Posted on

Much Ado About RICO and Cannabis, Part 2

Lipstick-Pig-320x311.jpeg


Defendants describe the lawsuit as an “attempt to put some shiny federal lipstick on an otherwise quite beleaguered pig of a state-law nuisance claim.”

We’ve previously discussed a RICO case that is slowly worming its way through federal court in Portland, Oregon. Styled as McCart v. Beddow et al., the case was filed by an attorney who is fed up with two neighboring cannabis grow operations next to her rural home. But rather than focusing solely on the allegedly troublesome cannabis producers, the McCart plaintiffs have filed suit against anyone even tangentially related to the producers’ business, including many dispensaries (“Dispensary Defendants”) that only purchased their product. We counted over 70 named defendants!

In our previous discussion, we suggested that the plaintiffs’ case against the Dispensary Defendants is fairly weak and our opinion hasn’t changed. Since we last checked in, the plaintiffs have filed a substantially expanded amended complaint, and numerous defendants have filed motions to dismiss. Although the Court won’t consider the motions to dismiss until January, it is worth checking in on the parties’ current positions. We are going to continue to focus on the Dispensary Defendants because there could be serious repercussions in the industry if the Dispensary Defendants are found liable even though they apparently didn’t have anything to do with the grow operation.

The Law

RICO law is complex, but as a general matter the RICO statutes allow a plaintiff to recover treble damages in a civil claim if the plaintiff can prove the following:

  • The existence of an “enterprise” affecting interstate or foreign commerce;
  • The specific defendant was employed by or associated with the enterprise;
  • The specific defendant conducted or participated in the conduct of the enterprise’s affairs;
  • The specific defendant’s participation was through a pattern of racketeering activity; and
  • Plaintiff’s business or property was injured by reason of defendant’s conducting or participating in the conduct of the enterprise’s affairs.

Of course, the devil is in the details, as the Dispensary Defendants point out in their motion to dismiss.

The Amended Complaint

The plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on September 1, which added 95 paragraphs onto their hefty original complaint. The amended complaint adds many new defendants, including employees at the farms and it alleges that nearly all of the defendants were exporting product out of Oregon.

In broad terms, the plaintiffs’ claims against the Dispensary Defendants have not changed in that they still allege the following:

  1. The cannabis grow operation (“Marijuana Operation”) is an enterprise affecting interstate commerce, as defined in the RICO statutes;
  2. All of the defendants were associated with and conducted the Marijuana Operation’s affairs through racketeering activity;
  3. Plaintiffs suffered a variety of kinds of harm as a result of the Marijuana Operation:
    1. Physical Injury to Real Property: littering, driveway damage, tire tracks, damage to some trail cameras, and unreasonable use of easements.
    2. Diminution of Property Value: noise pollution, light pollution, vibration, odors, exhaust fumes.
    3. Personal Injuries: harassment and damage to plaintiffs’ use and quiet enjoyment of their property.

The Motions to Dismiss

Eighteen Dispensary Defendants joined together in a single motion asking the Court to throw out plaintiff’s entire case against them. Their motion is well worth the read, not least for its colorful language, such as the lipstick-on-a-pig quote below the pig picture above. The arguments in this motion fit into two general categories:

The Dispensary Defendants are not part of a racketeering enterprise.

To establish an “enterprise” exists for RICO purposes, plaintiffs must show there was an ongoing organization with a common purpose. Both of these elements get to the same idea: a criminal enterprise is a group of people all working together to enrich themselves. Courts have found “ongoing organizations” among disparate businesses when there are legitimate interconnections between the entities, such as similar ownership and overlap in personnel. Similarly, courts have found a common purpose where the alleged members are working to promote a single economic interest, and not where they are simply pursuing individual economic interests. There don’t appear to be any of these kinds of links in this case. The Dispensary Defendants appear to be owned, operated, and staffed by distinct individuals working towards their own individual business purposes. This ties back to our initial read of this case: mere supplier-purchaser relationships like these do not rise to the level of RICO enterprises.

In any event, plaintiffs need to establish that the Dispensary Defendants were associated with and conducted or participated in the enterprise. Yet plaintiffs have not alleged that the Dispensary Defendants had any say over the operation of the farms. Their case against the Dispensary Defendants will likely die here.

Plaintiffs’ alleged harms cannot be recovered as a matter of law.

Even assuming plaintiffs can get over the hurdle of establishing that the Dispensary Defendants directed the farms, plaintiffs still must establish that their specific harms are actionable. The Dispensary Defendants also seem to be on the right side of the law here, arguing that the alleged harms and the speculative claim that the value of plaintiffs’ home has decreased cannot form the basis of a RICO claim against any of the defendants and cannot form the basis of a state-law claim nuisance claim against the Dispensary Defendants, in particular.

