Cannabis News

California: SB-1326 Cannabis: interstate agreements. .. Full text & articles

An Act to amend article 26080 and add chapter 25 (beginning with article 26300) to section 10 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to cannabis.


SB 1326, as introduced, Caballero. Cannabis: interstate agreements.

The Adult Use Control, Regulation, and Taxation of Marijuana Act (AUMA), a private member’s bill approved as Proposition 64 in the November 8, 2016 general election, authorizes a person who obtains a state license under the AUMA to engage in commercial use by adults. cannabis-related activity in accordance with this license and applicable local ordinances. The Medical and Adult Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA), among other things, consolidates the licensing and regulation of commercial activities related to medical and adult cannabis. MAUCRSA clarifies that its provisions shall not be construed as authorizing or permitting a licensee to transport or distribute, or cause to be transported or distributed, cannabis or cannabis-based products out of state, unless authorized of federal law.

This bill would make an exception to the prohibition described above and authorize the governor to enter into an agreement with one or more other states authorizing commercial cannabis activity for medical or adult purposes, or both, between entities permitted under the laws of the other state. or states and entities operating with a state license under the MAUCRSA, provided that the cannabis business activities are legal and subject to license under the laws of the other state or states. The bill would prohibit an entity holding a cannabis business license issued under the laws of another state from engaging in cannabis business activity within that state without a state license, or in a local jurisdiction without a license, permit or other authorization issued. by the local jurisdiction. The bill would require the agreement to require the other state or states to impose on its licensees requirements with respect to cannabis and cannabis products for sale or otherwise distributed in that state that meet or exceed requirements applicable to MAUCRSA license holders, as specified. The bill would require the agreement to include provisions for dealing with public health and welfare emergencies relating to cannabis or cannabis-based products that are sold or intended for sale in that state and provisions relating to investigation of license holders and instances of alleged non-compliance with cannabis trade regulations. programs, as specified. The bill would require the agreement to include provisions for the collection of applicable taxes. The bill would clarify that the agreement does not constitute a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act.

This bill would provide that its provisions are severable.

The Adult Marijuana Use Control, Regulation and Taxation Act, a private member’s bill, authorizes the Legislature to amend the law to advance the objectives and intent of the law with a 2/3 votes of members of both houses of the Legislative Assembly.

This bill would state that its provisions further clarify the purposes and intent of the Adult Marijuana Use Control, Regulation and Taxation Act.


Voting: 2/3 Credit: no Tax committee: yes Local program: no


LA Weekly Reports

With California’s cannabis economy in shambles, the idea of ​​interstate commerce is pretty cool. Although still far from complete, Senate Bill 1326 would get the ball rolling.

the bill would allow the governor enter into agreements between California and one or more states permitting legal state enterprises to conduct commercial activities related to cannabis.

This could mean that a medical-only state wants to secure its supply chain without allowing local production. It could also mean the most tantalizing idea on the tip of everyone’s tongue: exports.

With that, you’ve already heard speculation about a deal that would allow Oregon to ship products south. I wouldn’t devote too much trauma to the idea. Regulators are well aware of the current oversupply of products in California. The idea that cannabis leaving California would eventually enter the legal market, however, was always on the horizon.

SB 1326 was probably released sooner than some would have expected. But with the rapid pace of change in the District of Columbia when it comes to weeds, it only makes sense to put the ducks in line for the next expected federal reforms.

While the conversation is outgoing, there are also more protections for municipalities still on the lookout for the cannabis industry to come to town.

“The bill would prohibit an entity holding a cannabis business license issued under the laws of another state from engaging in cannabis business activity within the boundaries of that state without a state license, or in a local jurisdiction without a license, permit or other authorization issued by the local jurisdiction,” reads the text of the bill.

So if a small town was afraid that a multi-state operator was positioning itself to come in and take over the marker, there might be room to block it. But once you start to understand how the language would be impacted by transferring a license, it gets a little fuzzier.

The language that reads the scariest is probably the part that notes that any agreement should obligate the other state to ensure that products manufactured with intent to be sold in California meet or exceed our safety standards.

We don’t know why this part has to be there. Looks like the weed would be going in the wrong direction at this point, doesn’t it? True. But it would also be the legal mechanism for new genetic lines worked by legal nurseries in other states to enter the market. So that part is cool and the larger weed genome across the country would be better off.

There are a few other public health taxes and provisions, and the mandate that anything enacted by the governor would be severable.

The California Cannabis Industry Association has had the subject of interstate commerce on its radar for a few years.

“You know, interestingly, interstate commerce has kind of been on the table for a few years and we’ve been talking to various stakeholders and trade associations,” said CCIA executive director Lindsay Robinson. THE weekly. “I think it’s been partially sidelined over the last 18-24 months due to COVID.”

Robinson said interstate commerce was discussed at length by the CCIA. She also found the bill’s sponsor, Senator Anna M. Caballero of Merced, to be thoughtful about cannabis.

“That said, it will depend on the details of the deal,” Robinson said. “We need to make sure California cannabis is stabilized and businesses here are functioning well and hopefully thriving before we consider an import.”

Robinson says we can learn a lot from the trials and lessons other states have gone through, but we know there are already a ton of legal products out there that don’t have a path to market due to lack of space. sale to detail. Going forward, she hopes the idea of ​​using deals to stabilize California industry is the foundation of the plan. The CCIA will be in touch with Caballero’s office regarding their policy and existing principles regarding the highway they would support.



#California #SB1326 #Cannabis #interstate #agreements #Full #text #articles

Related Posts

Leave a Reply