The group scattered, translucent green trash bags in hand, across the sand as the sun began setting against the Pacific Ocean. They had met at Venice Beach’s famed graffiti wall for Island Cannabis Co.’s latest beach clean-up event. The cannabis product manufacturer brought the small crowd of 15 together to do something more for the local community—something not completely related to cannabis.

“When we were first thinking about ways we could make an impact … beach clean-ups and participating in ocean-minded activities was one way that we thought we could get directly involved,” Island COO Brandon Mills tells Cannabis Dispensary. “The beach clean-up was a way to do something physically and tangibly and just be a part of a community, so that we can help sort of bring visibly to the fact that cannabis companies aren't a bad thing. In southern California, it's kind of interesting: Most of the beach cities here actually have a moratorium on cannabis retail.”

Venice is unique among SoCal beach communities in that it boasts several licensed dispensaries. MedMen’s latest location opened on Abbot Kinney Boulevard, a stone’s throw from the beach. But further south along the spine of State Rt. 1, cities like Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, Torrance and Palos Verdes do not allow cannabis retail businesses.

Mills says the beach clean-ups are one way of meeting local public officials halfway and showing them—and the southern California community at large—that there’s a lot more to the industry than high-THC flower. Although, of course, there’s that.

Headquartered in Redondo Beach, Island started in 2014 as a coastal brand aligned with the aesthetics and cultural imagery of southern California: Surfboards and palm trees play intrinsic roles in the brand’s marketing materials.

California’s legal adult-use market went live on Jan. 1, but a broad spectrum of regulatory hurdles tempered the thrill of Prop. 64 promises. Major cities like Los Angeles got out in front of the market, developing regulatory departments and enforcing new tax codes, but still a full two-thirds of the state has instituted one form or another of moratorium on the industry. The way Island’s team sees it, part of surmounting those walls is outreach and education.

“It just seems that the cannabis industry doesn't have a meaningful physical presence in these beach communities,” Mills says. “We thought beach clean-ups were one way that we could get involved and meet the people that are local and involved in these types of activities and share our story that cannabis companies are chock-full of smart young professional well meaningful people like us.”

On the beach, the volunteers found bottle caps, napkins, cups, tent poles, even a love letter lost to the LA tide. After the beach clean-up, the team and the sprightly corps of volunteers headed over the Bank of Venice for a few rounds of draft beer, cocktails and tacos. Beneath high-vaulted ceilings, they caught up on life and talked about pets, LA and work. Cannabis didn’t really come up at all. 

“Island, as a brand, one of the things that we've embraced from the beginning is that cannabis is a part of a lot of people's lives, but it's not all of people's lives," Mills says. "We've been trying to ... participate in events that aren't necessarily cannabis-focused. Whether that's doing a beach clean-up or volunteering at a local 5k [or] 10k run to hand out water or any of the things where our brand doesn't really have a presence, we're just out there participating and it doesn't have to be cannabis-related [to be] important to us.”

One key to successfully hosting events like this—and building a following—is the power of partnerships.

Island hosted its first beach clean-ups in conjunction with 99 High Tide Collective in Malibu. (“That was the only other retail organization that we knew of that was doing any kind of beach clean-up activity in the cannabis space,” Mills says.) In Venice, the team joined kNew Health founder James Maskell and his family; they live in the area and they’ve been out here on the beach for evening clean-ups, putting in the work that they’d like to see on a grander scale in their community. 

To those who are interested—and to those companies who see an example in Island’s outreach efforts—the team is planning more of these beach clean-up events Follow @islandcannaco on Instagram for future event details.

“We're trying to find all the little ways we can make a difference,” Mills says.

Photos by Eric Sandy

Top photo: Rep. Edie Hooton, who sponsored a bill to add autism to Colorado's medical marijuana program, speaks at a June 7 news conference in response to Gov. John Hickenlooper's veto of the autism legislation, as well as two other cannabis-related bills. Also in attendance were Michelle Walker, director of the Colorado state chapter of Mothers Advocating Medical Marijuana for Autism (MAMMA); Rep. Dan Pabon; Sen. Tim Neville; Rep. Kevin Van Winkle; Marijuana Industry Group’s executive director, Kristi Kelly, and chairman, Bruce Nassau; Christian Sederberg of the Vicente Sederberg law firm; and Cannability Foundation Executive Director Stacy Lynn. Photo courtesy of Mason Tvert/Marijuana Policy Project.