The plaintiffs face a number of legal obstacles that seem insurmountable. First and foremost, Oregon has long since decided that it is in the best interests of the state to protect farming uses and it has decided to treat cannabis the same as any other farm crop. Accordingly, Oregon’s Right to Farm Act likely bars plaintiffs’ nuisance and trespass claims for damages based on odors, noise pollution, light pollution, vibrations, and smoke fumes. The Dispensary Defendants rely on ORS 30.936(1), which provides farmers in farming areas with immunity from suit for any trespass or nuisance claims, defined elsewhere as claims “based on noise, vibration, odors, smoke, dust, mist from irrigation, use of pesticides and use of crop production substances.” Since RICO case law suggests that harms to property interests should be determined by state law, plaintiffs’ diminution of value claims are likely dead on arrival.

In any event, plaintiffs’ specific diminution of value claims are likely too speculative. The Dispensary Defendants argue that a RICO plaintiff must plead and prove that plaintiff has suffered a “concrete financial loss” but that plaintiffs’ complaint only contains pure guesswork that the odors, etc. diminished the value of plaintiffs’ property. Even if the plaintiffs could plead a specific dollar amount of diminished value, Oregon law bars claims for diminution of property value if the nuisance can be stopped. In other words, if the harm would disappear if the grow operations shut down, plaintiffs cannot recover damages for loss of value. Instead, plaintiffs should be asking the court to shut down the grow operations, which would have little to no effect on the Dispensary Defendants.

Plaintiffs will also likely fail on their claims for loss of quiet enjoyment and harassment because personal injuries like these are not compensable under RICO.

We will have to wait until next year to find out if the Court agrees with the Dispensary Defendants but we predict vindication for the dispensaries. In fact, we predict the claims against all of the defendants will get tossed, except possibly some small state-law claims. It seems that if you are a good neighbor and you don’t set up your operations next door to property owned by a lawyer, then you’ll likely never be drawn into a mess like this.

Posted on

Canada Cannabis Update

Canada_-_Cannabis_Day_Marijuana_Party_2014_@_Art_Gallery_14533449166-213x320.jpg

It has been a while since we looked at how our good neighbors to the north have been doing with their legalization effort. Uruguay is still the only country to implement a nation-wide legalization system including legalized sales, but it has run into some implementation problems because of lack of access to the American financial system. Canada has a stronger domestic financial industry than Uruguay and both the Bank of Montreal and Toronto –Dominion Bank, among others, appear to have more tolerance for the marijuana industry. But as has been reported over the last couple of weeks, things have not been simple in Canada, where the government has announced that it plans to legalize marijuana by July 2018.

In the United States, most state legalization measures have occurred through ballot measures as opposed to through legislative processes. That approach comes with both pros and cons. On one hand, a ballot measure process can occur relatively quickly. An initiative is drafted by a campaign using whatever stakeholders the campaign wants to assist in drafting, the campaign goes out to get sufficient signatures to put the initiative on a ballot, people campaign for and against the measure, and the people all vote on the measure on a pre-determined date. Once you get past the initial drafting stage, there isn’t much in the way of horse-trading. The measure is what it is. The legislative process, on the other hand, is a never-ending process of starts and stops. Legislation can be drafted, amended, put forth for debate, and withdrawn countless times before it ever gets voted on.

Many stakeholders in Canada have been voicing their concerns about Canada’s proposed legislation. As it stands, the law would give significant authority to individual provinces to develop and implement distribution networks. But many of the provinces have viewed that grant of authority primarily as an additional cost burden. So, Prime Minister Trudeau’s government moved to increase local revenues by adding a 10 percent excise tax. Though this isn’t enough to stop the Premiers from Manitoba, Quebec, and Nova Scotia from grousing that the revenues won’t be very high, it is a push in their direction.

One interesting wrinkle in Canada is the level of potential government involvement in cannabis sales. Ontario, Alberta, and Quebec are all looking at publicly participating directly in the retail system. Ontario plans to open 40 stores through its Liquor Control Board by next summer. This hasn’t been met with enthusiasm by local consumers, who fear government involvement will lead to inferior product on store shelves. Other commentators and industry watchers fear public cannabis monopolies in Alberta and Ontario will open the door to continued illegal market activity.

