Tag Archives: measure

Analysis of 2020 Ballot Measures

By Laura Bianchi, Justin Brandt
No Comments

November 3 was a historic night for legalization across the country. Only a decade ago, cannabis was illegal for nonmedical use in all 50 states. Now, the tide has turned, and every presented cannabis-related initiative has passed, pushing the U.S. adult use cannabis market to 15 states with a population of over 110 million. If nothing else, this year’s election results provided clarity that American voters have become more open to the benefits of cannabis.

Here’s a list of states that passed cannabis-related measures in the 2020 election, along with an analysis of each initiative and what it means for the future: 

New Jersey: Public Question 1

New Jersey’s ballot proposed and ultimately passed the measure Public Question 1, making it the first Mid-Atlantic state to legalize adult use cannabis.

Expected to take effect January 2021, this measure legalizes the adult use of cannabis for anyone over the age of 21 along with cultivation, processing, and retail sales. The Cannabis Regulatory Commission oversees the state’s medical cannabis industry and will now be responsible for the new adult use cannabis market. However, since the ballot measure didn’t outline many details, it has left a lot of discretion up to the state’s legislature, leaving residents awaiting specifics about home-grow rules, possession limits, and other retail regulations.

Public Question 1 will apply the state sales tax of 6.625 percent. However, under this measure, the local jurisdictions are permitted to implement an additional 2 percent, so the final tax rates remain undecided. With New Jersey’s nearly 8.9 million residents, it’s projected to have adult use sales of around $375 million in just the first year and estimated to reach up to $900 million by 2024.

Mississippi: Initiative 65 & Alternative 65A

Mississippi had two competing measures on the ballot to legalize cannabis for medical purposes: Initiative 65 and Alternative 65A. Initiative 65 prevailed with 74 percent of the vote.

Between 2018 and 2019, over 228,000 Mississippi residents signed a petition that led to Initiative 65 appearing on the ballot. And by mid-2021, the legalization of medical cannabis is expected to take place. This initiative is designed to allow medical cannabis treatment for people with at least one of 22 specified qualifying conditions, including ALS, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), epilepsy and Parkinson’s disease. The passage of the initiative allows those patients to possess up to 2.5 ounces of cannabis at one time with a cannabis sales tax set at the state’s regular sales rate of 7 percent.

The Mississippi Legislature proposed the competing ballot item, Alternative 65A, in what supporters of Initiative 65 believed was an effort to confuse voters. This measure restricted the use of cannabis to only terminally ill patients but did not specify qualifying conditions, possession limits or a tax rate leaving the results somewhat ambiguous with many details to be set by Mississippi Legislature. Initiative 65 easily won over the alternative with nearly 74 percent of voters approving versus just over 26 percent for Alternative 65A.

Montana: I-190 & CI-118

Montana became the 14th state to legalize adult use, passing both cannabis-related initiatives on the ballot: Initiative 190 (I-190), which creates a legal adult use cannabis market, and Constitutional Initiative 118 (CI-118), which supplements I-190, allowing the state to establish the legal purchasing, consumption or possession age of 21.

These ballot issues will go into effect beginning January 2021. Initiative I-190 legalizes the adult use and possession of up to one ounce of cannabis or 8 grams of concentrate. It also allows individuals to cultivate up to four cannabis plants and four seedlings in their residence.

Depending on the circumstances, anyone serving cannabis-related sentences for reasons no longer considered crimes under I-190 may request to be resentenced or have their conviction expunged.

Cannabis and infused product retail sales will be taxed at 20 percent. Following the Montana Department of Revenue’s deduction of administrative costs to enforce the measure, remaining tax revenue is set to be allocated to the state’s general fund, veterans programs, conservation programs, drug addiction treatment programs, and local law enforcement and healthcare workers.

South Dakota: IM-26 & CA-A

South Dakota made history as the first state to legalize both medical and adult use in the same election, moving from total prohibition to legalization in just one night. First came Initiated Measure 26 (“IM-26”), South Dakota’s medical cannabis ballot item, passing with nearly 70 percent of the vote. Then came the adult use initiative, Constitutional Amendment A (CA-A), narrowly passing with almost 54 percent of votes.

Both ballot issues are set to go into effect on July 1, 2021. IM-26 establishes a medical program for individuals with a physician-certified debilitating medical condition. Patients can possess a maximum of three ounces of cannabis and, for patients registered to cultivate at home, they will be permitted to grow up to three plants at minimum unless otherwise prescribed by their physician. However, under this measure, the Department of Health can limit the number of cannabis products each person may possess and make amendments to the conditions qualified as debilitating.

CA-A legalizes the adult use of cannabis for adults age 21 and older, allowing possession or distribution up to one ounce, and for those living in a jurisdiction with no licensed retail stores, permitting the growth of up to six cannabis plants in a private residence. This measure also requires the state to adopt hemp laws.

Marijuana sales will be taxed at 15 percent under Amendment A, estimating revenue of $29.3 million by 2025. After any revenue is used for costs associated with implementing this measure, remaining revenue will be divided between public schools and the state’s general fund. 

Arizona: Prop 207

On November 3, voter initiative Proposition 207 passed with 60 percent of the vote, and Arizona became the 13th state to legalize adult use cannabis – a movement that’s expected to make a great addition to the state’s already thriving medical cannabis program.

Also known as the Smart and Safe Act, this initiative legalizes the possession and use of cannabis for residents age 21 and older. It requires the Department of Health and Human Services to develop the rules regulating businesses in areas like licensing of retail stores, and production and cultivation facilities. Individuals will now be allowed to grow up to six plants in their private residences, with no more than 12 plants per household.

Prop 207 placed a 16 percent excise tax on cannabis sales in addition to the state’s 5.6 percent, totaling a 21.6 percent tax. It is estimated that legal cannabis will generate $300 million in revenue, which will be divided between community college districts, municipal police, sheriff and fire departments, fire districts, highway funds and a new Justice Reinvestment Fund. This initiative also allows anyone convicted of certain cannabis-related crimes like possession, consumption, cultivation or transportation to petition for the expungement of their record beginning July 2021.

Each of the initiatives above is expected to provide a wealth of job opportunities and economic growth for their state. This transition also allows those in the cannabis law and regulation industry the chance to develop and implement meaningful and accessible social equity licensing programs. In addition to day-to-day business needs, our firm will be working closely with clients as they transition from strictly medical cannabis licenses to dual licensing. We will also help new licensees build out and develop their adult-use licenses with long-term success in mind.

Cannabis has quickly become a mainstream health and wellness solution for people all across the globe. With the estimated annual national market for cannabis being $50-$60 billion, it’s believed to be a real solution to many local economic shortfalls caused by COVID-19, opening up the country and cannabis industry to a whole new world of opportunity.

Soapbox

The Cannabis Industry, After the Election

By Serge Chistov
No Comments

While the 2020 Presidential election didn’t exactly end up in a clear landslide victory for the Democrats, there is one group that did well: the cannabis industry.

The results clearly show that the expansion of cannabis is a recognizable part of today’s society across the United States. States like New Jersey, for example, partly thanks to New York and Pennsylvania—which already allow the use of medical cannabis—traffic will start to force the state of New York’s hand and that’s a big chunk of the population of the Northeast.

If the question of legalization was on the ballot, it was an issue that overwhelmingly succeeded in delivering a clear mandate. Adult use of cannabis passed handily in Arizona, Montana, South Dakota and as mentioned above, New Jersey, and was approved for medical use in Mississippi and South Dakota. 

With only 15 states remaining in the union that still outlaw the use of cannabis in any form, the new reality for the industry is here. All of these outcomes show promise as the industry’s recognition is growing. 

Election outcomes and the position of the average American on cannabis

Americans are definitely understanding, appreciating and using cannabis more and more. It is becoming a part of everyday life and this election’s results could be the tipping point that normalizes the adult use of cannabis. It is becoming more widely understood as an effective and acceptable means to help manage stress and anxiety, aid in sleep and general overall wellbeing. 

Voters in New Jersey overwhelmingly passed their adult use measure

This image of cannabis is aided by the many different forms of consumption that exist now: edibles, transdermal, nano tech, etc. No longer does a consumer have to smoke—which isn’t accepted in many circles—to get the beneficial effects of cannabis. 

