Summary of AB 141’s Changes to Existing Cannabis Laws
This entry was posted on Friday, September 17th, 2021 and is filed under Cannabis Law.
On July 12, 2021, California Governor Gavin Newsom approved Assembly Bill No. 141 (AB-141), an act amending, adding, and repealing various sections of the state’s legal codes to implement provisions of the Budget Act of 2021.
The bill’s most notable updates to existing law include explaining the function of the new Department of Cannabis Control (DCC), setting state provisional license sunset guidelines, and establishing a cannabis trade sample scheme, among other changes.
While there is surely more to come in the way of implementation, the following provides a snapshot of changes as expressed in the final version of the bill. The information presented comes from California Legislative Information.
AB-141 revises the definition of “commercial cannabis” to include acting as a cannabis event organizer for temporary cannabis events.
AB-141 revises the definition of “manufacture” to include packaging or labeling cannabis products, and removes the definition of “manufacturer” altogether.
AB-141 removes from the definition of “harvest batch” that specifies cannabis plant matter be uniform in strain.
AB-141 includes, in the definition of “misbranded,” cannabis or cannabis products that are (or consist of cannabis or cannabis products that are) cultivated, processed, manufactured, packed, or held in a location not licensed pursuant to the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA).
AB-141 includes, in the definition of “adulterated,” cannabis where the methods, facilities, or controls used for its cultivation fail to conform with MAUCRSA’s requirements. This definition applies for the purpose of enforcing AB-141’s provisions against adulterated cannabis or cannabis products.
DCC may issue provisional licenses until June 30, 2022, extending MAUCRSA’s original January 1, 2022 deadline.
Applying for new provisional licenses that include cultivation activities requires submitting certain documentation to DCC about streambed alteration agreements, including:
written verification by DFW an agreement is not needed
written verification bv DFW the applicant has submitted a notification pursuant to the California Fish and Game Code, submitted payment of applicable fees, and is responsive to DFW.
Applications must be submitted to DCC on or before March 31, 2022.
For the first provisional license renewal on or after July 1, 2022, DCC will not renew without one of the streambed alteration agreement-related documents covered above (for cultivation licenses) and evidence of progress with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
For all following provisional license renewals, DCC will not renew unless:
licensees provide a final streambed alteration agreement or DFW verifies in writing an agreement is not needed
DCC verifies progress with CEQA compliance
Provisional licenses authorizing cultivation activities will not renewed if the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) or DFW notifies DCC provisional licensees lack compliance with certain provisions governing provisional licenses in the California Business and Professions Code, certain provisions of the California Water Code (Water Board), or a final streambed alteration agreement (DFW).
DCC may not issue provisional cultivation licenses for applications submitted on or after January 1, 2022, if doing so would result in a licensee holding multiple cultivation licenses on contiguous premises exceeding one (1) acre of total canopy for outdoor cultivation, or twenty-two thousand (22,000) square feet for mixed-light or indoor cultivation.
After January 1, 2023, DCC will not renew cultivation activity licenses if renewing would result in a licensee holding multiple cultivation licenses on contiguous premises exceeding one (1) acre of total canopy for outdoor cultivation or twenty-two thousand (22,000) square feet for mixed-light or indoor cultivation.
After January 1, 2024, AB-141 terminates any provisional license resulting in a licensee holding multiple cultivation licenses on contiguous premises exceeding one (1) acre of total canopy for outdoor cultivation or twenty-two thousand (22,000) square feet for mixed-light or indoor cultivation.
DCC may not renew provisional licenses after January 1, 2025, and no provisional license will be effective after January 1, 2026.
DCC may allow provisional licensees to move locations after provisional licenses can no longer be issued, provided the new location complies with CEQA, the Lake and Streambed Alteration Program, and certain requirements of the California Business and Professions Code. DCC may similarly renew the license at the new location if all other renewal requirements are satisfied.