But as we have seen across the United States, opening a legal marketplace takes a long time and it seems unlikely that by July 2018 Canada will be bustling with open marijuana retail stores packed with product, whether government-owned or privately owned. It looks like the liberal government is moving forward with full steam, but there will continue to be fits and starts along the way before the Canadian market is close to being settled. But on the bright side, even if local retail marijuana isn’t available, Canada Post, the Canadian version of the U.S. Post Office, is going to start delivering recreational marijuana through the mail as soon as legalization moves forward. Maybe physical retail marijuana’s main fear shouldn’t be government regulation — it should be mail-based competition.

Posted on

Reading the Cannabis Leaves: California’s Bureau of Cannabis Control Releases Responses to Summarized Public Comments

22Rules_and_Regulations...Threshing_Committee_of_the_U.S._Food_Administration_for_Knox_Co.22_-_NARA_-_512713-740x512.jpg

Last week, California’s Bureau of Cannabis Control (“BCC“) finally announced the withdrawal of the MCRSA retailer, transporter, and distributor rules in light of the passage of the Medicinal and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (“MAUCRSA” a/k/a SB 94) this past June. With that announcement also came some insight from the BCC on what we can expect in the emergency MAUCRSA rules that will drop this November. Specifically, the BCC posted on the California Cannabis Portal website that:

The three cannabis licensing authorities are in the process of drafting emergency regulations based on the new law for the commercial medicinal and adult-use cannabis industries. The licensing authorities will consider the public comments received on the draft medical cannabis regulations and use the feedback to inform the draft emergency regulations. The emergency regulations are expected to be published in November 2017.

And with that website post, the BCC also included a “high level” stakeholder-focused summary telling the public what it learned from the public comments to the MCRSA rules and how it will address those comments in the forthcoming retailer, microbusiness and distributor MAUCRSA rules.

Ultimately, it appears that the majority of public comments will be squared away automatically by MAUCRSA. For example, one summarized public comment was that specialty licenses for “delivery only” or “special events” should be created under the MCRSA (Medical Cannabis and Recreation Act). MAUCRSA takes care of both of these by allowing delivery for only retail and by providing “a state temporary event license at a county fair or district agricultural association event in local jurisdictions that authorize such events.”

There were though some summarized public comments where the BCC’s responses tell us what to expect in the future:

  1. One summarized public comment was that “The regulations should specify which party in the supply chain of transactions (manufacturer, transporter, or dispensary) bears the risk of loss and how much liability should attach.” And the BCC’s response was that liability pretty much has to be negotiated between licensees, which is 100% the right answer. We’ve blogged multiple times about the dangers of product liability (and Prop. 65 violations) in the industry and how to prepare for and shift that risk in your goods and services contracts.
  2. There were several comments about changing the definition of “owner,” lowering the 600-foot buffer requirement, and removing the mandatory labor peace agreement if you have 20 or more employees, dropping the minimum bond requirement, and other MAUCRSA-mandated operational standards, but the BCC made clear that its hands are tied because they must follow SB 94 as written.
  3. The public requested the BCC convene a hotline for assistance with applications, and the BCC replied that “The Bureau will have a call center available to help answer applicant’s questions, as well as materials on its website with information to assist applicants, licensees, and the public.”
  4. Another comment was that “The regulations should provide applicants a streamlined process for converting a business from a not-for-profit business to a for-profit business,” and the BCC punted in its response by stating that MAUCRSA doesn’t require any particular business structure for operation (again, the old collective model is not mandatory for compliance with MAUCRSA, so, if your local jurisdiction permits it, you should begin to think about corporate conversion as application time ramps up).
  5. Colocation of multiple licenses at the same “premises” is still up in the air and the BCC will address it in the emergency rules. Helpfully, AB 133 removed the “separate and distinct” requirement for multiple licenses and licenses of different types.
  6. Regarding comments about continued operations to ensure no disruption of services and goods to qualified patients, the BCC’s response is that temporary licensing should serve to prevent that disconnect.
  7. The public commented that licenses should themselves be transferable and the BCC responded that “By law, each owner must meet certain requirements to hold a license, therefore, a new application is needed. The Bureau is evaluating if a notification, rather than a new application, is appropriate when changes in persons with a financial interest in the business do not include a new owner, who is required to submit fingerprints.” Given that the withdrawn MCRSA rules rendered licenses non-transferable, we’re likely to see that again in the MAUCRSA rules, which means business purchases will likely be the only way to get a hold of a license — as long as you notify the BCC beforehand and the BCC approves that ownership change request. In any event, you should be aware of California’s M & A red flags.
  8. Summarized public comment wanted the distributor license eliminated or small businesses be able to self-distribute. The BCC responded it can’t get rid of the distributor license because it’s required under MAUCRSA, but that it is considering creating another distributor license for transportation only. Not to worry folks, you can self-distribute and you don’t need to contract with a distributor anymore to make a sale to a retailer.
  9. The BCC is reviewing whether cannabis licensees will be able to engage in “other [non-cannabis] activities.” This review came from a summarized public comment that distributors should be able to store and distribute non-cannabis related products. In all other states, licensees are restricted to only commercial cannabis activity for their license type so it would be groundbreaking if California were to go against that norm by allowing California cannabis licensees to take on other lines of business.
  10. The BCC isn’t going to allow for delivery or transport of cannabis other than by enclosed motor vehicle with sufficient GPS tracking despite summarized comments that the BCC should relax restrictions to allow for bike couriers and other modes for transporting cannabis product.
  11. On delivery, public comments asked that the BCC allow delivery by third party contractors or couriers. The BCC batted back, citing to MAUCRSA, which only allows delivery by “an employee of a licensed retailer, microbusiness, or non-profit.”
  12. Summarized public comments also leaned towards asking BCC fees for licenses be set according to a sliding scale of total net revenue. In response, the BCC stated that “Business and Professions Code section 26180 requires that fees are set on a scaled basis based on the size of the business. The Bureau is examining what method is most appropriate to determine the scaled fee, including total net revenue.”