Knowledge expansion is going to move these products across state lines and eventually, the federal government will have to take notice.

Do Democrats and Republicans view cannabis through the same lens?

Cannabis is and will always be state specific. Republicans in general tend to be a little bit more cautious and there are a lot of pundits who believe that as long as the Republicans control the senate, there isn’t much of a chance for federal legalization.  

President-Elect Joe Biden & Vice President-Elect Kamala Harris

There is some hope, however, that the industry will get support from the Biden administration. While President-Elect Biden has been on record as being against legalization of cannabis at a federal level, even he will eventually see that the train has left the station and momentum continues to build. In fact, Biden’s tone has changed considerably while he running for president, adding cannabis decriminalization to the Biden-Harris campaign platform.

Ultimately, how cannabis is viewed from each side of the aisle matters less than how it is viewed at the state level. 

Cannabis reform under Biden

Biden had an opportunity to legalize cannabis federally in the U.S. during the Obama administration and it didn’t happen. It’s clear that the mandates of the Biden-Harris administration are going to be overwhelmed by current issues, at least in the beginning: COVID-19, the economy and climate change, to name but three.

What will be interesting is if the Biden-Harris administration goes to greater lengths to decriminalize cannabis. For example, cannabis is still a Schedule 1 drug on the books, which puts it in the same class as heroin. Biden couldn’t unilaterally remove cannabis from all scheduling, but his government could reschedule it to reduce the implications of its use.  

This could, however, create more problems than it solves: 

“It’s generally understood, then, that rescheduling weed would blow up the marijuana industry’s existing model, of state-licensed businesses that are not pharmacies selling cannabis products, that are not Food and Drug Administration-reviewed and approved, to customers who are not medical patients.

Biden rescheduling cannabis “would only continue the state-federal conflict, and force both state regulators and businesses to completely reconfigure themselves, putting many people out of business and costing states significant time and money,” as Morgan Fox, chief spokesperson for the National Cannabis Industry Association, said in an email on Monday.” (Source) 

In reality however, there is little chance that Biden will spend any political capital that he has, particularly if the Senate remains in Republican control, dealing with the legalization of adult use cannabis.

What needs to happen for legalization to become a reality

Outside of the law, if Trump suddenly decided to legalize adult use cannabis before leaving the White House, the states would still need to agree on issues such as possession, transportation, shipment and taxation.  

It’s clear that further normalization of cannabis use is required—which will likely take a good couple of years—in order for it to become as understood and as simple as wine, liquor or cigarettes.

Beyond that, it’s Congress that dictated that cannabis be illegal at the federal level and it will have to be Congress that makes the decision to change that. Even the Supreme Court has been reluctant to get involved in the question, believing this to be an issue that should be dealt within the House.

What does all of this mean for investment in the cannabis industry?

Cannabis should be part of most long-term investors’ portfolios. Like a group of stocks in a healthy market with the right balance sheets, cannabis is an expanding industry and growth is there.  

Whether or not this is specifically the right time to invest, it’s always important to evaluate each stock or each company individually, from the point of view of the merits of the investment and investment objectives, as well as risk tolerance perspectives.  

There isn’t any unique or special place to buy into the cannabis industry, unless it is connected to some new real estate or other opportunity that is COVID-19 related. This moment in time isn’t really any different from any other when it comes to the opportunity to own some cannabis stocks. It’s always a good time.

The short term returns of this market shouldn’t be speculated upon. There are just way more factors than the fundamentals of a company that will affect the short-term play. The country is in a transition of power, in addition to much international change taking place that can also contribute to returns in the short term, making speculation unhelpful.

The cannabis market in 2021

The cannabis industry is likely to continue to expand and grow with the select companies acquiring more and more and getting back to their cash flow. Some companies will slowly be going out of business and/or will be acquired by others going into a certain consolidation period of time. Whatever the outcomes in specific tourism dominated markets, the industry as a whole can really go in one direction. 

Cannabis Won Big: A Post-Election Analysis

By Aaron G. Biros
1 Comment

Editor’s Note: This article has been updated to include the presidential and congressional election results.


While the votes continue to come in for the presidential and congressional elections and we have some concrete results materializing, cannabis legalization has emerged as a clear winner across the board. Five states had initiatives on the ballot to legalize cannabis in one form or another and voters in all five states approved those measures by wide margins.

As of this writing, 15 states now have legalized adult use cannabis and 36 states have legalized medical cannabis. That is a significant portion of the United States with some form of legal cannabis, even without counting the emergent hemp markets across the country.

After a tight race and mail-in vote counts diminishing President Trump’s lead days following the election, Joe Biden has won the White House. Most cannabis industry stakeholders see this as a win for cannabis as both Biden and Vice President-Elect Kamala Harris have voiced support for federal decriminalization of cannabis. The vocal support is very much so tied to their campaign on ending racial injustices and systemic racism, citing the failed war on drugs for disproportionately harming communities of color.

While it is looking like the Democrats will retain control of the House of Representatives, it is still unclear which party will control the Senate. That  question likely won’t be answered until January 2021, when voters in Georgia will decide on two Senate seats in runoff elections that will decide which party gets the majority. With a Democratic majority in the House and Senate, it is entirely possible that the Biden administration could decriminalize cannabis on a federal level within the next four years. Without that majority, however, it is possible reform could come at a much slower pace.

As more states legalize cannabis, their neighbors see the potential economic benefits and want to cash in on the movement. Just take a look at the West Coast.

Comments made by politicians leading up to the election in the Northeast also shed some light on the alleged domino effect coming to the United States. In late October, about two weeks before the election, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo was asked when his state will legalize adult use cannabis. His answer: “Soon, because now we need the money.” Back in September, Pennsylvania Governor Tom wolf specifically asked the state legislature to legalize adult use cannabis. Governor Wolf said “people will go to New Jersey” to purchase cannabis once it becomes legal in the neighboring state.

Question 1 in NJ won by a very wide margin

Well, New Jersey legalized adult use cannabis. So now it appears we are in a waiting game to see which neighboring state will move forward before the other. Alyssa Jank, consulting services manager at Brightfield Group, predicts cannabis sales in New Jersey to reach about $460 million in 2021, up from about $94 million this year. She says the market could reach $1.5 billion by 2025.

Sam D’Arcangelo, director of the Cannabis Voter Project, a division of HeadCount, says the New Jersey measure is pretty bare-bones, so the legislature will need to pass enabling legislation that actually creates the adult-use program. “It’s tough to tell exactly what that legislation will look like or how long it will take to pass, but it’s possible it will be approved pretty quickly,” says D’Arcangelo. “Tonight’s results could set off a domino effect that inspires lawmakers to move forward with legalization in a number of states throughout the region.”

Let’s take a closer look at Arizona: Back in 2016, Arizona had a measure on the ballot to legalize adult use cannabis that failed to get enough votes. Things have clearly changed in the state in the last four years because Prop. 207 (the 2020 ballot initiative to legalize adult use cannabis) won 59.8% to 40.2%. Arizona now joins a massive West Coast bloc of states slowly creeping inland that have legalized adult use cannabis, including, Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada and now Arizona, not to mention Montana. Drug Policy Alliance’s Emily Kaltenbach believes that New Mexico will follow suit as well, with three out of four voters in the state in favor of it.

Voters in Mississippi approved a medical cannabis program by a wide margin with almost 74% in favor. Even more encouraging, voters in the state rejected the legislature’s attempt to hijack the initiative with their own alternative measure that would have involved developing their own program as they see fit without any sort of deadline.

While Montana can tend to lean slightly Democrat, it is surrounded by heavily Republican-dominated states like Wyoming and Idaho. With both Montana and South Dakota voters approving adult use legalization measures, this presents a potential inroad for cannabis to reach far more conservative states in the Northern Rockies and beyond.

Greg Kaufman Partner at Eversheds Sutherland and frequent Cannabis Industry Journal contributor, says this election puts considerable pressure on Congress to take some action on one or more of the cannabis-related bills currently pending. “In several states, cannabis was more popular than the winning presidential candidate, regardless of the party of the winning candidate,” says Kaufman. “This suggests that cannabis is not a partisan issue, nor should it be.”