AB-141 extends the operative date of these provisional license provisions to January 1, 2026. By extending provisional licensure, applications for which must be signed under penalty of perjury, AB-141 expands the scope of the crime of perjury and thereby imposes a state-mandated local program.
cover the reasonable regulatory costs of performing the duties relating to their respective organic programs (comparable to the federal National Organic Program and the California Organic Food and Farming Act);
to levy civil penalties; and
to deny, suspend, or revoke registrations or certifications issued pursuant to those programs, for violating the agencies’ programs or the National Organic Program.
The penalties or fees CDFA collects must be deposited in the CDFA Fund, and the penalties or fees SDPH collects must be deposited in the Food Safety Fund.
CDFA may collect fees to cover the reasonable regulatory costs of performing the duties relating to MAUCRSA’s appellations-of-origin provisions for California geographical areas. These fees must be deposited in the CDFA Fund.
Testing laboratories must destroy the remains of cannabis or cannabis product samples upon completing analysis.
Testing laboratories must directly employ drivers transporting samples to the testing laboratories.
AB-141 deletes the MAUCRSA provision authorizing licensees, as of January 1, 2018, to sell untested cannabis or cannabis products for a limited and finite time.
Testing laboratories may receive and test cannabis or cannabis product samples from a licensed manufacturer or cultivator for quality control purposes, and not for retail sale.
Persons with financial interests in state testing laboratories may not hold financial interests in any other cannabis license type.
PACKAGING AND LABELING
Cannabis and cannabis product packaging must be resealable only if the cannabis or cannabis product contains multiple servings.
Cannabis and cannabis product labels and inserts no longer must include the source and date of cultivation and date of manufacture.
MISBRANDED OR ADULERATED CANNABIS
cultivating, processing, manufacturing, selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale misbranded cannabis or cannabis products
misbranding cannabis or cannabis products
receiving misbranded cannabis or cannabis products in commerce
distributing, delivering, or offering for delivery misbranded cannabis or cannabis products
adulterating cannabis or cannabis products
receiving adulterated cannabis or cannabis products in commerce
distributing, delivering, or proffering for delivery adulterated cannabis or cannabis products
correcting cannabis or cannabis products found or cultivated, processed, produced, or manufactured at unlicensed locations, and requires the destruction of that embargoed cannabis or cannabis product
By expanding the definition of crimes, this bill imposes a state-mandated local program.
AB-141 extends the process of ceasing distribution of and recalling adulterated or misbranded cannabis products to include cannabis as well.
Licensees may voluntarily recall affected cannabis or cannabis products and either remediate or destroy it. Licensed cultivators may request permission to continue cultivating or harvesting cannabis subject to embargo, and DCC may impose conditions on continued cultivation and harvest of embargoed cannabis.
DCC must adopt regulations authorizing licensees to designate cannabis or cannabis products as trade samples at any time while the cannabis or cannabis product is in licensees’ possession, and requires the regulations to include a definition of “trade sample” and the quantity of cannabis and cannabis products that may be designated as trade samples.
Cannabis or cannabis products designated as trade samples may be given for targeted advertising, and DCC may adopt regulations specifying additional purposes.
AB-141 requires the trade samples to be:
subject to quality assurance and testing
recorded in the track-and-trace program
Trade samples may be transported between two (2) licensees by employees of licensed distributors or microbusinesses authorized to engage in distribution, or by licensees authorized to engage in cannabis transportation (including a distributor transport-only licensee).
The bill prohibits any payment, consideration, cost, or compensation in exchange for any cannabis or cannabis products designated as trade samples.
The provisions about trade samples take effect on adoption of regulations by DCC and no later than January 1, 2023.
Nothing in § 34011 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code (on the cannabis excise tax) shall be construed to impose an excise tax on cannabis or cannabis products designated as trade samples.