All in all, the BCC has its work cut out for it as it goes back to the drawing board on the MAUCRSA regulations. Many issues will be out of the BCC’s control because MAUCRSA requires certain unchangeable operational standards and restrictions. November will fill in many of the outstanding “don’t knows” that still remain for California cannabis rule-making, so stay tuned.

Posted on

Oregon Cannabis: Long Licensing Delays Creating Headaches

Expect_Heavy_Delays_Traffic_Sign_24011850854-740x435.jpg


New Oregon recreational cannabis businesses are waiting over five months to get licensed.

It is a daily frustration for our clients in the licensing pipeline in Oregon. Some applicants have been waiting for over five months to have an inspector assigned by the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (“OLCC”). These delays mean lost time and lost profits. Some form of the following conversation can be overheard at our Portland office on an almost daily basis:

Client: How long will the OLCC application process take?

Lawyer: About five to six months, if your first application is perfect.

Client: What can we do to speed that up?

Lawyer: Nothing, really.

Client: Why?

Though the process can be incredibly frustrating, it is important to keep in mind that the fault rarely lies with the employees at the OLCC. The OLCC has simply been overwhelmed by the number of cannabis license applications. At a speech earlier this year, the OLCC’s Administrative Policy & Process Director, Jesse Sweet, said the OLCC has received twice the number of applications as budgeted for. The OLCC is short staffed and no matter how frustrated you might become, it will never hurt to be kind to your overworked OLCC contact.

The OLCC maintains up to date records of cannabis applications granted and received in Oregon, and the statistics are alarming. As of this week, the OLCC has 1,536 active cannabis licenses and 1,390 pending applications. In other words, the OLCC is currently processing nearly as many applications as the number of licenses it has issued since the beginning of Oregon’s recreational cannabis program! In fact, there are more producers currently waiting for their licenses than there are existing licensed cannabis growers.

There is a bit of good news/bad news in all of this though. Yes, things are taking a long time, but a large reason for the massive number of cannabis license applications is because Oregon is a very good state in which to start up and operate a cannabis business. The applications are relatively cheap and easy and Oregon remains one of the few states that are open to licensing out-of-state individuals and companies, including individuals and companies located outside the United States. It was no accident that after analyzing all 50 states last year (and the beginning of this year) we chose Oregon as the best for cannabis.

There isn’t much that can be done, except to be patient. However, if you really want to get involved, the OLCC recently announced it is looking to fill a management position to oversee licensee activities in the Portland Metropolitan area. The OLCC is accepting applications through October 10, so there is still time.

Posted on

The Incredible, Shrinking, Anti-Cannabis Administration

33074507010_4918f26e93_b-320x228.jpg


Leaving on a jet plane

Tom Price, Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), resigned his post last week amid public health and personal travel debacles. Mr. Price’s resignation drew very little coverage from cannabis reporters, however, which was sort of strange because the HHS Secretary wields more influence over cannabis law and policy than any other public official besides Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and whomever the new DEA Administrator turns out to be. If marijuana is ever to be re- or descheduled administratively, it will have to go through HHS.

The federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), at 21 USC §811, provides that the Attorney General may remove drugs from the CSA: (1) on “his” own motion; (2) at the request of the HHS Secretary; or (3) on the petition of any interested party. Number 1 will never happen and number 3 has often failed, but if a reasonable HHS Secretary were appointed, number 2 could get people talking. CSA §811 further provides that prior to the Attorney General moving drugs around, he must consult with HHS for scientific and medical findings. HHS recommendations to the Attorney General are binding, including any “do not control” recommendation.

HHS is also senior on its organizational chart to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a well-known agency with the power to conduct independent research on marijuana and to approve cannabis-based pharmaceuticals. The FDA is the agency that works with HHS whenever “any interested party” makes a petition to remove a drug from the CSA, as referenced above. In fact, the FDA made one such recommendation to HHS and DEA last year on marijuana. Unfortunately, it chose the status quo.

Tom Price was an old-school, War on Drugs hardliner, whose judgment as to cannabis was nearly as bad as his judgment on government travel. Cannabis advocates should be glad to see him go. Given the composition of President Trump’s cabinet, however, it seems unlikely we will have a fair-minded HHS Secretary anytime soon. Most of the candidates being floated as replacements have poor or unascertainable records on marijuana policy.

Ultimately, it seems more likely that marijuana will be re- or descheduled through Congressional action than administrative channels. And as it stands today, two of the three most critical cabinet posts on cannabis—the HHS Secretary and the DEA Chief—are oddly vacant. For cannabis professionals and consumers alike, it seems better to have these posts remain vacant, than occupied by the Chuck Rosenbergs and Tom Prices of the world.

Let’s enjoy it while it lasts.

Posted on

Is California Cannabis Coming to a Place Near You?

do-it-now-1432945_1920-740x740.png


Attend your local california cannabis hearings

One of the first questions clients usually ask our California cannabis lawyers is “where can I operate or expand my cannabis business?” That is because even though Californians voted for the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (a/k/a AUMA or Prop 64) California counties and cities are free to enact their own restrictions on cannabis businesses operating within their jurisdiction.

If you’ve been reading our California Cannabis Countdown series you know that to get a California State cannabis license you first need a license from your local city or county. Further complicating things is that prior to enactment of the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act of 2015 (MCRSA), many cannabis businesses were operating in an unregulated gray market or with tacit approval from their local government because few jurisdictions had their own medical cannabis ordinances and permitting processes in place. When the MCRSA and AUMA passed, most local jurisdictions created their own licensing processes so as to be able to receive a portion of California’s cannabis licensing fees and taxes.

Last week I spoke to the Marin County Bar Association on cannabis ordinances in Marin County and its municipalities. Except for Fairfax, the rest of Marin is generally not friendly towards medical cannabis. If you’re asking why I’m not talking about adult-use cannabis it’s because you’ve got to crawl before you can walk and Marin’s still figuring out how to crawl when it comes to cannabis. Both Marin County and its cities are still contemplating whether to allow medical cannabis; adult use cannabis is most likely quite some time away.

When a California city or county is trying to decide whether to allow cannabis businesses within their jurisdiction, the first thing they do is hold public hearings, with notice of the hearing made online or in the local paper. If your local government has a relevant listserv, I recommend you sign up as that’s the easiest way to stay informed. Our California cannabis attorneys regularly attend public hearings to advocate for our clients and for the cannabis industry and here is our top five list of what you should do if you would like to see your jurisdiction adopt reasonable/favorable cannabis regulations:

  1. Show up. You know the old saying about how 80% of life is showing up? Well, if you want your local jurisdiction to adopt reasonable cannabis regulations you need to show up to these hearings and voice your support – in large numbers.
  2. Be reasonable. Talk to your neighbors and local businesses. Maybe you’ll find out that a dispensary will be heavily opposed but the community is open to manufacturing, testing, and deliveries.
  3. Know your facts. Your local councilman or supervisor probably has a full-time job; most are volunteers with family obligations and work deadlines. They don’t have time to delve into the weeds (pun intended) of the cannabis industry. They want to be informed so let them know what they can expect in tax revenue. How about crime statistics in similar localities? What percentage of local residents voted for Prop 64? They probably don’t have this information so provide it to them. Help them so they can help you.
  4. Parking and traffic. Besides parking garage owners, no one likes a shortage of public parking. If you’re hoping your jurisdiction adopts a dispensary ordinance make sure you address parking and traffic.
  5. SHOW UP! I mention it twice because it’s that important. Time and time again, we’ve seen local legislators get cold feet because naysayers show up to public hearings in full force while proponents stay at home. You need to be there to balance the scales.