Cannabis advocates in Colorado are disappointed following Gov. John Hickenlooper’s rapid-fire vetoes of bills that would have added autism to the state’s medical marijuana program, permitted licensed marijuana “tasting rooms” and helped cannabis businesses access out-of-state capital.

House Bill 1263 was introduced by Rep. Edie Hooton in March and was originally designed to add acute pain to the state’s list of medical marijuana conditions. However, before the bill’s introduction, mothers and advocates of children suffering from autism spectrum disorders approached Hooton and persuaded her to add the condition to her bill. When House committee members told Hooton they would not vote for the bill if acute pain remained part of the measure, Hooton removed it, and the legislation passed through the state legislature largely uncontested, although groups including the Colorado Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Society, Colorado Psychiatric Society, Children's Hospital Colorado and Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment opposed it, citing the lack of clinical research.

“There was strong bipartisan support for the bill to add autism as a qualifying condition for medical marijuana,” Mason Tvert, spokesperson for the Marijuana Policy Project, told Cannabis Business Times. “It passed in the House 53-11 and in the Senate 32-3. It was strongly supported, and … throughout the months-long process of developing the legislation and introducing it and all of the dialogue surrounding it, no concerns were expressed by the governor or his office about that legislation.”

It wasn’t until the bill passed the state legislature, Tvert said, that Gov. Hickenlooper voiced last-minute concerns, at which point it was impossible to amend the legislation.

In a letter, Hickenlooper said that while he was empathetic to the families affected by the bill’s ultimate defeat, he could not “ignore such overwhelming concerns from the medical community."

“He just basically torpedoed this legislation, and the reasoning he provided is not particularly compelling,”  Tvert said. “It is certainly a positive that he signed an executive order to create the study into the use of cannabis for autism, but there was no reason to deny this treatment to these families and these children who are suffering from this condition.”

Hickenlooper’s concerns, Tvert said, centered around the potential harm cannabis can have on young people, although several states around the country allow the use of medical marijuana for children with autism. “[Colorado has] a medical marijuana law that allows children to access this treatment if their doctors believe it is in their interest, and that’s a question for doctors—and we have doctors that are recommending it for epilepsy and other sorts of seizure conditions, and there’s really no reason why young people suffering from autism should lack access to this treatment option,” Tvert said.

“He just basically torpedoed this legislation, and the reasoning he provided is not particularly compelling."

-Mason Tvert, Spokesperson, Marijuana Policy Project

***

The marijuana tasting room bill, House Bill 1258, was introduced in February and would have allowed dispensary licensees across the state to establish social consumption establishments where customers could vaporize flower or concentrates. The legislation attempted to address Colorado’s lingering social cannabis consumption issue by creating the first statewide licensing program for cannabis consumption and allowing towns and counties to decide whether to allow the consumption areas within their jurisdictions.

The Marijuana Enforcement Division (MED) and the Colorado Department of Revenue took a neutral stance and referred to tasting rooms as an “incremental approach” to social consumption in the state, Tvert said. “Vocal regulators and officials have said that there needs to be clarity at the state level on the issues surrounding social use, and this would have addressed those.”

“It’s a big deal that they came in neutral because they’ve always opposed public consumption bills in the past, but regulators are starting to realize, ‘Look, you can’t have marijuana legalization anywhere and not provide a place for people to consume,’” said Peter Marcus, the communications director for Terrapin Care Station, a vertically integrated cannabis company in Colorado that backed the tasting rooms bill. “What happens is they end up on the street, they end up in their car, they end up in parks, so as marijuana legalization in Colorado continues to unfold—successfully, I might add—they’re starting to realize that we need to fill the regulatory gaps that … just weren’t immediately addressed. … The last big gap in regulation … is public consumption in Colorado.”

And while Gov. Hickenlooper has generally helped to implement adult-use cannabis regulations in the state and has urged federal officials to respect Colorado’s cannabis laws, “he has continued to be disappointing when it comes to the rights of cannabis consumers, and some of these logistical questions like where they can consume,” Tvert said.