The 15 states that have legal adult use cannabis now represents about 34% of the population in our country. “During the most divisive election in modern U.S. history, Americans demonstrated unity around at least one issue – cannabis policy reform,” says Aaron Smith, co-founder and chief executive officer of the National Cannabis Industry Association. He says the victories we saw this week are commendable and will lead to a lot of new jobs, tax revenue and thousands of fewer arrests, but there is still a lot of work to be done. “We look forward to building on this progress as we continue to work with Congress to end the conflict between outdated federal laws and the growing number of states with regulated cannabis markets, and help undo the racially and economically disparate harms caused by prohibition.”

While we wait to hear who will control the Senate in 2021, which will have a massive impact on cannabis reform, we leave you with this great quote from Aaron Smith: “There is still a lot of work to do, but the wind is at our backs.”

To see the details and results of each cannabis measure on the ballot in this election, click here. 

Branding for Cannabis Companies 101: Part 2

By Jennifer Whetzel
1 Comment

Editor’s Note: In Part 1, Jennifer Whetzel introduced the concepts of branding, marketing and advertising for cannabis companies. Part 2 takes a closer look at the benefits of branding. Stay tuned for Part 3 coming next month.


The Value of Branding

Think back: do you remember the very first Nike ad you saw? Probably not.

But when you see the swoosh, you immediately think of Nike. When you see the swoosh, you probably even think “Just do it.” A whole sensibility, one that signifies perseverance and athletic excellence, gets conjured up by that swoosh. A lot of people think that’s the power of advertising, but they’re only partially correct.

The fact that you don’t just know the swoosh but have thoughts and feelings that bubble up when you see it is due to branding. Companies like Nike don’t spend millions on branding reflexively. They do it because brand recognition and the feelings that come with it turn potential consumers into buyers. Branding success is necessary, measurable and valuable – especially for brands looking to establish themselves.Strong branding is what will increase the chances that your marketing and advertising will be effective, and it’s why branding must be one of your top priorities.

Branding: The Precursor to Advertising

You might not know specifically what ads work on you. But the ones that do work are driven by a strong brand.

For example, check out this ad campaign run by McDonald’s: Essentially, the fast food giant used fractions of its logo to make a wayfinding system on highway billboards. It’s clever and memorable, but it only works thanks to McDonald’s strong branding. McDonald’s has spent years building that shorthand because they understand that immediate recognition pays off in the literal and figurative sense.

Similarly, you know an Apple or an Under Armour ad when you see one. And you know this because there’s a consistent look and sensibility that these companies have worked to codify – that’s the branding piece. If you immediately recognize who these messages are coming from even before you engage with the ad, you’re more focused on the message rather than trying to suss out which company it’s coming from or what they’re selling.

This is why branding has to be a precursor to advertising. If you create ads before you build your brand, you may get a message out about what you’re offering. But if you do this, you’re talking at your customer rather than building a relationship with them. Strong branding is what will increase the chances that your marketing and advertising will be effective, and it’s why branding must be one of your top priorities.

The Benefits of Branding

Branding is about building a lasting, positive relationship with your customer. When you present a consistent brand personality and identity to your audience, you build trust. Consider how you form any long-term relationship; it’s through repeated positive, consistent encounters that allow you to see the other party for who they are. You trust them because you feel that you understand them and that they understand you.

Strange as it seems, it’s also true of brands. Building that bond with your customers will give you an advantage against brands that aren’t very distinct. With proper branding, a company can build and solidify consumer trust, trust that pays off in the form of increased sales, loyalty and good reviews. These brands aren’t constantly introducing themselves to consumers because over time, the branding itself does the selling and makes it easier to introduce new products down the line. Companies that don’t build that trust will have to fight for recognition, and things only get worse with more competition.

The Dollar Value of Branding

And of course, there are numbers to back this up. Every year, Forbes puts out a list of the world’s most valuable brands, and they use complex math to determine the actual value of this intangible thing called a Brand. Based on their thinking, a branded product should earn an 8% premium over a generic product. You can see some of their findings in the table below for a few categories that are traditionally very well-branded.

Industry Brand Brand Value (Billions)[1]
Technology Apple $205.5
Technology Microsoft $125.3
Consumer Packaged Goods Coca-Cola $59.2
Restaurants McDonald’s $43.8
Apparel NIKE $36.8
Restaurants Starbucks $17.0
Apparel Adidas $11.2
Consumer Packaged Goods Kellogg’s $8.0

These numbers, however, make it difficult to compare how well a company’s branding works for them because the brand’s total value is influenced by the size of the company. After doing a few simple calculations, we compared the Brand Value to the total Enterprise Value of each company to determine what we will call their Brand Contribution, which demonstrates how their branding efforts paid off.

When you compare the percentage of total company value that solely comes from the value of the brand, we can see that Nike significantly outperforms competitor Adidas, McDonald’s has a stronger brand than Starbuck’s, and Apple comes close to doubling the brand performance of Microsoft — none of which is surprising.

What might surprise you is the brand at the top of the list when it comes to contribution versus overall company value. Kellogg’s is one of the smallest companies to make the list in terms of Brand Value, and it has the lowest enterprise value in our list. Yet, Kellogg’s has the highest brand contribution. This makes sense in the high-stakes world of consumer-packaged goods; the competition is fierce, well-funded and global, which means that branding that resonates with customers is extremely important.

Industry Brand Brand Value Enterprise Value[2] Brand Contribution[3]
Consumer Packaged Goods Kellogg’s $8.0 $28.4 28.2%
Apparel NIKE $36.8 $133.4 27.6%
Restaurants McDonald’s $43.8 $187.2 23.4%
Consumer Packaged Goods Coca-Cola $59.2 $254.8 23.2%
Technology Apple $205.5 $950.3 21.6%
Apparel Adidas $11.2 $59.0 19.0%
Restaurants Starbucks $17.0 $109.7 15.5%
Technology Microsoft $125.3 $990.9 12.6%

These companies are all massive and wealthy because they prioritize trust and consistency as part of their long-term plan to sell products. Branding promotes loyalty, but its ability to promote trust can be even more powerful by paying off in the long-term. And in this new legal cannabis market, trust is going to be just as critical as it is for traditional companies. After all, the power of branding isn’t just getting people to know who you are — it’s getting them to believe in you.

  1.  https://www.forbes.com/powerful-brands/list/#tab:rank
  2. Enterprise value gathered from ycharts.com on 6/20/2019. Ycharts defines enterprise value as: Enterprise Value (EV) is a valuation metric alternative to traditional market capitalization that reflects the market value of an entire business. Like market cap, EV is a measure of what the market believes a company is worth. Enterprise value captures the cost of an entire business, including debt and equity. It is a sum of claims of all preferred shareholders, debt holders, security holders, common equity holders, and minority shareholders – unlike market cap, which only captures the total value of common equity securities.
  3. Ladyjane’s valuation of the strength of a brand. What percentage of the company’s overall valuation can be attributed to the brand? Brand Contribution = Brand Value / Enterprise Value

Arizona Still Doesn’t Require Lab Testing, But That Could Change Soon

By Aaron G. Biros
2 Comments

As of today, Arizona is the only state in the country that has legalized medical cannabis but does not require producers to test their medical cannabis. States throughout the country that legalize medical cannabis routinely implement regulations that require third-party, independent lab testing to protect patient and consumer safety. Arizona legalized medical cannabis for a number of qualifying conditions back in 2011, but still has no measure like other states to protect patient safety.

Lawmakers in Arizona now have the opportunity to change that with SB1494, which passed unanimously through the state’s Senate back in March of 2019. According to the Arizona Cannabis Laboratory Association (ACLA), the bill awaits action in the House of Representatives. The ACLA says in a press release that “supporters of the bill are calling on lawmakers to move on a bill that unanimously passed in the Senate earlier this year.” The bill would require producers to use independent, third-party labs to test cannabis for things like harmful toxins and molds.

Ryan Tracy, co-founder of the ACLA and founder/CEO at C4 Labs.