On and after January 1, 2022, AB-141 will exempt from the cultivation tax the cultivation of all harvested cannabis that has been, or will be, designated as trade samples and all harvested cannabis used to manufacture cannabis products designated as trade samples. The bill requires the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) to adopt regulations prescribing the procedures implementing the exemption.
If you have question about how AB 141 could affect your business, email KVK today.
Working with Dom and his team has been an amazing experience, they are organized and very prompt with returning my calls and emails. I believe that communication is the key to success and I felt a strong heartbeat with the KVK Lawyer team.
KVK has been an invaluable source of guidance, legal knowledge, and proactive communication for our case with a bank service provider. Although legal proceedings can be long, GianDominic provided a clear path and strategy to having my mothers’ case resolved and settled in a positive and timely manner… many thanks and highly recommend!”
“Our lender terminated a Home Affordable Modification Trial Plan after we had been enrolled. We did not know what to do and had already been in bankruptcy. KV&K litigated a Breach of Contract lawsuit on our behalf against the lender to stop the foreclosure and get us our day in Court. To settle the lawsuit, the lender started our Trial Plan again and finalized the modification. The experience was positive because I was able to meet with the attorney and email or call with any questions during the litigation.“
“Words cannot begin to express the gratitude I have for GianDominic Vitiello. My family was in jeopardy of losing our home in foreclosure. From my initial phone call to the law of office Katchko, Vitiello & Karikomi I knew I’d made the right decision to have them assist us with our situation. Mr. Vitiello thoroughly explained our options and he consistently kept up to date on everything that was going on with the litigation. He was never too busy to explain the process to us time and time again. Mr. Vitiello genuinely cares. There is no way we could have stayed in our home without him.“
Me and my family want to thank you for all of the work you did on our case. I appreciate the way you took the time to explain the process to me and to respond to all of my questions. There was not a day that I could not get a hold of you. We are very pleased with the result. I plan on recommending your firm to everyone!
The Earley Family
We are so grateful to GianDominic and his team for helping us save our home from foreclosure. Prior to our calling their office, we had completed our trial Home Affordable Modification Agreement payments, were trying to submit our notarized documents to our lender, as well as already making our modified payments. Our lender terminated the agreement and was requiring us to reapply for a new Modification Agreement. From the moment we had our first phone meeting with GianDominic Vitiello, we knew we had found the right law firm to handle our case. A Breach of Contract lawsuit was filed on our behalf against our lender. Not long after the lawsuit was filed our lender was settling our case and finalizing our Home Affordable Modification Agreement paperwork. GianDominic thoroughly explained our options and always kept us updated. Anytime we had questions, he was available, either by email or phone. We are so happy for everything GianDominic has done for our family and we would not be in our home today without him and his team. We are forever grateful and will always recommend you to everyone we know.
Mr. and Mrs. Hernandez
“When we started with GianDominic, the demand from the other side was unacceptable to me, and my then-lawyer was advising me to settle for that number. I hired GianDominic instead and we fought the good fight for almost a year. We ended up with a settlement that was 10x better. That’s the Dom magic!”
As a single mother, nothing was more freighting than the possibility of losing my own home to foreclosure. The home my grandfather helped me buy. The house my children have called home for over 17 years. When a predatory loan servicer took over my servicing rights, they began to lose and misplace my mortgage payments. They’d call me nonstop inquiring about the payments I already made. I sent them proof of those payments and yet they still ignored all my correspondence and put my home in foreclosure with a sale date. I contacted NUMEROUS attorneys claiming to be experienced in predatory loan servicing, but they were inexperienced and not motivated to take on my case. I was BLESSED beyond words to have found GianDominic Vitiello, Anthony, and Ed [Angwin] too! Three of the kindest, compassionate and bad assed legal counsel. They were ready to take on my case and fight for me to save my home. They took an impossible situation, and saved myself, and my children’s home from being stolen and sold by this predatory servicing company. I contacted every state agency for help but they didn’t.