“We are concerned that marijuana use at consumption establishments could result in additional impaired or intoxicated drivers on our roadways,” Hickenlooper said in a letter announcing the veto. “This bill also poses public health risks. Allowing vaporization of marijuana in confined spaces poses a significant health risk for employees and patrons of consumption establishments."

Supporters of the bill were working with the Colorado Department of Health and Department of Transportation to provide educational pamphlets in tasting room establishments that would provide information on drugged driving and other issues, Marcus said.

“Consumers remain inconvenienced,” he said. “It’s at least something they’ve been dealing with, so they’re used to it, but the inconvenience will remain that they currently have no place to consume.”

"Regulators are starting to realize, ‘Look, you can’t have marijuana legalization anywhere and not provide a place for people to consume.’"

Peter Marcus, Communications Director, Terrapin Care Station

***

House Bill 1011 would have helped Colorado cannabis businesses access capital from investors outside of the state, allowing the State Licensing Authority and the MED to deny unsuitable entities the ability to participate in Colorado’s cannabis industry. The legislation required investors to provide pertinent financial information at the time of application and on an ongoing basis, and mandated that public companies participating in the state’s cannabis industry share their SEC and other exchange filings with the MED and meet initial disclosure requirements when investing.

“This is an industry that is growing incredibly rapidly. It’s a brand-new industry, which means that you need heavy investment,” Marcus said. “Some cannabis companies have found themselves overextended, … so they were looking for the state to allow for additional investments from outside of the state so that they could continue to grow and keep Colorado one of the leaders. Some companies are actually talking about moving their headquarters out of Colorado now.”

Cannabis business leaders, patients, consumers and state lawmakers held a news conference June 7 in response to the governor’s vetoes. In attendance were Republican State Sen. Tim Neville; three Democratic House members; Michelle Walker, the director of the Colorado chapter of Mothers Advocating Medical Marijuana for Autism (MAMMA); leaders of the Marijuana Industry Group, a Colorado trade association; the Cannabis Business Alliance and more, Tvert said.

It seems unlikely that proponents of these bills will be able to convene a special session to override the vetoes, Tvert said, as the governor must call for a special session. However, with strong support from the state legislature and a gubernatorial election in November, these issues will surely be revisited during the next legislative session.

“[The vetoes are] significant setbacks, but they’re not poison pills,” Tvert said. “These are issues that will come up again in the legislature next year, and there will be a new governor who will hopefully be more forward-thinking and reasonable on this issue.”

Hickenlooper is term-limited and cannot run for re-election this November.

“He has said himself in a couple of interviews that he has felt the backlash from the public, so it serves as a reminder to elected officials in office now and those considering office and will run this mid-term election that standing on the right or wrong side of history when it comes to cannabis policy can make or break your campaign,” Marcus said.

U.S. Rep. Jared Polis, a Democratic gubernatorial candidate, has said that he would have signed the bills, Tvert said, and he is currently the frontrunner in the race for governor.

“These were bills that had strong support and they were backed by members of both parties, so they will surely come up again as they resolve issues with our cannabis laws, and it’s just unfortunate that this had to waste so much time this year,” Tvert said. “A lot of people worked on these issues—groups of stakeholders coming together and developing these bills and tweaking them to make sure both parties were satisfied—and then in the eleventh hour, the governor decides to veto them and send everyone back to the drawing board next year.”

“Long-term, we have a gubernatorial election ahead of us. Most of the candidates have been better than John Hickenlooper when it comes to marijuana,” Marcus added. “We got it through the legislature this year, which means we’ll get it through the legislature next year, so we’re a year away. I would be really surprised if we don’t get this done in the next legislative session with a more favorable governor.”

This article originally appeared in the April 2018 issue of Cannabis Dispensary. To subscribe, click here.

Since adult-use legalization began, California regulators have been on the road performing random, surprise compliance checks at licensed cultivators, manufacturers and dispensaries. One of their top priorities: ensuring all cannabis products’ labels meet the new state regulations.

This puts the state’s regulated cannabis businesses in a quandary. The new (temporary) regulations were issued only weeks before the Jan. 1 implementation date, leaving most companies without adequate time to design, manufacture and receive compliant packaging and labeling materials. This has left compliance up to individual retailers, who, under temporary regulations for the “transition to the legal market,” can place all non-compliant products into one big, compliant exit bag in hopes of satisfying the regulators.

