“2028 sounds far away. But artwork gets locked with the printer weeks or months before the run. Then the boxes sit in a warehouse until they are used.”

By Adrian A. Holguin, CannaShark Consulting

Last month, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed AB 2249, a bill that puts a much clearer line around what cannabis packaging, labels and ads can look like. The short version: no child-oriented dragons, unicorns or wizards; nobody who looks under 21; no imagery of candy, cereal, sweets or desserts primarily marketed to children; no child-style bubble or balloon lettering; and no packaging that mimics a noncannabis product marketed to kids.

The new definition takes effect on January 1, 2028.

Most of the coverage stopped there, and I get it. “Rules take effect in sixteen months” doesn’t make anyone spill their coffee. But operators tend to call me after a rule costs more than they expected, so here’s why 2028 is not the date that matters.

First, the basics.

California has banned cannabis packaging that is “attractive to children” since legal sales began, and cartoons on labels are already prohibited. The problem was that the line remained subjective and was applied inconsistently. A 2025 state audit found that Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) rules were not specific enough and that reasonable reviewers sometimes reached different conclusions about similar packaging.

AB 2249 draws a clearer line. It defines “attractive to children” as designed or likely to appeal to anyone under 21, then identifies cartoons; depictions of people under 21; celebrities, influencers, characters and mascots primarily associated with contemporary children’s media or products; fantasy characters such as unicorns, wizards and dragons; imagery of candy, cereal, sweets and desserts primarily marketed to children; child-oriented bubble or balloon lettering; and packaging that mimics a noncannabis product marketed to children.

Cartoon or overly stylized fruit on an edible or vape label is out. A realistic depiction of fruit that accurately reflects an ingredient or production region is allowed.

The bill also authorizes DCC to adopt additional rules for design elements or product characteristics that pose a heightened risk to children, and it requires the department to develop self-assessment resources.

DCC launched its AI-based Cannabis Product Image Analyzer in June. Use it as a screening tool, not a safe harbor: an automated result is advisory, not a final DCC determination.

AB 2249 sets no deadline for additional rulemaking or for the required resources, so operators are still designing against a target that could move.

Now here’s the part that got underplayed.

Packaging isn’t bought like office supplies. Many brands buy it in runs representing six months to a year of inventory because that is how they protect unit economics. Artwork gets locked with the printer weeks or months before the run. Then the boxes sit in a warehouse until they are used.

So play it forward. A brand placing a normal-sized packaging order in early 2027 may be buying stock it expects to use well into 2028. AB 2249 contains no express sell-through safe harbor for old packaging.

Unless DCC issues contrary guidance, the prudent plan is to assume that product offered for sale on January 1, 2028 must comply with the new definition. That may put the artwork deadline in late 2026. In other words, somebody has to decide now whether the mascot stays.

The California Cannabis Industry Association opposed the bill on cost, and that concern is real. A redesign can mean compliance review, new plates, minimum order quantities, retailer notifications and eventually paying someone to destroy old packaging. But the final Senate vote was 38-0, and the Assembly concurred 69-1.

The cost is now a scheduling problem, and scheduling problems are only cheap if you start early.

Handled on the front end, this is a calendar and a manageable cost. Handled on the back end, it becomes destroyed inventory, retailer disruption, potential enforcement and a bill with more zeros. The difference is almost never information. Operators knew the rule was coming. The problem is that “2028” sounds far away.

If you hold a California license, this quarter looks like this: pull every SKU and flag anything with a character, creature, candy cue, child-oriented lettering or stylized fruit. If you have to argue about whether the gummy bear is a cartoon, it probably is.

Get your printer’s real lead times in writing and work backward from January 1, 2028. Start the redesign conservatively, have the final art reviewed, and run it through DCC’s tool as a screen before the plates are cut. Then size your last old-look order to sell through before 2028.

Nobody should build a compliance plan around the hope that the state will be generous with a pallet of dragon gummies.

The state gave you sixteen months. Your printer gave you about six. Plan around the printer.

Adrian A. Holguin, J.D., M.B.A., is founder and president of CannaShark Consulting. He advises cannabis operators and businesses in other highly regulated industries on licensing, compliance, finance and operations, and also serves as an expert witness.

Photo courtesy of Max Pixel.

Source link

Licensed cannabis retailers in Canada set a new monthly sales record in June of CA$517.8 million, or about $374.5 million USD. This exceeds the $372.4 million USD generated by California during the same month, which means that Canada — at least for the month of June — became the world’s largest cannabis market, according to SF Gate.

