The California Department of Cannabis is proposing new regulatory changes

The California Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) announced on March 4 that it would release a list of changes to state cannabis regulations. According to a press release, these changes aim to “streamline and simplify” existing cannabis regulations, as well as “improve consumer protection and make permanent changes that are currently considered emergency regulations.”

According to DCC Director Nicole Elliot, these changes reflect the department’s intent to continue improving the state’s cannabis programs. “This proposal is a direct result of DCC’s engagement with stakeholders and the thoughtful feedback we have received through letters, discussions, meetings and previous rulemaking processes,” Elliott said in a press release. “We are deep [committed] to create a cannabis regulatory structure that works for all Californians, including the California cannabis industry, consumers and communities.”

This latest round of regulatory proposals also marks the start of a 45-day public comment period ending April 19, 2022. Public comments may be sent via email or presented during a live hearing on two separate days: March 23 and April 19. The DCC also hosted a webinar on March 3 to update viewers on the rulemaking timeline and sharing feedback.

The proposed changes can be read in full here, including a variety of proposals ranging from CCTV and sales of live cannabis plants, cannabis event requirements, Certificates of Analysis and much more. The DCC summarizes some of these important changes as no longer requiring retailers to have paper copies of product test results, allowing prepackaged food and beverages for sale in consumption lounges, ingredient restrictions on inhaled cannabis products, and a ban on medical devices or applicators such as “nasal sprays, eye drops or metered dose inhalers”.

According to an article by cannabis attorney Hilary Bricken, “Unlike other states, California has not made sweeping changes to its cannabis regulations with immense implications for the industry,” Bricken wrote. “Instead, since 2018, it has passed a series of emergency rules with substantive changes here and there.”

“The DCC changes appear to be more technical fixes and more consolidation than huge regulatory changes,” she continued. “The DCC notes in its original rationale that the need for these rules is to ‘consolidate, clarify, and make consistent’ the licensing and enforcement rules for all types of cannabis licenses in California.” Bricken also goes into some of the highlights of these changes and selects 15 different points of interest.

If approved, these regulations are expected to come into effect in fall 2022. Emergency regulations introduced in September 2021 would also be made permanent.

California currently has some bills in the works that will explore some other industry needs. On February 15, Member of Parliament Bill Quirk introduced AB-2188, which would end workplace discrimination based on positive drug tests when cannabis metabolites are detected. “The law would prohibit California employers from punishing or discriminating against an individual when making decisions about hiring, firing or other aspects of employment if the discrimination is based on the individual’s off-duty cannabis use or the presence of non-psychoactive substances Cannabis metabolites revealed in employer-ordered drug screening,” attorney Lauren Mendelsohn, of the law firm Omar Figueroa, told High Times in an email.

In January, MP Mia Bonta sponsored a bill that would require courts to update all cases related to cannabis convictions. “California made a promise. I’m focused on making sure California keeps its promises,” Bonta said. “This law would allow us to automatically seal qualified cannabis criminal records.”

Regarding the overall performance of California’s cannabis industry, Americans for Safe Access’ annual State of the States report gave California a C+ rating. With good scores in “Consumer Protection and Product Safety” (154/200) and “Program Functionality” (85/100) and lower scores in “Affordability” (40/100), it averages below the states in the country.