According to Ryan Treacy, co-founder of the ACLA and CEO/Founder of C4 Laboratories, the ACLA was formed for a few important reasons: “We feel it is very important that we encourage and cultivate a professional and collaborative rapport among the reputable Arizona cannabis labs,” says Treacy. “So that we can call upon the collective groups’ years of experience to help provide insight and suggestions on how we as a group can insure the most accurate and consistent results for our clients throughout the state and ultimately their patients.” Treacy went on to add that it is particularly important their collective voice be heard at the State Capitol as lawmakers work towards passing SB 1494.

“There isn’t any reason to wait for someone to get sick before the legislature passes this bipartisan bill. Let’s get it done!”George Griffeth, President of the ACLA, says there is a sense of urgency in passing this bill before the voters decide on legalizing recreational adult-use cannabis next year. “Everyone agrees that now is the time to be proactive to protect patients from unsafe contaminants,” says Griffeth. “Currently 61 tons of medical marijuana is consumed by patients and many believe that the number of people using the medicine will continue to grow. With a ballot initiative related to the recreational use of marijuana facing voters next year, Arizona must act now to make sure standards are in place.”

They say the bill has bipartisan support and many stakeholders in Arizona’s cannabis industry express support for it as well. For Ryan Treacy, he is worried about patients consuming harmful chemicals and toxins. “My colleagues and I are deeply concerned that more than two-hundred thousand people who use medical marijuana could be inadvertently exposing themselves to toxic chemicals, E. Coli, Salmonella or mold,” says Treacy. “There isn’t any reason to wait for someone to get sick before the legislature passes this bipartisan bill. Let’s get it done!”

Treacy says this bill is particularly difficult to pass because the original measure to legalize medical cannabis was a ballot initiative. That means the bill needs 75% support in both the House and the Senate in order to amend the original measure. “The passing of this bill would be a huge win for the patients and will help to ensure honesty and transparency for those that operate in the current medical cannabis program here in AZ,” says Treacy. “This testing bill is also written with legislative intent to cover any and all future adult use or recreational use legislative laws or ballot initiatives. We hope to have a final verdict on this bill by end of this week or early next.”

Seven Steps To Avoid the Green Rush Blues: Investigate Water Supplies Before Planting Cannabis

By Amy M. Steinfeld
2 Comments

A clean, reliable water supply lies at the heart of every successful cannabis farm. It’s no surprise that the stakes for finding land with ideal growing conditions, including adequate water, are high. But new buyers (and lessees) caught up in the green rush often gloss over water rights or are unaware of California’s byzantine rules governing the irrigation of cannabis.

Water rights are complex. Water regulations applicable to cannabis cultivation are even more complex. And our new climate reality convolutes things further. Longer droughts, more volatile weather, political uncertainties, increased groundwater regulation and water quality concerns are exacerbating tensions over local and statewide water supplies. In many areas of California, landowners can no longer rely on local water districts to meet their needs.

A robust investigation of the property must consider water supplies. Because a property’s water supply is dependent on water rights, local ordinances, state regulations, politics and hydrology, it’s important to consult a water lawyer (and in some instances a hydrologist) before closing. A bit of foresight can prevent a grower from being left high and dry.

The following checklist provides a roadmap to conduct water rights’ due diligence. While many of these details are California-specific, this type of due diligence applies throughout the West.

Step 1: Identify Available Water Supplies and Consider Potential Limitations On Irrigation, Including Potential Future Changes

Conduct a site visit to identify existing water infrastructure, natural water features and existing or potential water service options. Next, determine if the property is served by a public water supplier. If that’s the case, the California State Water Resources Control Board (“State Water Board”) does not require any specific documentation to irrigate cannabis, but the water supply must be disclosed in the CalCannabis license application.

Groundwater is generally the best supply for cannabis, but the era of unregulated groundwater pumping is over. Many groundwater basins in California are now governed by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (“SGMA”), which requires water agencies to halt overdraft and restore balanced levels of groundwater pumping from certain basins. As a result, SGMA may result in future pumping cutbacks or pumping assessments. It’s imperative to identify the local groundwater basin via the Department of Water Resources’ Bulletin 118, and determine whether the groundwater basin is adjudicated or governed by a groundwater sustainability agency. Growers should also test the local water supply’s pH and salt levels because cannabis plants are finicky and water treatment can be cost prohibitive. If a new well is needed, growers should consult with their local county before drilling a new well. In some areas, moratoriums and restrictions on drilling new wells are on the rise.

As a rule of thumb, cannabis cultivators should avoid using surface water to irrigate cannabis. Surface diversions are subject to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s permitting authority. And under the interim State Water Board Cannabis Policy, commercial cannabis cultivators cannot divert anysurface water during the dry season (April 1 through Oct. 31), even if they have a riparian right that can be used to irrigate other crops. During the dry season, cultivators may only irrigate using water that has been stored off-stream. And even during the wet season, cannabis cultivators must comply with instream flow requirements and check in with the state daily to ensure adequate water supplies are available. Cannabis cultivators are also required to install measuring devices and track surface water diversions daily. And buyer beware, a groundwater well that extracts water from a subterranean stream may be considered a surface-water diversion. So be especially cautious if the well is located close to a creek or river.Develop a water use plan to optimize water efficiency 

Step 2: Identify Water Supplies Used On the Property, Including the Basis of Right, and Quantify Historical Use

Review information on historic and existing water use. This may include past water bills and assessments. If there is a well on the property, the seller or lessor may have metering data, electrical records and crop data that can establish historic groundwater use. Cultivators must submit a well log to CalCannabis as part of the cannabis cultivation application. If surface water is available, the purchaser should review the State Water Board eWRIMs database for water rights permits, licenses, stock pond registrations and certificates, decisions and orders. The purchaser should also identify surface water diversion structures and review annual filings to determine compliance with all terms and conditions of the water right. Lastly, the purchaser should request all documents and contracts pertaining to water rights.

Realistically estimate water demand for irrigation and other on-site purposes.Step 3: Confirm Ownership of Right and Assess Any Limitations On Water Right

Determine whether the right has been abandoned, lost to prescription or forfeited. Evaluate the seniority of the water right, availability of the right, adequacy of place of use, purpose of use (must include irrigation), season of use, and quantity of any permitted or licensed post-1914 right. Determine whether historical diversions pursuant to an appropriative right support the full amount of the claimed right, and whether any changes to the water right are needed to support the proposed new use. Cultivators in California who plan to utilize surface water also need to file for a “Cannabis Small Irrigation Use Registration” to store water during the wet season for use during the dry season.

Step 4: Reconcile Water Demand With Available Supply

Realistically estimate water demand for irrigation and other on-site purposes. Develop a water use plan to optimize water efficiency (drip irrigation, rainwater harvesting, water monitoring, hoop structures) regardless of supply sufficiency. Many counties, such as Santa Barbara County, require that cannabis growers meet certain irrigation efficiency standards. Determine whether available supplies can meet all proposed demands, including plans for full buildout. If not, consider whether additional supplies are available for use on the property.

Step 5: Determine Water Supply Compliance Obligations

 The rights associated with water supplies are defined by their source, the time frame during which supplies can be taken, the quantity of water to which the right attaches, and any limitations on the purpose of use of the water supply. There may also be reporting requirements associated with taking and using the supply—these can include requirements to report the quantity of water used as well as information regarding the end use of the water. Failure to timely report can have serious consequences. Cannabis cultivators are also subject to additional water quality regulations and restrictions, including waste discharge requirements pursuant to the State Water Board’s Cannabis General Order.

Step 6: Negotiate Deal and Draft Conveyance Documents

After obtaining an understanding of the water supply associated with the property, the property conveyance documents may be drafted to incorporate the transfer of rights associated with the property’s water supplies. These may include the assignment of contracts pursuant to which water supplies are obtained, the transfer of permits or licenses as to the water supplies, or the transfer of water rights arising out of a judgment or decree.

Step 7: Consider Unused Water Supply Assets That Could Be Monetized 

To the extent the water supply rights associated with the property exceed the cannabis plants’ water demand, it may be possible to monetize unused or excess water supply assets through transfer of the rights to a third party.

If you have any questions about water rights related to cannabis cultivation it’s always in your best interest to contact an experienced water attorney early on in the process.

New Taxes for California Cannabis Industry

By Jasmine Davaloo
No Comments

Welcome to the evolving world of cannabis legislation and taxation in California. With the recent 2018 midterm election, a green wave of new laws and regulations has washed ashore, and Taxnexus, a cannabis tax compliance service provider for cannabis businesses, has analyzed the results, looking for insights to guide cannabis business owners in 2019.

