Here's an attempt at a basic and humble current assessment as regards the legal status of the nascent cannabis / marijuana (hereinafter referred to as CbMj) industry in Los Angeles. During the remaining four+ months until California becomes a partially-fledged 'recreational use' state, many local governmental agencies and departments will be scrambling to meet a new and wide array of regulations, policies, procedures, and other challenging changes during a complex period of transition. Are all the bureaucrats in Sacramento as well as staffs and officials in the city of Los Angeles equal to such challenges? The impacts of this [developing] multibillion-dollar industry on various financial, political, governmental, social, and cultural landscapes in Los Angeles and across California are already heaping lots of pressure on many of the various parties busy responding to the myriad issues while looking anxiously towards next year.
*****
1. National Notes - Not Acting is Still a Choice
Before considering any of the CbMj-related matters based in Sacramento or heard in Los Angeles, it's best to note a few of the indications coming from federal administrators in Washington D.C. The antiquated collection of national laws now governing all things CaMj-related is a huge mess in need of a massive, costly [albeit highly unlikely] overhaul. In 2013, after finally taking a substantial position, the Obama administration sent out a policy statement "directing U.S. Attorneys not to direct resources toward prosecuting individuals and businesses acting in compliance with state medical marijuana laws." A sensible effort open to legal interpretation, it was, nonetheless, the least and last attempt to satisfy the rapidly growing CaMj lobby now supporting numerous state's initiatives. Among a host of various federal and other policy interests it promotes for hefty fees, the NCIA argues that: "State-legal cannabis businesses should not pay higher effective tax rates than other businesses or struggle to find bank accounts. And business owners certainly should not face the possibility of arrest and prosecution by federal authorities when they are acting in compliance with state and local laws." Such considerations reflect complex matters that the current administration has yet to address in any meaningful way.
*****
2. State Summary - Quandary or Bonanza
After about two decades of a comparatively quiet state of medical CbMj matters in California, in November 2016 proponents passed Proposition 64 which legalized the recreational use of marijuana under state law, by adults 21 or older. Since then, state legislators have opted to combine law they passed in 2015, (the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act or MCRSA), with the mandate voters approved last year, (the Adult Use of Marijuana Act or AUMA). California's resulting enactment (the Medical and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act or MAUCRSA) will begin to make its effects more widely known in a few months. On their website, the BRMC (Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation) states that it: "is not issuing licenses at this time. The DCA recommends interested parties continue to work with their city or county governments to procure the local licenses and permits required to establish a medical cannabis business." On the streets of L.A. and elsewhere, it's somewhat of a 'free ride' time for retail CbMj shops and their customers as matters such as compliance, recommendations, and identification requirements are being set aside, presumably until the new legislation takes effect on Tuesday, January 2, 2018. Senate Bill No. 94 which was published June 27, 2017 sets forth the detailed legalese that agencies, departments, officials, staff, employees, businesses, associations, and consumers are trying very hard to digest and apply before making even preliminary approaches to any county or city-related regulations. It's a monumental undertaking 😵.
*****
3. The Local Scene - Clouds Over L.A.
In June, the Los Angeles City Council released its first Draft Commercial Cannabis Activity Requirements which it intends to finalize by the end of the year. This proposed (50+ page) policy has entrepreneurs, businesses, lawyers, and advocates scrambling as they try to participate with the city "to develop a framework for operating in Los Angeles," according to a spokeswoman for City Council President Herb (no pun intended) Wesson. As that single, specific process has been added to a local bureaucracy that typically has various departments acting in uncoordinated ways, business owners and operators are often perceiving "that the city is hostile toward the cannabis industry." A recent article by John Shroyer in the Marijuana Business Daily outlines how reports of raids and harassment are common even though the LAPD has clearly stated that cannabis is generally not a law enforcement priority. According to Lt. Stacy Spell: “We’re looking at this as a business model that California has accepted, so my message to most cops is accept it and make sure (cannabis companies are) doing business in a way that’s not going to be a threat to public safety. Our folks are not going out and doing warrants (at marijuana businesses) unless they have a significant complaint.” That's not too reassuring for anyone concerned or involved with the local CbMj industry. While the overall degree of uncertainty is sure to remain high as the proposed regulatory system is being tweaked, the confusing and ramshackle provisions of an obsolete Proposition 'D' will remain the de facto law of L.A. 🌿
No comments:
Post a Comment