As the world’s second-largest country by land mass, Canada is far bigger than California, but the territories have similarly sized populations. But while California’s cannabis industry has struggled with high taxes, strict regulations, local bans, and competition with a rampant illicit market, the Canadian market has continued growing with new businesses and overseas export opportunities.

California currently has 3.7 cannabis dispensaries or delivery services per 100,000 people, according to the report, while Canada has 7.9 cannabis stores per 100,000 people.

Los Angeles-based cannabis consultant Hirsh Jain told SF Gate that California had all of the advantages it needed to become a global leader in cannabis reforms, “Yet poor policymaking has turned what should have been the world’s premier legal cannabis market into a cautionary tale.”

Previously, Michigan outpaced California in total legal cannabis sales in 2024, although the California market still generated more revenue that year.

Ganjapreneur: Offering daily insights since 2014, the leading digital business journal for cannabis industry professionals. Subscribe to the newsletter to join our community of over 40,000 ganjapreneurs.

Source link

California’s governor has signed a bill to more clearly define the types of marijuana packaging and labeling that is prohibited due to appealing to children.

Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) gave final approval to the legislation from Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin (D) on Monday, about two weeks after it passed the Assembly in a vote of 69-1 and cleared the Senate 38-0.

“When voters legalized adult-use cannabis, they also made clear that California must protect children and ensure cannabis products are sold in a tightly regulated marketplace,” the governor said in a press release. “Today we are setting clearer, enforceable standards that protect kids, strengthen accountability, and give responsible businesses the certainty they need to follow the rules.”

As enacted into law, AB 2249 defines “attractive to children” to mean designed or likely to appeal to people under the age of 21.

Indications for that youth appeal include the use of cartoons, depictions of individuals who appear to be under 21, use of mythological creatures like unicorns or dragons or references to celebrities or characters who are primarily associated with children’s entertainment.

It also includes images of consumable goods that are primarily marketed to children—such as candies, cereals, sweets and desserts—as well as the use of lettering styles resembling “overinflated bubbles or balloons” that are typical in products marketed to kids.

“Cannabis and cannabis product packaging and labeling shall not imitate, mimic, or closely resemble the packaging, labeling, trade dress, or overall appearance of a non-cannabis product that is primarily marketed to children,” the legislation says.

While the new law says that “edible cannabis product or vape cartridge labeling shall not include cartoon or overly stylized depictions of fruit,” one provision clarifies that “realistic depictions of fruit used to identify or accurately depict the product ingredients or production region are not prohibited.”

The packaging and labeling restrictions are set to take effect on January 1, 2028 now that the measure has been enacted into law.

—
Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.

Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access.
—

Under the legislation, the Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) is directed to adopt regulations to “address additional packaging and labeling design elements or product characteristics that pose heightened risk to children.”

DCC will also be required to develop “compliance assessment resources” to help cannabis businesses self-evaluate whether their packaging and labeling at attractive to children.

In June, the department rolled out a new AI tool to help businesses identify marijuana product packaging may appeal to kids in violation of existing state rules, which already ban cartoons on cannabis labels.

Irwin, the bill’s sponsor, previously requested the California State Auditor to conduct an assessment of DCC’s enforcement of existing laws against marketing cannabis products to children.

That audit “confirmed what many have long recognized: California’s cannabis industry continues to package and market products in ways which are overtly attractive to children,” the lawmaker said.

“Since the passage of Proposition 64, child cannabis poisonings have increased dramatically. These exposures are often driven by cannabis product packaging that uses features which are explicitly attractive to children, leading children to consume the products unintentionally,” Irwin said. “Young children who accidentally consumer cannabis require poison control treatment consistently, and in many cases they can also expose their fellow elementary and middle school peers to cannabis.”

The California Cannabis Industry Association (CCIA), for its part, opposed the bill.

“AB 2249 would impose significant costs on the licensed businesses that already keep cannabis away from children, undermine the state’s efforts to bring consumers into the regulated market, and does not address safe at-home storage practices,” the trade association said.

The measure was amended by the Senate after initially clearing the Assembly, including by delaying its effective date, narrowing the definition of “attractive to children” and removing some requirements for regulators.

Meanwhile, lawmakers this session have also advanced legislation to allow marijuana retailers to offer drive-thru windows to serve customers.

California’s treasurer recently said the marijuana legalization law that voters approved a decade ago has been a “complete failure” and should be replaced with a new ballot initiative that prioritizes consumers and small businesses.