The California state agencies that will issue licenses (Bureau of Cannabis Control, Department of Food and Agriculture, and Department of Public Health) can only do so if your local jurisdiction allows it. Don’t take for granted that your local legislators will allow cannabis businesses in your town. Activism has been a hallmark of the cannabis industry for a long time and if you want to see cannabis businesses (either medical or adult-use) in your jurisdiction of choice, it could very well be up to you to help achieve that.

Posted on

Oregon’s Josephine County Halts Effort to Eliminate Many Cannabis Farms

Public_Hearing_Sign_23649188782-320x210.jpg


On September 20, the Josephine County Board of Commissions held a public hearing on proposed zoning amendments that meant life or death for many small cannabis farmers.

At the end of last year, we discussed the successful efforts of Jackson County, Oregon to remove cannabis production as an allowed use in its rural residential zones. This led to an uproar among some growers, and a failed appeal before Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA).

For the past several months, Josephine County has been following suit, moving full steam ahead towards severely curtailing cannabis cultivation as an allowed use in residential rural zones throughout the county. This spring, the Board of Josephine County Commissions (“Board”) placed Measure 17-81 on the Josephine County 2017 Special Election ballot, which asked voters to provide a non-binding advisory opinion: “In your opinion, should Josephine County prohibit the production of commercial, recreational marijuana in all rural residential zones?” Approximately 64% of voters said yes.

The Board listened, and in July 2017, the Board authorized the Josephine County Planning Director to invite applications for proposed language for amendments to the Josephine County zoning codes. The Rural Planning Commission held a public hearing at the end of August and issued draft language for the amendment. The language appeared designed to outright ban medical grow sites, and while it did not outright prohibit recreational cannabis cultivation, it did place severe restrictions that seemed to be written with the hope that no one would ever be able to comply.

Fortunately, over the weekend the Board threw out the planned draft language, thanks to the combined efforts of several licensed farms in the area, including East Fork Cultivars and Medicinal Roots, with the support of the Craft Cannabis Alliance.  (Full disclosure: Harris Bricken is a founding member of the Craft Cannabis Alliance).

This team utilized a savvy media strategy focused on educating Board members and the public. One lesson to be learned from this effort is the importance of engaging respectfully and eloquently at public hearings on any proposed cannabis regulations. For example, at the September 20, 2017 public hearing on these proposed amendments, Yusef Guient, of Medicinal Roots, spoke passionately about the effect the amendment would have had on his small family farm:

As family farmers, local business owners, neighbors and community members, we respectfully urge the commissioners to reject the proposed ordinance. The proposed amendments miss the mark by harming local family farms that are fully licensed and compliant and have invested tremendous resources in order to meet strict state regulations, as well as undermining the efforts of medical farms that are currently preparing to adapt to much higher levels of regulation and scrutiny. Further, the changes as written would expose the county to potential litigation costs without solving the issues raised by community members. Instead, we request that the county allow time for legislative changes to take effect, and to continue to bring community members together through the advisory committee process that is just now getting underway. We can create reasonable regulations that protect livability and public safety while supporting family farms, creating local jobs, and creating a lasting economic opportunity for Josephine County.

It appears the Board was swayed, at least in part, by these and other cogent arguments that the State legislature is aware of the prevalence of black market farming in southern Oregon and is taking appropriate steps. The team argued successfully that the recent changes set forth in SB 1057, including seed-to-sale tracking for medical operations, should be given time to work. However, the team and the Board still recognize the need for more precise regulations that target bad actors in Josephine County, and the Commissioners are going back to the drawing board.

Josephine County will not be the last county to attempt to reign in cannabis production with an axe instead of a scalpel, and the battle for common sense regulations in Josephine County is far from over. With that in mind, it is worth looking at the draconian draft zoning changes that almost became the law of the land. Under the draft amendment as previously proposed:

  1. Any OLCC licensed site would need a 300 ft setback on all sides. Currently the code requires a setback of 30ft in the front, 10ft on the sides, and 25ft in the rear.
  2. The property would need to be owned directly by the OLCC licensee. This would be problematic because many licensees lease land, or hold the land in a separate holding company for liability purposes.
  3. No OLCC site could be serviced by private road, easement, or owner maintained public right-of-way unless the OLCC producer owns all of the land adjacent to the right of way.

Any farm that couldn’t meet these requirements would have had thirty days from the date the ordinance went into effect to request a Determination of Non-conforming Use. To qualify for a non-conforming use determination, a recreational site needed to:

  1. Be in full compliance with the county codes as they existed prior to the amendments; and
  2. Either have obtained a LUCS prior to the adoption of the new ordinance amendment, or have applied for a LUCS prior to the adoption of the amendment that is being “actively processed by [the] OLCC with the intent to issue a license.”