In summary, the trend of local counties and cities imposing new cannabis taxes on dispensaries, distributors and cultivators continues, but with some important lessons being learned.

A Brief History of California Cannabis Tax Regulations.

The legalization of cannabis in California brought with it cannabis excise tax and cultivation taxes with the hope of bringing in significant amounts of income in cannabis taxes. The state had projected $185M in cannabis tax revenue for the first six months of 2018. Although California has since collected tens of millions of dollars fewer than anticipated, it did bring in over $135M in the first and second quarters from a brand new industry.

Local governments are able to collect these taxes directly from cannabis businesses.  With the green light from the state and the need for a new source of revenue, many local governments followed suit and passed laws to impose taxes on cannabis businesses operating in their jurisdictions. The need for additional revenue is even greater for localities that allow cannabis business operations given that the state takes virtually all of the state-imposed cannabis taxes while the local government entities are burdened by the related costs of regulations and enforcement at the local level.

Cannabis business taxes have an extra allure for local jurisdictions. Unlike local sales and use taxes, the state does not require local cannabis business taxes to go through the state before a portion of it gets funneled back to the localities. Local governments are able to collect these taxes directly from cannabis businesses.

Since January 1, 2018, many local jurisdictions have come onboard and placed ballot measures for their voters to decide whether to tax cannabis businesses. According to research conducted by Taxnexus, by the end of the second quarter this year, there were over 500 different local cannabis tax rates in California.The new cannabis tax measures are also continuing the trend of widely ranging local cannabis tax laws.

Midterm Results Continue Overwhelming Support for Cannabis Industry

With over 50 cannabis tax measures placed on the November 6 local ballots, most of which passed with overwhelming support from voters, the number and variation of local cannabis business taxes continue to grow. This demonstrates the continuing trend of local governments welcoming cannabis businesses, the evolving voter attitude toward recreational cannabis, and perhaps most importantly, the localities’ desire to take their cut of the new industry’s tax revenue.

The new cannabis tax measures are also continuing the trend of widely ranging local cannabis tax laws. Given that the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act granted local jurisdictions control over deciding their own cannabis business regulations, there is no statewide uniformity. Here are a few examples of the cannabis business tax measures that were on local ballots on November 6:

San Francisco

While some local jurisdictions were quick to impose cannabis taxes, others have delayed in taxing their local cannabis businesses. San Francisco’s Proposition D, which received a 66% voter approval, won’t go into effect until January 1, 2021. It imposes taxes on cannabis businesses that do business in the city, whether or not they are physically located there. The new cannabis business taxes are as follows:

  • For cannabis retail businesses, 2.5% of gross receipts up to $1M and 5% of gross receipts over $1M.
  • For cannabis non-retail businesses, 1% tax of gross receipts up to $1M and 1.5% of gross receipts over $1M.

These taxes do not apply to the first $500,000 of recreational cannabis gross receipts nor revenues from medical cannabis retail sales. The measure allows the Board of Supervisors to adjust the tax rates up to 7%. The cannabis businesses taxes are expected to generate $5M to $12M in cannabis tax revenue, and will go into the City’s general fund.The new tax measures underscore the lack of uniformity in local cannabis business taxes throughout the state. 

Emeryville

Emeryville passed a new cannabis business tax measure to increase its current nominal rate. Measure S imposes a cannabis business tax of up to 6% of gross receipts. This is estimated to generate $2M in tax revenue to be used for unrestricted governmental purposes.

Oakland

Oakland is among the few local jurisdictions that placed a measure on its November 6 ballot to lower its existing cannabis business tax rates. Previously, Oakland imposed a 5% tax on medical cannabis and a 10% tax on recreational cannabis, for all cannabis activities throughout the supply chain. These are among some of the highest cannabis tax rates in the state and are squeezing out small operators. Although Oakland has long been seen as the leader in California’s cannabis industry, the high taxes are making it difficult for its cannabis businesses to compete with nearby cities that charge lower taxes. While the city acknowledged the hardship its high taxes imposed, it maintained that it could not lower the rates on its own and required the voter approval. On November 6th, Oakland voters passed Measure V by 78%, which gives the City Council the authority to lower the city’s cannabis tax rates through an ordinance. To give additional relief to the cannabis businesses in the city, this measure also allows them to deduct the cost of raw materials from their gross receipts- something they cannot do on their federal tax returns. Furthermore, local cannabis business taxes can now be paid on a quarterly basis instead of one annual payment at the beginning of each year, which was severely burdensome for most businesses.

Lake County

Voters in Lake County approved Measure K by a majority vote to tax cannabis businesses in the unincorporated county effecting January 1, 2021. The county was previously only taxing cultivators at $1 to $3 per square footage depending on the method of cultivation. These rates will be reduced to $1 per square footage for cultivators and nurseries, and other cannabis businesses will be taxes between 2.5% and 4% of their gross receipts.

Mountain View

While there is a maximum of four cannabis businesses permitted to operate in Mountain View, over 80% of voters approved Measure Q to tax them. The measure imposes up to 9% of gross receipts to fund general city purposes, with an estimated annual revenue of $1M.Some have even set the effective dates of their cannabis tax laws several years out to allow their local cannabis businesses an opportunity to establish roots and drive out the black market.

Lompoc

Some jurisdictions have passed more creative cannabis business tax regimens than one rate applicable to the entire supply chain. Voters in Lompoc in Santa Barbara County approved Measure D2018 to authorize the city to impose following cannabis business taxes:

  • Up to $0.06 per $1 (6%) of recreational retail sales proceeds;
  • Up to $0.01 per $1 (1%) of cultivation and nursery proceeds;
  • An annual flat fee tax of $15,000 if net income is less than $2M of manufacturing and distribution proceeds;
  • An annual flat fee tax of $30,000 if net income is $2 Million or more of manufacturing and distribution proceeds;
  • A total aggregate tax of $0.06 per $1.00 (6%) of microbusinesses proceeds, not including medical cannabis transaction proceeds; and
  • No tax on testing.

Riverbank

There are signs that other localities that waited to jump onboard have learned from these high-taxing jurisdictions and opted for lower rates. There are even those localities that although they do not statutorily permit cannabis businesses to operate in their jurisdictions, they still want a piece of the action when it comes to cannabis taxes. The city of Riverbank in Stanislaus County currently does not allow cannabis businesses to operate without first obtaining a permit from City Hall and entering into a development agreement with the city that negotiates how much of their revenue the city would take. However, the voters just passed Measure B, which authorizes Riverbank’s City Council to impose a business license tax of up to 10% of gross receipts on cannabis businesses in the event the city allows cannabis businesses to operate within its city limits in the future. This tax has incentives other than the apparent potential of tax revenue. This guarantees the city a cut of the earnings of any illegal cannabis businesses, and serves as a protection in the event the permit and development agreement scheme the city has enacted is later found to be invalid.

The Chaos Continues

The new tax measures underscore the lack of uniformity in local cannabis business taxes throughout the state. Compliance is especially burdensome for delivery companies and multi-location and multi-license cannabis businesses. Cannabis businesses are required to keep up with new and evolving cannabis tax regimens, which, judging by the shortfall in cannabis tax revenues compared to their projections so far, is a difficult feat for these highly-regulated businesses.Of course, there are still some local governments that appear to have missed all the signs and have passed new high taxes. 

The overall trend in 2018, persisting through the midterm elections, is that more local jurisdictions are joining the cannabis tax bandwagon, and while the tax rates and structures are still all over the map, there appears to be some movement toward honing the cannabis business rates toward that “sweet spot.”

Cities like Oakland and Berkeley that immediately began to tax cannabis businesses at high rates have lowered or taken steps to lower their tax rates to keep their competitive edge and retain cannabis businesses within their jurisdictions. There are signs that other localities that waited to jump onboard have learned from these high-taxing jurisdictions and opted for lower rates. Some have even set the effective dates of their cannabis tax laws several years out to allow their local cannabis businesses an opportunity to establish roots and drive out the black market.