The vice chair of the state Senate Budget Committee has floated the idea of putting a new initiative on the state ballot to “reverse” Proposition 64, for example, arguing that voters were misled and voicing concerns about the health impacts of marijuana use.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton, who is endorsed by President Donald Trump, recently told Marijuana Moment that taxes and regulations on cannabis are “too high.”

DCC recently released data showing how 97 percent of state cannabis enforcement actions in unincorporated cities have happened in counties that have locally banned licensed growers from operating.

California regulators also recently adopted emergency rules changes for the state’s marijuana licensing process that are intended to make it easier for businesses to qualify for benefits in line with the Trump administration’s recent move to federally reschedule medical cannabis.

Newsom recently took credit for helping to lead the push for the state to legalize marijuana and discussed his own limited experience with using cannabis.

Last October, however, Newsom vetoed a bill that would have allowed certain marijuana microbusinesses to ship medical cannabis products directly to patients via common carriers like FedEx and UPS, stating that the proposal “would be burdensome and overly complex to administer.”

Newsom did sign a bill earlier that month aimed at streamlining research on marijuana and psychedelics.

Last September, the governor also signed a measure into law to put a pause on a recently enacted tax hike on marijuana products.

Separately, the state attorney general says Indian tribes cannot independently engage in marijuana commerce with licensed cannabis businesses without first obtaining their own commercial license from state officials.

California officials recently awarded nearly $30 million in grants for marijuana-focused academic research projects.

Source link

Five separate bills are moving through the California legislature at the same time, and together they touch nearly every part of a licensee’s compliance program; (1) how the Department of Cannabis Control (the “DCC”) investigates and penalizes violations, (2) what gets tested and disclosed at retail, and (3) what a products can look like on the shelf.

As of mid-August 2026, AB 1826 and AB 2537 remain in the Senate Appropriations suspense file, while AB 1965, AB 2249, and AB 2532 have advanced further along the legislative process. None of these bills exist in a vacuum, and operators who wait until they finally pass to start adjusting internal procedures will be playing catch-up.

AB 1826: due process for recalls, embargoes, and destruction

Under the current framework, the DCC has broad authority to issue recall and embargo notices, and licensees have limited formal rights to contest the underlying findings before product must be destroyed. AB 1826 changes that dynamic in several ways.

The bill would create a new “administrative error” category so that certain technical issues—such as nonconforming labeling, track-and-trace clerical mistakes, or minor potency variances—no longer automatically count as adulteration or misbranding. It would also require the DCC to include supporting documentation with any notice of adulteration, misbranding, or embargo, rather than a bare conclusion.

Perhaps most significantly, AB 1826 would require the DCC to offer licensees a mandatory meet-and-confer opportunity within five business days of a notice, and would prohibit destruction of the product until that process concludes or the licensee declines to participate. The bill sets firm timelines throughout: a final determination within 15 calendar days of the informal conference, embargo tag removal shortly after a no-violation finding, and an expedited hearing process for perishable products such as flower and live plants. It also bars the DCC from conditioning any relief, corrective plan approval, or embargo removal on a licensee waiving its right to a hearing or appeal.

For operators, this means building internal protocols now for responding within these compressed timelines, training compliance staff to demand supporting documentation the moment a notice arrives, and factoring the new hold-don’t-destroy framework into inventory and cash-flow planning during any dispute.

AB 2537: a risk-based enforcement framework

AB 2537, the Cannabis Enforcement Accountability and Public Health Prioritization Act, requires the DCC to adopt a risk-based enforcement framework starting January 1, 2028, prioritizing material threats over minor technical or administrative violations. The DCC would be required to publish an enforcement policy explaining exactly how it plans to triage violations by risk level.

The bill is not purely about leniency, however. It also extends the statute of limitations for MAUCRSA citations to three years after the violating act and adds a right to an informal hearing tied to citations. Operators should read this as a philosophical shift toward proportionality at DCC, paired with a longer window during which historical compliance gaps remain exposed. Risk-based enforcement is not an excuse to relax recordkeeping discipline.

AB 1965: testing, quality assurance, and retail disclosure

AB 1965 focuses on what happens in the lab and at the point of sale. It requires cannabis products to be tested and retested in their final consumable form, and changes how DCC selects batches for that testing. Retailers and other retail-authorized licensees must provide a certificate of analysis to a customer on request, and DCC must be able to obtain off-the-shelf product for unmodified lab testing. The bill also clarifies that onsite quality-control testing does not substitute for certified lab compliance testing, and requires labs to cooperate with DCC evaluation requests.