The Board has recognized these kinds of broad brush regulations would do more harm that good, and are not appropriately focused on the few bad actors that are negatively affecting the community. Responsible cannabis cultivation can be a huge boon to local economies, but it always requires a genuine commitment to community engagement, like that on display down in Josephine County over the past few weeks.

Posted on

BFD ALERT: Los Angeles Drops Revised Prop. M Regulations for Cannabis Businesses

Los_Angeles_Skyline_at_Night.jpg


Los Angeles just came out with new cannabis regulations

California has lately been on its game with progressive changes to is cannabis laws. Last week, AB 133 passed, making needed technical fixes to the Medicinal and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (“MAUCRSA” a/k/a SB 94). And then last Thursday, California’s Bureau of Cannabis Control publicly revealed details behind its temporary licensing program (see here for the Bureau’s brochure on that process). And now the City of Los Angeles just released its 42-page revised draft regulations under Proposition M and they contain some interesting, comprehensive, and important changes from the original draft (if anyone forgets what Prop. M is, go here).

Here are some of the highlights from the revised ordinance if you’re looking to have a cannabis business in Los Angeles:

  1. Remember the controversial certificates of approval? Those have been eliminated in favor of a straight licensing program that includes provisional and permanent City licenses. This new licensing program will give applicants greater and better-protected rights to operate within the City’s borders. Upon initial approval, you will receive a provisional license and once you get your state license to operate, the City will issue you a permanent City of Los Angeles license.
  2. Under the original Prop. M draft regulations, certificates of approval were set to issue in four waves in this particular order: Prop. D-compliant existing medical marijuana dispensaries (EMMDs), non-retail registrants (i.e., growers and manufacturers), the social equity program, and then the general public. Formerly, non-retail registrants were only eligible for a certificate of approval in that second wave if they could show they were operating in the City before January 1, 2016. That’s all changed as there is no longer any non-retail registry priority.
  3. The City of Los Angeles Department of Cannabis Regulation will still give first priority in processing EMMD applications that “demonstrate to the Department the EMMD has operated in compliance with the provisions of the limited immunity and tax provisions of Proposition D.” Note that in the previous draft rules, the City required “substantial compliance” with Prop. D. Once applications become available, these EMMD applicants will have only 60 days to get their applications in and, after that, that application window closes indefinitely. And, just like in the original rules for EMMDs, “any mitigating circumstances due to gaps in operations, location change or involuntary closure, ownership, tax payments, etc. must be described in detail for the Department to consider eligibility.”
  4. EMMDs will only be allowed to apply for Retailer Commercial Cannabis Activity (including delivery), which may include on-site cultivation as allowable under Prop. D. On-site cultivation in this scenario may not exceed the size of the EMMD’s existing canopy or square footage of building space as documented by a lease or Certificate of Occupancy prior to January 1, 2017. A maximum of three Licenses per EMMD with a valid Business Tax Registration Certificate will be allowed–the example the City gives is: One Type 10 (retailer), One Type 10 (retailer with delivery) AND one Type 2A OR Type 3A (on-site cultivation if applicable).
  5. One of the biggest boons for EMMDs (and for any cannabis applicant in the city of L.A.) is that “changes in ownership status from non-profit status to for-profit status are allowable.” Now is the time for all LA operators to get away from their precarious non-profit mutual benefit corporations and other bizarre corporate setups and convert to a legal, for-profit business entity that lines up with the California Corporations Code.
  6.  The City of Los Angeles is still working on its social equity program. It is expected that will be finalized and made part of the Prop. M rules sometime in October.

  7.  The general public will be allowed to apply for licenses at the same time as the social equity program opens up. The most positive change for the general public is that they are no longer limited to the number of licenses that will issue in the social equity program. Without a doubt, the general public now has a much better chance to participate in L.A.’s cannabis scene.

  8. Here’s the deal on license caps in the City: all retailers and microbusinesses in the City will be limited to three licenses at the most. There are no license caps for cultivators so long as a given business does not have more than 1.5 acres of plant canopy within the City. Type 7 volatile manufacturing is now allowed (previously it wasn’t), and there are no set caps on manufacturing licenses within the City. There also is no licensing cap for distributors.
  9. As part of the application process, applicants must provide a site diagram to the City. The premises must be a contiguous area and may only be occupied by one business. However, multiple businesses may be located on the same property (as established by an assessor’s parcel number) if each premises has “a unique entrance and immovable physical barriers between unique premises.” Our cannabis lawyers have dealt with these sorts of restrictions in other states and they are usually not a problem and should be dealt with in your lease.
  10.  Applicants must provide a detailed description and plan for hiring “local residents, including making an ongoing good-faith effort to ensure that at least 30 percent of hours of their respective workforce be performed by residents of the City of Los Angeles, of which at least 10 percent of their respective workforce shall be performed by Transitional Workers whose primary place of residence is within a 3-mile radius of the proposed Business.”

