Category: State Marijuana Laws

State Marijuana Laws

Posted on

Redding is Accepting Commercial Cannabis Permits – Shouldn’t Shasta County as well?

Shasta County California

The City of Redding, California, has recently adopted a cannabis ordinance permitting no more than ten retailers of adult use cannabis and/or medical cannabis businesses and an unlimited amount of commercial marijuana cultivation (indoor only), manufacturers, processors, distributors, testing laboratories, storage facilities or deliverers of cannabis.  Although the Redding cannabis ordinance prohibits the new State business model of a cannabis microbusiness as well as cannabis events, it does permit cannabis licenses for distributors and marijuana testing labs which are in high demand on a State-wide basis as the July 1, 2018 deadline approaches for licensed cannabis facilities.  (See Redding Cannabis Regulations.)

The United States Census Bureau estimates that the population of Redding is over 91,000 (US Census Redding) which represents about one half of the population of Shasta County (US Census Shasta County).

The City of Shasta Lake, California, population over 10,000 (US Census Shasta Lake), permitted medical marijuana dispensaries some time ago and recently expanded the regulations for other commercial cannabis businesses.  (See Shasta Lake Cannabis Regulations).

If over 50% of the County has adopted some form of cannabis regulation, why isn’t the Shasta County Board of Supervisors taking steps to permit, regulate and tax commercial cannabis businesses to benefit their community?

According to a report issued by the California Growers Association released February 15, 2018, less than 25% of California’s fifty-eight counties have adopted ordinances to permit, regulate, and tax commercial cannabis activity of any kind.  (See An Emerging Crisis Barriers to Entry in California Cannabis.)  Without a local license, growers and other cannabis businesses are precluded from applying for a California state cannabis license.

Even the Northern California counties that have established commercial cannabis regulations, such as Humboldt, Trinity, Mendocino, and Sonoma, have incorporated limitations which continue to prevent established marijuana cultivators from obtaining a local cannabis license and thus access to the newly established legal state cannabis market.

Although one of the largest counties in Northern California, Shasta County has yet to embrace the opportunities of commercial cannabis cultivation in both employment and revenue.  The Shasta county-wide unemployment rate of 5.9% is approximately 1/3 greater than the state or national average.  (See Shasta County Unemployment Rate.)  Already a flourishing agricultural area, permitting both indoor and outdoor marijuana cultivation would be a natural fit.

As recently as November 14, 2017, however, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors reiterated the County ban on commercial cannabis activity.  (See Shasta County Cannabis Regulations.)

The neighboring counties of Lassen, Siskiyou, Modoc and Plumas, have also chosen to ban commercial cannabis businesses.  Tehama County went so far as to recently prohibit the cultivation of industrial hemp as well.  (See Tehama County Cannabis Regulations.)

Shasta County has a unique opportunity to adopt cutting edge cannabis regulation and taxation well in advance of neighboring counties and create a model for a thriving cannabis industry that would generate jobs and revenue for the County with little, if any, impact on current demographics.

Contact us to learn more about California state or local cannabis regulations, cannabis regulatory compliance, and cannabis litigation.

Posted on

State Medical Marijuana Programs Protected by Congress

US Congress Rohrabacher Farr Amendment

State medical marijuana programs have again been protected by the U.S. Congress despite a request by Attorney General Jeff Sessions that the protections be removed (see Jeff Sessions Letter).  Congress and the President signed off on the fiscal year 2018 omnibus funding legislation which keeps medical marijuana protection in place through September 30, 2018.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer, co-chair of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, said:

“While I’m glad that our medical marijuana protections are included, there is nothing to celebrate since Congress only maintained the status quo.  These protections have been law since 2014.  This matter should be settled once and for all.  Poll after poll shows that the majority of Americans, across every party, strongly favor the right to use medical marijuana.”

“Instead, Attorney General Jeff Sessions is doubling down on the failed War on Drugs and Republican leadership in Congress—led by Chairman Pete Sessions—is stonewalling.  They’re ignoring the will of the American people by blocking protections for state adult-use laws and cannabis banking.  They even refused our veterans access to lifesaving medicine.”

The 2018 omnibus funding legislation extends the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment (Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-California, and Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Oregon) which prohibits the use of federal funds to prevent certain States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.  That language was initially passed by Congress in 2014 as the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment (H.Amdt.748) and is now known as the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment.

Because the provision is included as part of a Congressional spending package and does not explicitly amend the US Controlled Substances Act, members must re-authorize the amendment annually.  This is the ninth time the amendment has been temporarily extended by Congress.

The Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment was supported by a bipartisan group letter to House and Senate leadership from 66 Congress members including Rep. Dana Rohrabacher and Rep. Earl Blumenauer.

Also in support of the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment was a letter from California State Treasurer John Chiang.  Read more about state cannabis law at California Cannabis Law.

In August, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. McIntosh, 833 F.3d 1163, 1177 (9th Cir. 2016), unanimously ruled that the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment bars the federal government from taking legal action against any individual involved in medical marijuana related activity absent evidence that the defendant is in clear violation of state law.

(Update: On May 17, 2018, for the first time ever, the US House Appropriations Committee approved inclusion of the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment in the Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) appropriations bill for fiscal year 2019.  On June 12, the US Senate Appropriations Committee also approved a base CJS appropriations bill with the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment included.)

Contact us to learn more about California state or local cannabis regulations, cannabis regulatory compliance, and cannabis litigation.