Retailers need point-of-sale or back-office systems capable of producing a COA on demand without delay. Manufacturers and distributors—particularly those working with edibles or other infused products—should expect closer scrutiny of final-form testing. This is an area that has historically created gaps when formulations change after initial testing.

AB 2249 and AB 2532: a packaging and labeling overhaul

Two separate bills would reshape packaging and labeling requirements, and operators need to track both to avoid falling through the gap between them.

AB 2249 prohibits cannabis products, packaging, or labeling that is “attractive to children” under a newly defined standard. It requires DCC to adopt, by July 1, 2027, a standardized rubric identifying prohibited design elements, along with a voluntary pre-clearance process that lets licensees obtain a written determination on proposed packaging or labeling before bringing it to market. Industry groups have already pushed back on proposed amendments that would restrict vape cartridge labels referencing flavors or strain names, arguing the language is overbroad, so the final scope of the rubric remains in flux. This bill was passed by the Assembly and is currently sitting on Gov. Newsom’s desk to be signed into law.

AB 2532 takes a more direct approach, establishing uniform, mandatory packaging and labeling requirements across the board: tamper-evident and child-resistant packaging, resealable packaging for multi-serving products, and a DCC-issued unique identifier on every package. It sets detailed label content rules covering government warning language, product type, packaging date, cannabinoid content per serving and per package, allergen warnings, and net weight for dried flower. Edibles would be limited to generic food names rather than fanciful branding on ingredient lists, and vape cartridges could not claim to be disposable or suggest disposal in the trash. The bill also contains a built-in trigger that if the U.S. Attorney General formally determines cannabis is no longer a Schedule I substance. At that point, the required Schedule I warning statement would automatically drop from labels.

Because AB 2249 works through a rubric and pre-clearance process while AB 2532 imposes a hard content mandate, a packaging design that satisfies one bill will not necessarily satisfy the other. Design and compliance teams should build in lead time for DCC’s 2027 rubric rollout and plan to use the voluntary pre-clearance process once it becomes available.

How these five bills fit together

AB 1826 and AB 2537 reform how DCC investigates and penalizes violations. AB 1965 changes what gets tested and disclosed. AB 2249 and AB 2532 change what a product can look like on the shelf. A licensee could be fully compliant with every packaging requirement and still face an embargo over a testing or track-and-trace discrepancy, which means compliance programs need to treat these five bills as interlocking pieces of one system, rather than five separate checklists.

Operators that start adapting now, rather than waiting for final enactment and DCC’s inevitable emergency rulemaking, will be far better positioned when these changes take effect.

_____________

For more updates on recent marijuana legislation, including rescheduling and the DEA rulemaking process, please check out these recent posts:

Source link

The California Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) recently posted a voluntary recall notice for a Baddies Worldwide Flower cannabis product by Backpackboyz after officials determined the product violates cannabis industry packaging and labeling regulations by being too attractive to children.

The packaging contains 3.5 grams of cannabis flower and a small figurine offered as part of a brand partnership with Natalie Nunn, a California reality television star who first appeared on the Oxygen show “Bad Girls Club” and now executive produces the show “Baddies” on the Zeus Network.

“DCC determined that the packaging and labeling used for the affected product contains imagery and design elements that are attractive to children and therefore does not comply with California cannabis packaging and labeling requirements.” — Excerpt from the voluntary recall notice

While the DCC notice does not express concerns about the cannabis flower itself, the agency recommends that consumers who still have the product either dispose of or return it to the retail location where it was purchased.

The product was sold on or after May 15, 2026, at retailers in Alameda, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Clara, and Sonoma.

Ganjapreneur: Offering daily insights since 2014, the leading digital business journal for cannabis industry professionals. Subscribe to the newsletter to join our community of over 40,000 ganjapreneurs.

Source link

Rescheduling did not just change tax treatment and licensing options for cannabis operators. It also changed the assumptions baked into thousands of existing cannabis contracts. Supply agreements, licensing arrangements, and investment documents drafted before April 2026 were built around a world where cannabis was federally illegal in every respect. That world no longer exists for qualifying medical activity, and many of those older contracts were never written to handle the change.

This creates a quiet, but serious, risk. A contract that looked airtight eighteen months ago may now contain gaps, outdated assumptions, or ambiguous triggers that leave one party exposed. Before signing a new deal or relying on an old one, California operators should take a hard look at how rescheduling, DEA registration, and DCC license restructuring interact with their existing contracts.