  11. An applicant with ten or more full-time equivalent employees must enter into a labor peace agreement.

  12. On the M & A front, neither the City licenses nor the businesses are transferable once a provisional or permanent license issues, but you can still apply to the City to change the business structure, which does allow for you to sell the business so long as the City of Los Angeles approves the sale. See here for more on buying cannabis businesses in Los Angeles.
  13. No licensed retailer of alcoholic beverages or tobacco products can apply for a City of Los Angeles cannabis license.

  14. Foreign companies from outside the U.S. are not allowed in the City, but the City specifically states that this prohibition “does not preclude out-of-state investment in a Business proposing to conduct Commercial Cannabis Activity.” If you are thinking about investing in a California cannabis businesses, you should be sure to join us at our September 28th California Cannabis Investment Forum in San Francisco. But do NOT wait because we must limit the number attendees to 250 and we are getting dangerously close to that already.
  15. The City is still discussing what to do about zoning for cannabis businesses and changes to that proposed ordinance are sure to affect your ability to secure an eligible property.

All in all, Los Angeles is finally starting to embrace comprehensive cannabis control and oversight with a regulatory system that should catapult it into its rightful place as a cannabis powerhouse with serious operators.

Posted on

Mr. Periods Goes to Oregon

6235840117_6fd68f13a5_b-320x213.jpg


Will the (former) Senator yield?

The Oregonian, Willamette Week, and KGW, to call a couple of, are reporting that US Lawyer Common Jeffrey Periods is visiting Portland right now to satisfy with federal and native regulation enforcement. These stories recommend Mr. Periods is on the town primarily to debate immigration, sanctuary cities, and his unconscionable place on the Deferred Motion for Childhood Arrivals program (“DACA”).

Given the current trade of letters between Oregon Governor Brown and the Lawyer Basic, it appears possible Mr. Periods has additionally come to Oregon to debate and criticize Oregon’s medical and leisure hashish packages. We’ve just lately mentioned how this trade of letters demonstrates how Oregon sits uncomfortably inside Mr. Periods’ crosshairs. Governor Brown eviscerated Mr. Periods’ reliance on a leaked, incomplete, and deceptive draft of a report ready by the Oregon State Police on hashish in Oregon. Our cash says Mr. Periods can also be right here on a fact-finding mission, to see if he can drum up some higher (or any?) sources for his claims that Oregon has thus far did not adjust to Cole Memorandum tips.

Anybody within the hashish business right here in Oregon is aware of Oregon treats these tips with the utmost respect and significance. Heck, in the event that they didn’t, our Oregon hashish enterprise legal professionals wouldn’t all be placing in 12 hour days! The Governor, the legislature, and Oregon’s related regulatory businesses, together with the Oregon Liquor Management Fee and Oregon Well being Authority, have been working tirelessly to enhance their insurance policies and procedures to make sure that Oregon’s leisure and medical hashish packages shield public security and stop criminality.

Hopefully, Mr. Periods’ go to will change his coronary heart, however I wouldn’t rely on it.

Posted on

Oregon Implements Common Pesticide Testing for Hashish

test-214185_1280-740x490.jpg

Firstly of this month, Oregon carried out a essential change to its hashish pesticide testing laws: As of August 30, 2017, each batch of hashish produced in Oregon have to be examined for pesticides previous to switch or sale. This merely wasn’t attainable a yr in the past, when the Oregon Liquor Management Fee (“OLCC”) issued a discovering that there have been not sufficient accredited labs obtainable to permit for common pesticide testing. As a stop-gap measure, the OLCC restricted testing to one-third of all batches from every harvest. In response to the OLCC, the state of affairs on the bottom has modified considerably. There at the moment are twice as many accredited labs and the Oregon Well being Authority (“OHA”) has just lately elevated testing batch sizes. The web result’s that the OLCC believes there’s now capability to make sure common pesticide testing.

We’ve written fairly a bit about how Oregon is slowly shifting duty for medical hashish from the OHA to the OLCC, however product testing stays an outlier. The OHA retains duty for issuing hashish testing guidelines for each the medical and leisure program, and has issued a few of the strictest pesticide testing necessities within the nation. With this current change, all Oregon hashish, leisure and medical, will be examined for pesticide contamination previous to switch to retailers and processors, and finally to the shoppers.