It’s Super Bowl week! Over the years, we’ve written occasionally about marijuana issues and the National Football League. See here, for example. As more states legalize marijuana, its prevalence in NFL cities is only increasing. This year, the Super Bowl will be in my backyard in Los Angeles (GO RAMS!), and I have no doubt
The coming New Year heralded new administrative regulations for marijuana in the State of Oregon. These changes came through the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission (OLCC) rulemaking process. That process, in turn, stems from cannabis laws passed by the Oregon legislature earlier this year. Common Ownership Issues Common Ownership Definition Oregon allows verticality in its
Big news from the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission (OLCC) this week as it announced it has resumed accepting and processing of new marijuana retailer, wholesaler, and processor applications submitted after June 15, 2018. This is welcome news as the OLCC had imposed an administrative “pause” on new applications to focus on existing licensees and
An Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission (OLCC) licensee must comply with all rules stemming from ORS 475B. There are a lot of them. These rules have been in a constant state of flux since 2015, and they are buttressed by other sets of permanent rules, temporary rules, proposed rules, bulletins and guidance. In my experience,
Cannabis licensing has a pretty standard trajectory by this point in time. States tend to start out with medical programs and later adopt recreational programs. What usually happens is that the recreational cannabis market swallows up the medical market. The majority of medical operators will seek out and get authorization to sell recreational cannabis, and
Seen as a protectionist, cottage measure to some stakeholders, residency requirements for cannabis licensure have been a staple in the industry since Washington and Colorado legalized cannabis statewide back in 2012. When I lived in Seattle, the local industry was mostly stoked then that “big money” and out-of-state interests couldn’t easily crash the party that
We wrote a couple of times about the Department of Cannabis Control’s (DCC) proposed emergency regulations. See here and here. Under those regulations, some interesting changes were proposed around the definitions of owners and financial interest holders, alongside restrictions on license stacking on “contiguous” premises (among other things). On September 15, 2021, the DCC submitted
Last Friday and Saturday, members of the Oregon Bar gathered (online) for the third annual Cannabis Law Institute (CLI) put on by the Cannabis and Psychedelics Law Section of the Oregon State Bar. Topics included agricultural liens and receiverships, securities in the cannabis industry, federal and state hemp updates, Oregon’s Psilocybin Act, and the failures
I was born in Rogers Park, Chicago. When I abandoned college (one of the times), I moved back to work in a Greek and Albanian restaurant and live with my grandparents. I used to enjoy sitting at the breakfast table with them and reading the Tribune, which often carried stories of city and downstate corruption.
I’ve preached before on the blog about how often our firm gets pulled into M&A deals where the parties have screwed up reporting the transaction to cannabis regulators on both the state and local levels. In California, in particular, changes of ownership have been a painful affair where the Bureau of Cannabis Control (“BCC”) routinely