Why legacy California cannabis contracts are suddenly at risk

Most cannabis agreements were negotiated under the premises that cannabis is a Schedule I substance. Representations, warranties, and compliance covenants were built around that reality, focused almost entirely on state-law compliance because federal legality was never on the table.

Rescheduling changes that baseline for qualifying medical activity, and DEA registration and DCC license restructuring add new categories of regulatory status that many contracts never anticipated. A supply agreement that only asks a counterparty to comply with “all applicable state cannabis laws” may be silent on whether that counterparty is DEA-registered, whether its license structure supports a medical channel, or whether its own upstream suppliers meet that same standard. The result is a contract that technically still applies, but no longer captures full risk exposure.

Supply agreements: where the biggest exposure is hiding

Supply agreements deserve close look, because they sit at the center of the medical versus adult-use distinction discussed in earlier posts on this blog; HERE and HERE.

Representations tied to old premises.

Many supply contracts include reps and warranties drafted narrowly around state-law compliance, without addressing DEA registration status at all. If a counterparty becomes DEA-registered, or fails to, the existing language may not say anything meaningful about that fact, leaving a gap exactly where the parties need protection.

Sourcing and counterparty registration.

If an operator’s restructuring and Schedule III compliance depends on sourcing from suppliers with a distinct medical license structure or DEA registration, existing supply contracts should require and verify that status, not just assume it. Without a specific covenant and audit right, an operator has no reliable way to confirm that its supply chain actually supports the medical positioning it is relying on for tax or regulatory purposes.

Change-in-law and force majeure clauses.

Many agreements include change-in-law provisions that were drafted with vague, future hypotheticals in mind. Rescheduling is no longer hypothetical. Operators should review whether these clauses were written broadly enough to address rescheduling, new DEA rules, or DCC license restructuring, and whether triggering them now would produce the outcome the parties desire, such as renegotiation, termination, or price adjustment.

Licensing agreements: aligning contracts with DCC license restructuring

DCC’s rules allowing license designation changes and A/M splits outside the renewal cycle creates new possibilities for operators, but they also create blind spots in existing licensing agreements, brand licensing deals, and management agreements.

Operators should ask a few direct questions about every active licensing contract:

• Does the agreement assume a specific license type, such as adult-use only or a combined A/M structure, that may now change?
• Does the agreement say who bears the cost, delay, or risk if one party decides to pursue a license conversion?

If the answers are unclear or silent, that silence is not neutral. It usually means the party with less leverage will absorb the cost of any future conversion dispute. Proactive amendments, even short ones, are far cheaper than resolving that ambiguity in litigation later.

Investment and M&A agreements: new risks and new opportunities

Deal documents deserve particular attention because they tend to rely heavily on defined terms and broad references to “applicable law.”

Representations about regulatory status.

Purchase agreements, subscription agreements, and credit agreements often include representations about compliance with applicable law that were treated as boilerplate in a Schedule I world. Post-rescheduling, that phrase carries more weight. Diligence checklists should now expressly cover DEA registration status, supply-chain registration, and how a target company is positioning itself for I.R.C. 280E purposes.

Valuation and earnout provisions.

If 280E relief materially changes a company’s effective tax rate for medical activity, historical financials used to calculate earnouts or purchase price adjustments may need a second look. Deals negotiated before rescheduling could produce disputes if one side argues the numbers should be recalculated to reflect the new tax reality, while the other side insists the original figures control.

Indemnification and escrow considerations.

Existing indemnification baskets and survival periods were built to cover a narrower set of known risks. New deals should include specific indemnities addressing DEA registration compliance, license conversion missteps, and supply-chain misrepresentations, rather than relying on generic compliance language to catch issues it was never designed to catch.

Common pitfalls to avoid with California cannabis contracts

Operators often make three mistakes when updating cannabis contracts. First, they rely on outdated template language without addressing what has actually changed since rescheduling. Second, they update contracts in isolation, without coordinating with parallel efforts around license restructuring or DEA registration, which creates inconsistencies between what the paperwork says and what the business is actually doing. Third, they assume counterparties will voluntarily disclose changes in their own registration or compliance status, when in reality that disclosure needs to be a contractual obligation, not a courtesy.