At Magnolia Wellness, the dispensary I manage in Oakland, Calif., each exit bag must have five warning labels. First is the “universal warning symbol,” a triangle with an exclamation point and a marijuana leaf inside. The state mandates the size of this symbol, and eventually it will need to be affixed to each individual product. Next is the testing warning, alerting consumers that the products inside have not been tested according to California’s new legal requirements. No California products have yet, as the state testing regulations have yet to be implemented, and labs are still working on compliant procedures. This requirement will start when the state begins issuing “annual licenses” later this year.

Then there are two “government warnings”—one for edibles and one for other cannabis products. These warnings indicate that cannabis is a Schedule 1 controlled substance, that it should be kept away from children and that it is only legal for medical users and people 21 and older. Each warning states that cannabis may be harmful to pregnant or breastfeeding women, and that users should be cautious when driving and operating machinery after use. The warning for edibles includes a reminder that effects could be delayed for up to two hours.

Finally, California requires the Proposition 65 (also called the “Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act”) warning, which tells consumers that cannabis contains chemicals that are known to cause cancer, such as beta-myrcene, as well as cadmium, which is associated with birth defects and other reproductive harms. Private lawyers are searching for ways to profit off Prop. 65 by challenging dispensaries’ compliance. Include this warning, or be sued and lose.

 To read the full article in Cannabis Dispensary's April 2018 issue, click here.

Top photo © iStockphoto

As state regulators continue evaluating processing and testing license applications ahead of the anticipated Sept. 8 medical marijuana launch date, Ohioans are getting ready to see cannabis businesses show up in their communities. Some are even considering joining the Green Rush.

A dozen of those cannabis industry hopefuls attended Ohio’s first Marijuana Business Association (MJBA) meeting in the east suburbs of Cleveland on June 12, hoping to glean more insight into the state’s nascent medical cannabis market.

David Rheins, MJBA’s founder and president, hosted the evening event and organized a list of panelists to speak on the different aspects and the potential of the Buckeye State’s market.

“I’m excited about Ohio,” Rheins said after the meeting. “As a Midwesterner, for me, this is the last mile … [of] the breadbasket of America, the conservative Bible Belt: Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois, Michigan. These are the states that embody traditional American values.”

Rheins leaned heavily on the notion that the cannabis industry not only needs to unite internally, but also must connect with communities at large. He highlighted Ohio as a state that could swing the federal pendulum: “My perspective is the greatest hurdle to legalization is … the integration of cannabis and cannabis users into the mainstream. The battle in the Midwest is the final frontier.”

Here are three other takeaways from the inaugural MJBA-Cleveland meeting.

1. Appeals are rarely worth your time.

As a free piece of legal advice, Steven Baden, an attorney with the Myers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis law firm in Cleveland, told the audience most applicants should not to waste time, money and energy on contesting how a state awards cannabis licenses.

In his presentation, Baden reviewed how Ohio awarded the limited licenses and the Ernst & Young report validating the state’s process. Other businesses have appealed the licensing process on similar grounds in other states and nearly all ended in failure. That’s why he didn’t join the crowd of applicants who didn’t qualify for cultivation licenses after his got turned down.

In the end, all that is going to happen is “you’ll blow a lot of money on lawyers,” he said.

2. Thousands of jobs are going to be created.

Ohio’s cannabis licensees are going to create thousands of jobs in their communities, said Michelle Blank, owner Mary Jane Agency, a cannabis staffing company that matches prospective employees with employers looking for particular skill sets.

Ohio’s processing and testing facilities will be the biggest employment drivers in the Buckeye State’s cannabis program, as Blank projected those companies will employ between 35-60 people each. And those will be good paying jobs as they will often require science degrees.

3. It’s not just the licensees that have the opportunity.

The cannabis market is full of innovation, said Michael O’Malley, owner and creator of Curved Papers, especially in ancillary products and services.

O’Malley told the story of how he came up with Curved Papers—a rolling paper with curved edges to make “tucking” your joint easier—and innovated in an industry that has remained mostly unchanged for the last 500 years. “Rolling papers that you buy today are being made in the same region of Southern France and Northern Spain that they’ve been made since their inception,” O’Malley said.

He stressed that even if a market is established, there is always room to innovate. “If you have differentiation, the money is there.”

Top photo by Brian MacIver