Of course, there are still some local governments that appear to have missed all the signs and have passed new high taxes. In due time, they, too, will give in to the market pressures and make necessary adjustments if they want to continue to benefit from the legal cannabis industry in their jurisdictions.


Taxnexus is an automated transaction-to-treasury cannabis tax compliance solution for the entire cannabis supply chain that provides point-of-sale state and local cannabis tax calculation, sales and use tax calculation, tax data management as the authority of record, and timely filing of returns with all applicable taxing authorities.

California Midterm Ballots To Bring Green Wave of Cannabis Tax Regulations

By Jasmine Davaloo
No Comments

As state and local jurisdictions rake in millions of dollars in tax revenue from the state’s legal cannabis industry, new states, counties and cities are piling onto the cannabis tax bandwagon. There are currently hundreds of local cannabis business taxes in place in California. On the November ballots, there are 47 new local cannabis tax measures. In fact, even some local jurisdictions that outlaw cannabis operations want a piece of the green pie and are asking voters to impose cannabis business taxes.

More cannabis tax measures being passed means more regulations and compliance responsibilities for cannabis businesses. This is especially taxing (pun intended) for multi-licensed and multi-location cannabis businesses. With hefty monetary penalties and even revocation of business licenses as consequences of noncompliance, adherence to state and local tax regulations is of paramount concern to cannabis businesses. Below is a list that Taxnexus has put together showing all of the cannabis tax measures on the November 6 ballots in California:

Taxnexus is an automated transaction-to-treasury cannabis tax compliance solution for the entire cannabis supply chain that provides point-of-sale state and local cannabis sales and use tax calculation, tax data management as the authority of record, and timely filing of returns with all applicable taxing authorities.

California City and County Cannabis Tax Measures November 6, 2018 Ballots

City County Measure Name Proposal
Adelanto San Bernardino S Adelanto Marijuana Tax To authorize the city to impose a tax on marijuana businesses of up to $5.00 per square foot on nurseries and up to 5% on other businesses.
Atascadero San Luis Obispo E-18 Atascadero Cannabis Business Tax To impose a tax on cannabis businesses at annual rates not to exceed $10.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation, 10% of gross receipts for retail cannabis businesses, 2.5% for testing laboratories, 3% for distribution businesses, and 6% of gross receipts for all other cannabis businesses.
Atwater Merced A Atwater Marijuana Tax To authorize the city to impose a 15% tax on marijuana businesses.
Benicia Solano E Benicia Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to impose a tax of up to $10 per square foot for marijuana nurseries and 6% of gross receipts for other marijuana businesses.
Capitola Santa Cruz I Capitola Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at a rate of up to 7% with no expiration date to fund general city purposes.
Chula Vista San Diego Q Chula Vista Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at the following rates: 5% to 15% of gross receipts or $5 to $25 per square foot for cultivation.
Colfax Placer C City of Colfax Cannabis Business Tax To tax cannabis businesses at annual rates not to exceed $10.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation (adjustable for inflation), 6% of gross receipts for retail cannabis businesses, and 4% for all other cannabis businesses.
Colton San Bernardino U Colton Marijuana Tax To authorize the city to impose a tax on marijuana businesses of up to $25.00 per square foot on nurseries and up to 10% on other businesses.
Emeryville Alameda S Emeryville Marijuana Business Tax To enact a marijuana business tax at a rate of up to 6% of gross receipts to fund general city purposes.
Fresno Fresno A Fresno Marijuana Business Tax To tax marijuana businesses at rates of up to $12 per canopy square foot and up to 10% of gross receipts for medical dispensaries and other marijuana businesses, with revenue dedicated to the city’s general fund an a community benefit fund.
Goleta Santa Barbara Z2018 Goleta Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at the following initial rates with a cap at 10% of sales: 5% for retailers; 4% for cultivators; 2% for manufacturers; and 1% for distributors/nurseries.
Hanford Kings C Hanford Cannabis Business Tax To tax cannabis businesses at an annual maximum rate of $7 per square foot of canopy for cultivation businesses using artificial lighting only, $4 per square foot of canopy for cultivation businesses using a combination of artificial and natural lighting, $2 per square foot of canopy for cultivation businesses using natural lighting only, and $1 per square foot of canopy for nurseries, 1% of gross receipts of laboratories, 4% of gross receipts of retail sales, 2% of gross receipts of distribution and 2.5% of gross receipts of all other types of cannabis businesses.
Hesperia San Bernardino T Hesperia Marijuana Tax To authorize the city to impose a tax on marijuana businesses of up to $15.00 per square foot on nurseries and up to 6% on other businesses.
La Mesa San Diego V La Mesa Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at rates of up to 6% gross receipts and up to $10 per square foot of cultivation.
Lassen Lassen M Lassen County Commercial Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the county to enact a tax on commercial marijuana at rates of between $0.50 to $3.00 per square foot for cultivation and 2.5% to 8% on gross receipts for other businesses, such as retail, distribution, manufacturing, processing, and testing.
Lompoc Santa Barbara D2018 Lompoc Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city tax marijuana businesses at the following rates: $0.06 per $1 of non-medical retail sales proceeds; $0.01 per $1 of cultivation proceeds; $15,000 for net income less than $2 million of manufacturing/distribution proceeds; $30,000 for net income $2 Million or more of manufacturing/distribution proceeds; a total aggregate tax of $0.06 per $1.00 of microbusinesses proceeds; and no tax on testing.
Malibu Los Angeles G Malibu Marijuana Business Authorization and Tax To authorize the sale of recreational marijuana in the city and imposing a general tax at the rate of 2.5% of gross receipts on the sale of recreational marijuana.
Marina Monterey V Marina Marijuana Business Tax To authorize marijuana businesses to operate in the city and authorizing the city to tax marijuana businesses at rates of up to 5% of gross receipts, with revenue funding general city purposes.
Maywood Los Angeles CT Maywood Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at a maximum rate of 10% of gross receipts to fund general city purposes.
Moreno Valley Riverside M City of Moreno Valley Commercial Cannabis Activity Tax To enact a tax on cannabis sales and cultivation, not exceeding 8% of gross receipts and $15 per square foot of cultivation.
Morgan Hill Santa Clara I Morgan Hill Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at annual rates up to $15.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation and up to 10% of gross receipts for all other marijuana businesses.
Mountain View Santa Clara Q Mountain View Marijuana Business Tax To enact a tax on marijuana businesses of up to 9% of gross receipts to fund general city purposes.
Oakland Alameda V Oakland Marijuana Business Tax Amendments To amend the marijuana business tax law to: allow marijuana business to deduct the cost of raw materials from their gross receipts and to pay taxes on a quarterly basis; and allow the city council to amend the law in any manner that does not increase the tax rate.
Oroville Butte T Oroville Marijuana Tax To authorize an annual gross receipts tax on cannabis businesses at rate not to exceed 1%, with initial rates of 5% on retailers and manufacturers; 4% on cultivators; 3% on distributors; 2% on nurseries; 0% on testing laboratories; and 7% on microbusiness to generate approximately $300,000 to $600,000 in annual revenue.
Paso Robles San Luis Obispo I-18 Paso Robles Cannabis Business Tax To impose a maximum tax rate on every person or entity operating or conducting a cannabis business within the City a cultivation tax of up to$20.00 per square foot of space utilized in connection with the cultivation and processing of cannabis; a gross receipts tax of up to 10% for all cannabis transportation; a gross receipts tax of up to 15% for all cannabis manufacturing, testing, and distribution; and a gross receipts tax of up to 10% for dispensaries.
Pomona Los Angeles PC Pomona Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at rates of $10.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation and up to 6% of gross receipts for all other marijuana businesses to fund general city purposes.
Riverbank Stanislaus B City of Riverbank Cannabis Business License Tax To authorize the City Council of the City to impose a business license tax at a rate of up to 10% of gross receipts on cannabis businesses and dispensaries, to help fund general municipal services.
San Bernardino San Bernardino W San Bernardino Marijuana Tax To authorize the city to impose a tax on marijuana businesses of up to $10.00 per square foot on nurseries and up to 6% on other businesses.
San Diego San Diego AA City Council Marijuana Business Tax Measure To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at the following rates: $14 per square foot; up to 8% on manufacturing and distribution; up to 10% on medicinal retail; up to 12% on adult-use retail; and up to 3.5% on testing.
San Francisco San Francisco D San Francisco Marijuana Business Tax Increase To tax marijuana businesses with gross receipts over $500,000 at a rate between 1% and 5%, exempting retail sales of medical marijuana, and expanding the marijuana business tax to businesses not physically located in San Francisco.
Santa Ana Orange Y Santa Ana Recreational Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at rates of $0.25 to $35.00 for gross square footage and up to 10 percent for cultivating, manufacturing, distributing, selling, or testing.
Santa Clara Santa Clara M Santa Clara Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax commercial marijuana businesses up to 10% of gross receipts and up to $25 per square foot for cultivation.
Simi Valley Ventura Q Cannabis Business Tax To enact a maximum tax on gross receipts of cannabis businesses in the City after January 1, 2019, as follows: for testing, 2.5%; for retail sales, retail delivery, or microbusiness retail, 6%; for distribution not to consumers, 3%; for manufacturing, processing or nonretail microbusiness, and any other type of business not otherwise specified, 4%; and for cultivation, a tax per square foot of canopy ranging from $2.00 per square foot of canopy to $10.00 per square foot of canopy, depending on the type of lighting (artificial or natural) used.
Solvang Santa Barbara F2018 Solvang Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at an initial rate of 5 percent of gross receipts with a cap of 10 percent and a maximum annual increase of 1 percent.
Sonora Tuolumne N City of Sonora Cannabis Business License Tax To enact a business license tax at a rate of up to 15% of gross receipts on cannabis businesses, to help fund general municipal services; and increasing the City’s appropriations limit for the Fiscal Years 2019-2023 by the amount of tax proceeds received.
Suisun Solano C Suisun Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to impose a tax of up to $25 per square foot and 15% gross receipts for marijuana businesses.
Union City Alameda DD Union City Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at rates of $12.00 per square foot for cultivation and 6 percent of gross receipts for other businesses to fund general municipal services.
Vista San Diego Z Vista Retail Medical Marijuana Sales and Tax Initiative (November 2018) To authorize commercial retails sales of medicinal marijuana for up to 11 retailers and enacting a 7% tax on the business’ gross receipts.
Contra Costa R Contra Costa County Marijuana Business Tax To authorize Contra Costa County to tax commercial marijuana businesses in the unincorporated area in the amount of up to $7.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation and up to 4 percent gross receipts for all other cannabis businesses to fund general County expenses.
El Dorado N, P, Q, R, S Commercial Cannabis Tax Measures To impose a general tax on any independently authorized commercial cannabis activity in the unincorporated areas of El Dorado County at rates up to: $30 per square foot or 15% for cultivation; 10% for distribution, manufacturing, and retail; and 5% for testing laboratories, effective until amended or repealed, with estimated annual revenue of $1,900,000 to $52,800,000.

