s medical marijuana use either. Colorado, another state on the forefront of adult use legalization, still allows employers to terminate employees for medical marijuana use, too.

While Oregon and California have struggled to pass legislation protecting employee’s off-work medical marijuana use, other states have managed. These laws typically create a carve-out for employers who contract with the federal government and therefore are required to have a drug-free workplace. Federal legislators also have recently introduced legislation  to protect off-work marijuana use. Currently the bipartisan bill is stalled in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

I suspect eventually the states discussed in this blog post will catch up with the changing of the times, but until then, be aware that many states allow employers to terminate employees for their legal use of marijuana—medical or otherwise.

Editor’s Note: This blog post first ran on December 6. We are re-publishing it here because a platform glitch erased the initial publication.

Oregon psilocybin psychedelic mushrooms

Back in August, I covered the landmark Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug trial approval for psilocybin, the naturally occurring, psychedelic ingredient found in around 200 species of mushrooms. I speculated that if everything goes well, we could see an approved psilocybin drug hit the market sometime in the next 5 to 10 years. I also mentioned that it’s possible that psilocybin could be legalized in certain states before that, including Oregon. Last month that came one step closer to happening, when Oregon Attorney General approved ballot measure language to legalize psilocybin statewide.

Initiative Petition 2020-12 (the “Initiative”) can be found here, and a link to the Official PSI 2020 Campaign Website can be found here. If you just want to see a summary of the Initiative ballot title as it would appear in 2020, though, we’ve got you covered:

Currently, federal/state law prohibits the manufacture, delivery, and possession of psilocybin (hallucinogen from fungus). Initiative amends state law to reduce most criminal penalties for unlawful/unlicensed psilocybin manufacture, delivery, possession to violations or misdemeanors; retains felonies for large weight of psilocybin and/or some convicted felons. Initiative amends state law to require Oregon Health Authority (OHA) to establish Oregon Psilocybin Services Program to allow licensed/regulated production, processing, delivery, possession of psilocybin, and administration of “psilocybin service” (defined) by licensed “facilitator” (defined) to “qualified client” (defined). Grants OHA authority to implement, administer, and enforce program. Establishes fund for program administration and OHA appointed advisory board to advise OHA director. Preempts local laws inconsistent with program except “reasonable regulations” (defined). Other provisions.

That’s a fair bit to digest, but if you’ve been around this stuff for a while you might observe that the Initiative offers a structure similar to Oregon’s early-stage medical marijuana program. That program also: 1) was borne of an initiative back in 1998; 2) was solely administered by OHA (through its predecessor); 3) reduced criminal penalties, and 4) created a doctor-patient-caregiver program similar to the facilitator-client concept on offer for psilocybin. It appears that the Initiative’s chief petitioners are wisely working off the model.

The steep and imminent challenge for the petitioners is the requirement to gather 140,000 signatures over the next 18 months in order to get the Initiative onto the ballot. If that somehow happens, an even steeper challenge will be convincing 51% of everybody to vote “Yes” to legalizing psilocybin. All in all, it feels like a bit much, even for Oregon. Our guess is that the signatures hurdle will sink the initiative, as recently occurred with a similar effort in California.

Still, you never know. Oregon can boast a history of progressive action on controlled substances, dating back to 1973 when it became the first state to decriminalize possession of small amounts of cannabis. That action was taken against the strong headwinds of the recently enacted federal Controlled Substances Act. Today, the zeitgeist is quite a bit different.

If you want to get involved in legalizing psilocybin in Oregon, the landing page for volunteers is here. Otherwise, we will keep you posted on any major developments as they arise.

california cannabis BCC

Today, the Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC) published its Proposed Text of Regulations Submitted to Office of Administrative Law for review here. We are still in the process of reviewing everything, but there are enough ambiguities to cause us a good deal of concern, particularly with respect to IP licensing and contract manufacturing agreements.

We are also reviewing the BCC’s responses to comments submitted on the proposed regulations back in early November, of which there are about a thousand pages. We’ll be analyzing the regulations section by section and writing about all of the changes over the course of the next week.

Stay tuned.