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
In my last post I reported the Mexican Senate’s refusal in its just-ended legislative session to address the Supreme Court’s 2018 directive to pass reforms legalizing recreational use of cannabis. Unless you are a Mexican Senator or Supreme Court Justice, you probably don’t have too many levers you can pull to speed the implementation of
For better or worse, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (a/k/a Prop. 65) has long plagued California businesses. And cannabis businesses are no exception (see here and here). Prop. 65 requires businesses to provide “a clear and reasonable warning before they cause an exposure to a chemical listed as known to
In our last post, as well as in our Mexico cannabis webinar last month (replay here), we examined the implications, business opportunities and requirements to take advantage of the Medical Regulations that recently entered into force in Mexico. Yes, medical cannabis is now fully legal in Mexico. However, that does not mean that you are able
We will debunk the various incorrect ideas, impressions, and rumors we continue to hear in the Mexico cannabis practice. As the legalization process draws closer, we deem it important to provide local and foreign readers with a clear understanding of what is really going on with the roll-out of cannabis legalization in Mexico. So without
On September 19, China’s Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM”) issued the Regulations on Unreliable Entity List (“Regulations”), which took effect on the same date. Though we have not seen an actual list of unreliable entities, the Regulations set out the general principles for the Unreliable Entity List (UEL) system. Who can be included on the UEL? The
This November 2020 election, cannabis legalization initiatives will appear on the ballots of five states: Arizona, Mississippi, Montana, New Jersey and South Dakota. Every Sunday until November 3, Canna Law Blog will publish a post centered on one of these state ballot initiatives, and the current laws surrounding cannabis in that state. Last Sunday, we
California’s three cannabis agencies–the Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC), California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), and California Department of Public Health (CDPH)–aggressively regulate every aspect of the state’s licensed cannabis industry. Most of the agencies’ rules make sense or have some justifiable purpose. Today, I want to talk about some of the rules that
The California legislature is considering a new law (AB-1639) that, if passed, would restrict how cannabis vape products are made and sold. AB-1639 would change California law for tobacco and cannabis businesses (for the purposes of this post, we’ll just focus on the cannabis side of the law), and would effectively prohibit almost any kind
Recently, I mentioned that except for Champ v. Commissioner, no cannabis company has ever won an Internal Revenue Code § 280E case. One of the more famous setbacks was a 2018 case known as Harborside v. Commissioner, which expressly found IRC § 280E constitutional. That decision started with the memorable line that: “[Harborside] owns what