Action checklist

• Add or strengthen DEA registration and supply-chain compliance covenants in supply agreements.
• Review licensing agreements for silence on license conversion or A/M split scenarios, and amend where necessary.
• Update M&A and investment diligence checklists and deal documents to reflect new tax and regulatory realities.
• Treat contract review as part of the same strategy as DEA registration, license conversion, and 280E planning, not a separate project handled after the fact.

_____________

For more on marijuana rescheduling and the DEA rulemaking process, please check out these recent posts:

Source link

Cannabis use amongst adults in California has remained largely stable since 2017, when the US state legalised retail sales, according to a study published in the Journal of Cannabis Research.

Researchers from the University of California, San Diego, analysed data from 178,836 adults surveyed between 2017 – one year before retail sales began – and 2024. They found that past-month cannabis use rose briefly from 14.5% to 17.7% in 2018, but returned to 15.4% by 2024, showing no significant difference from pre-legalisation levels.

“Prevalence of past-year and past-month cannabis use among adults in California remained largely stable across the eight-year study period spanning the onset of retail availability of non-medical cannabis products,” the researchers wrote.

However, the study identified notable shifts in how Californians consume cannabis. Combustable methods such as smoking joints, pipes and bongs declined significantly from 71.2% to 58.1%, while edible consumption increased from 40.3% to 53.6%.

The data also showed that there had been a change in the demographics of cannabis consumers during the period since legalisation. Past-month use among adults aged 40 to 59 increased from 10.7% to 14.5%, and more than doubled among those aged 75 and older, rising from 2.4% to 5.5%.

In contrast, use among young adults aged 18 to 25 showed no significant change – a finding researchers described as offering “some reassurance that legalisation and retail availability have not been accompanied by increased use in this vulnerable subgroup”.

The study authors noted that there may be a unique explanation for the lack of dramatic change. “Cannabis was already widely accessible in California through long-established medical and illicit markets, so past-month use among adults was already common, leaving comparatively little room for further increases.”

The findings showed that frequency of use also remained consistent, with consumption concentrated at the extremes – roughly 40% of users reported consuming cannabis one to five days per month, whilst 37% used it 20 to 30 days or more.

Dispensaries remained the primary source of cannabis for users, accounting for approximately 77% of procurement, another figure which remained stable throughout the period studied.

The study is the latest to show that allowing adults legal access to cannabis does not increase adolescent consumption. Research recently conducted by the German Federal Institute of Public Health found that cannabis consumption among 12 to 17-year-olds remained stable after the country partially legalised cannabis. Survey data from the American state of Minnesota published earlier this year revealed that fewer young people were using cannabis following the state’s legalisation of recreational marijuana for adults in 2023.

Source link

California law enforcement reported seizing and destroying a record 377,010 pounds of illicit cannabis worth $609 million in 2025, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office said Tuesday.

But with illegal cultivation outpacing the regulated market by nearly a factor of 10, more drastic action than further tax cuts might be needed to rescue beleaguered small cannabis farmers.

The country’s most populous state, California is still home to the U.S.’s largest single cannabis market despite constant complaints from operators about shrinking margins – and, last year, a shrinking market – amid illicit-market competition.

Legal sales dipped to a five-year low last year, a decrease blamed mostly on a short-lived tax hike that’s since been repealed.

However, it remains to be seen whether that will be enough to stabilize California’s legal industry.

Can illicit cannabis seizures rescue California’s legal marijuana?

Illicit cannabis seizures have increased 18-fold from 21,230 pounds in 2022, when Newsom launched the Unified Cannabis Enforcement Task Force, a multiagency effort that includes game wardens, tax inspectors and labor regulators as well as police.

In addition to the seizures, California officials reported:

• Eradicating 590,000 plants
• Arresting 23 people
• Seizing $1.6 million in cash

Raids hit sales and distribution points as well as cultivation sites, according to a release from Newsom’s office.

In a statement, Newsom called the seizures “a success” that’s helping to “safeguard the legal cannabis industry from those who think the law doesn’t apply to them.”

Instead of the famed Emerald Triangle, almost half the cannabis seized – 169,000 pounds – was confiscated in two counties: Los Angeles and Alameda in Northern California.

Most cannabis unlawfully grown in California is shipped out of state, according to a state-commissioned report released last year.

California state and local officials have cut cannabis taxes

Heavy taxes are blamed for thwarting commercial cannabis cultivation in places like Humboldt County, where county supervisors this week finalized the repeal of a local cultivation tax.

Measure S had hampered legal growers, 75% of whom owed outstanding debt as of last year.

A tax increase that took effect July 1 also depressed retail sales before its October repeal.

Source link