To authorize outdoor and mixed-light (greenhouse) commercial cannabis cultivation for medicinal use on parcels of at least 10 acres zoned Rural Lands, Planned Agricultural, Limited Agricultural, and Agricultural Grazing that are restricted in canopy size, required to pay a County commercial cannabis tax, and subject to a site-specific review and discretionary permitting process with notification to surrounding property owners and environmental regulation.

To authorize outdoor and mixed-light (greenhouse) commercial cannabis cultivation for recreational adult use on parcels of at least 10 acres zoned Rural Lands, Planned Agricultural, Limited Agricultural, and Agricultural Grazing that are restricted in canopy size, required to pay a County commercial cannabis tax, and subject to a site-specific review and discretionary permitting process with notification to surrounding property owners and environmental regulation.

To authorize the retail sale, delivery, distribution, and indoor cultivation of commercial cannabis for medicinal use on parcels zoned Community Commercial, Regional Commercial, General Commercial, Industrial High, and Industrial Low that are restricted in number and concentration, required to pay a County commercial cannabis tax, and subject to a site-specific review and discretionary permitting process with notification to surrounding property owners and environmental regulation.

To authorize the retail sale, delivery, distribution, and indoor cultivation of commercial cannabis for recreational adult use on parcels zoned Community Commercial, Regional Commercial, General Commercial, Industrial High, and Industrial Low that are restricted in number and concentration, required to pay a County commercial cannabis tax, and subject to a site-specific review and discretionary permitting process with notification to surrounding property owners and environmental regulation.

Lake K Lake County Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the county to enact a marijuana business tax at the rates of $1.00 per square foot for nurseries and cultivators and between 2.5% and 4% for other businesses.
San Joaquin B Unincorporated County of San Joaquin Cannabis Business Tax To impose a special tax on commercial cannabis businesses in unincorporated San Joaquin County at a rate of 3.5% to 8% of gross receipts, with an additional cultivation tax of $2.00 per square foot of cultivation space.
Tuolumne M Tuolumne County Commercial Cannabis Business Tax The County to impose a 0%-15% gross receipts tax on commercial cannabis businesses (but no less than $0-$15 per square foot for cultivation businesses as annually increased by a consumer price index) in the unincorporated area of Tuolumne County, and to authorize the Board of Supervisors to implement and adjust the tax at its discretion, with funds staying local for unrestricted general revenue purposes, including but not limited to public safety, health,environmental protection and addressing industry impacts, unless repealed or amended by voters.
emerald test retail

Colorado Approves Emerald Scientific Proficiency Tests for Regulatory Compliance in Cannabis Testing

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments
emerald test retail

Emerald Scientific recently announced their proficiency-testing program, The Emerald Test, has been approved by Colorado as a third party provider for proficiency testing in licensed cannabis laboratories. The Emerald Test, held twice annually, is an inter-laboratory comparison and proficiency test (ILC-PT), allowing data to be collected pertaining to the performance of laboratories on a national scale. Proficiency testing is designed to measure how accurately laboratories perform and is a critical tool for quality assurance.

Colorado requires labs to participate in a proficiency-testing program in order to be certified to conduct required testing on cannabis and cannabis products for safety and quality. According to the press release, Colorado’s Marijuana Enforcement Division, under the Department of Revenue, conducted an evaluation process to determine which applicants could meet the performance standards for regulatory compliance concerning proficiency testing. The contract was awarded to Emerald Scientific following this evaluation process.

emerald test retailAccording to Ken Groggel, director of the Proficiency Testing Program at Emerald Scientific, a number of states have recognized the need for independent proficiency testing as a required piece of regulatory compliance. “The Emerald Test Inter-Laboratory Comparison/PT is state approved in Washington & Colorado for cannabis testing laboratory licensure,” says Groggel. “States with cannabis or hemp production, as well as labs in other countries are now actively participating in the Emerald Test as a tool for quality improvement, efficiency upgrades and product safety.” He says the Colorado Marijuana Enforcement Division has contracted with Emerald Scientific to provide third party PT programs for microbial contaminants, residual solvents and pesticides.

Ken Groggel, director of the Proficiency Testing Program at Emerald Scientific

Beginning in 2014, The Emerald Test has been offered twice a year and, in 2017, over 50 labs participated from 14 states and 2 countries. “Laboratories that have enrolled more than once have seen significant improvement in their results, an indicator of improved performance for industry customers,” says Groggel.

Proficiency testing is important for ensuring quality, safety and product content accuracy. “This should be the priority whether you are a grower, manufacturer, testing laboratory, regulatory entity, medical patient or adult use consumer,” says Groggel. It also helps labs meet regulatory requirements and achieve ISO 17025 accreditation. “Independent proficiency testing helps determine if the lab is able to deliver the services marketed to its customers,” says Groggel. “Regulatory agencies can use this information when licensing, monitoring & enforcing good science for public safety.”

As new states legalize cannabis and develop consumer protection regulations, proficiency testing programs can help labs demonstrate their commitment to responsible and accurate testing. “When PT results show the cannabis testing lab is capable it is up to the government to ensure accountability for performance on behalf of all its citizens,” says Groggel. Labs can enroll starting on September 25th in the Fall 2017 Emerald Test ILC/PT.

What’s Happening on Capitol Hill? Part 2: A Bill-By-Bill Review

By Brian Blumenfeld, J.D., M.A.
No Comments

Since the first session of the 115th Congress convened on January 3, 2017, twenty-four cannabis reform bills have been introduced, fifteen in the House and nine in the Senate. All of them address in varying ways the puzzles that have emerged as more and more states legalize cannabis in the face of federal prohibition. Some are narrow, some are broad, some are for medical cannabis only, some for recreational too, some have more bipartisan support than others, but all indicate in some manner the direction federal reform will eventually take.

H.R.1227 – Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2017

Understanding the content and status of these bills and what they would mean for the industry if/when they are enacted, will help stakeholders anticipate changes that we know are bound to drop, and therefore be better prepared to adapt to them when they do.

Generally lacking in the journalism on cannabis is coverage and analysis of federal proposals deep enough to provide a useable understanding of the policies they stand to codify. As CIJ is dedicated to providing just such useable information to industry-insiders, this bill-by-bill review fills the gap.

All twenty-four bills fit rather neatly into one of three categories: De-scheduling/State Control Reform, Medical Cannabis Reform and Banking/Tax Reform. This second article in the series will look at the first category, and the next article will wrap up the last two.

De-Scheduling/State Control Reform

HR 1227 – Ending Marijuana Federal Prohibition Act of 2017

Policy: The bill proposes two major changes to the CSA. The first is to strike cannabis from the statute, essentially leaving the regulation or prohibition of it up to each state. The second is to insert into the CSA a provision that makes it a federal offense to transport cannabis from one state to another in any way that violates state law. In other words, if a state wished to continue prohibiting cannabis, it would be both a federal and state crime for anyone to transport cannabis into that state. Likewise, if a state wished to legalize and regulate cannabis, but wanted to prevent out-of-state cannabis from entering, the transportation provision would permit that state to do so.

Impact: Industries in states that have already legalized cannabis will structurally remain the same. Banking will open up for these state businesses, and so will the opportunity to write-off ordinary business expenses. Questions about contract enforcement and risks of federal prosecution will become moot, and when state regulatory bodies make decisions on how to govern the industry, they will no longer have to concern themselves with U.S. DOJ enforcement and/or prosecutorial policies. The big potential change will be seen if two or more contiguous states that have legalized cannabis decide to permit transport of the drug between their states. Markets will expand, opening access to new customers and challenges from new competitors. Licensees may also have the option to venue shop, and we could see states themselves competing with one another to attract cannabis business with the carrot of favorable regulations.

Representative Thomas Garett (R-VA)
Photo: C-SPAN

One possible pitfall to keep in mind is that this legislation could violate something in constitutional law known as the Dormant Commerce Clause—a topic CIJ will cover should it surface.

Procedural Status:

  • Introduced on February 27, 2017 by Representative Thomas Garett (R-VA)
  • Cosponsors: 4 Republican, 11 Democrat, 1 At-Large
  • Referred to House Committees on:
    • Judiciary
      • Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations
    • Energy and Commerce
      • Subcommittee on Health

HR 2528 – Respect States’ and Citizens’ Rights Act of 2017

Policy: This bill would add to the CSA a provision specifically declaring no congressional intent to preempt state cannabis laws.

Representative Diana DeGette (D-CO)
Photo: Center for American Progress Action Fund, Flickr

Impact: HR 2528 would rule out the potential for a judicial resolution to the federalism controversy. Most legal challenges to state legalization regimes have relied on a theory of Supremacy Clause preemption. Most notably was the 2014 case initiated by Oklahoma and Nebraska against Colorado, which you can find broken down here. Although the Supreme Court denied to hear that case, the issue is outstanding and remains an important factor, if not the central factor, in cannabis cases currently pending in federal court. Under this reform, state cannabis laws would be safe from invalidation, but it is less clear whether a mere anti-preemption clause would strip the federal government of its other powers under the CSA, or alter in any way the current status of cannabis as a Schedule I controlled substance. Questions arising under such uncertainty would likely have to go through long and hotly contested litigation before we have concrete answers. So although this proposal would resolve the ticklish issue of preemption, it leaves unaddressed the many other conundrums posed by federal-state divergence.

Procedural Status:

  • Introduced on May 18, 2017 by Representative Diana DeGette (D-CO)
  • Cosponsors: 1 Republican
  • Referred to House Committees on:
    • Judiciary
      • Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations
    • Energy and Commerce
      • Subcommittee on Health

HR 1841 – Regulate Marihuana Like Alcohol Act

Policy: This bill sets to accomplish a number of different reforms: remove cannabis from CSA; allow for import and export except into states that wish to prohibit cannabis altogether and/or prohibit its importation into the state; decriminalize cannabis use on national forest land; require a permit from the Secretary of the Treasury to import cannabis and to engage in any cannabis business activity; mandate businesses that obtain a Treasury permit to also comply with all State laws (so if state wants to continue to prohibit, they may); share jurisdiction over the administration and enforcement of the new federal laws between the DEA and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tabaco, Firearms and Explosives which is to be renamed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana, Firearms and Explosives.

Representative Jared Polis (D-CO)
Photo: Joshua Lawton, Flickr

Impact: If enacted, this bill will have many of the same impacts as the abovementioned HR 1227- Ending Marijuana Federal Prohibition Act of 2017. The IMPACT section for that bill will also pertain to this bill, with the following exception: by requiring a permit to operate a cannabis business from the Department of Treasury, the bill would add a layer of regulation on top of state law. Treasury Permits would be conditioned on permitees complying “with all other Federal laws relating to production, sale and consumption of marijuana.” Although §302 of the bill limits Treasury’s discretion in denying applications to only certain, enumerated disqualifying factors, the “other Federal laws” the bill refers to could embody any number of policy and jurisdictional preferences either enacted by the Congress or promulgated by the executive agencies charged with administration. At the current stage of speculation the best we can say is that descheduling cannabis under this bill would be a benefit to the industry, but out of all of the present proposals the provisions authorizing federal regulation present the greatest uncertainty for the shape the future of the industry might take.

Procedural Status:

  • Introduced on March 30, 2017 by Representative Jared Polis (D-CO)
  • Cosponsors: 1 Republican, 14 Democrat
  • Referred to House Committees on:
    • Judiciary
    • Energy and Commerce
    • Ways and Means
    • Agriculture
      • Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry
    • Natural Resources
      • Subcommittee on Federal Lands

HR 975

Statute: Adds one sentence to the CSA that excludes its application to any person acting in compliance with State cannabis laws.

Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)
Photo: Gage Skidmore, Flickr

Impact: The bill would have the same impact as the above HR 1227 – Ending Marijuana Federal Prohibition Act of 2017, with the only exception that the transportation provision in HR 1227 makes it clear that states will be permitted to prohibit the importation of cannabis from other states if they want to. This bill, without speaking directly to the matter of interstate importation, could leave the question open-ended until resolved through judicial interpretation.

Procedural Status:

  • Introduced on February 7, 2017 by Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)
  • Cosponsors: 8 Republican, 12 Democrat, 2 At-Large
  • Referred to House Committees on:
    • Judiciary
      • Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations
    • Energy and Commerce
      • Subcommittee on Health

Legislative Update

On Tuesday, August 1st, Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) introduced the twenty-fourth cannabis reform bill. The bill has yet to be assigned a number or referred to committee, but it is called the Marijuana Justice Act of 2017, and makes some interesting contributions to the lineup of reform proposals.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ)
Photo: Nick Fisher, Flickr

For legalization purposes, the bill both removes cannabis from the CSA and removes prohibitions on importing and exporting. The above analysis for descheduling and import/export would apply to Booker’s bill in the same way. The interesting twist thrown in is how criminal and racial justice objectives are linked to incentives for states to legalize. The ultimate decision to legalize or not in a given state will continue to be the prerogative of each state, but the catch is that if a state does not legalize cannabis and the number of arrests for cannabis offenses in that state disproportionately impacts minority or low-income citizens, then the federal government will pull funding it provides to that state for criminal justice-related programs. This could push more states who would otherwise not legalize onto the reform bandwagon. Such states will have to pit how much they value federal funds against how much they value criminalizing cannabis. If the former outweighs the latter, policy logic will dictate that they legalize. Updates on this bill, and movement on any others, will be tracked by CIJ.

For the next piece in this series, we will review the bills currently pending in Congress that cover medical cannabis reform and banking/tax reform. Stay tuned for the latest on what’s happening around Capitol Hill and in federal cannabis policy circles.