Category Archive for: Adult Use

Home / Category: Adult Use
image title

Today, Oregon Governor Kate Brown signed SB 56 into law. This law is effective immediately and contains several anticipated fixes to the current cannabis regulatory scheme.

On May 30, 2017, SB 1057 was signed into law by the Governor and became effective immediately.  SB 1057 made significant changes to the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program (OMMP), including limiting the number of plants to six mature plants and twelve or fewer immature plants per patient.  Previous plant limits were six mature plants per patient and an unlimited number of immature plants. The timing of SB 1057 created a significant timing issue for medical growers, particularly outdoor growers, currently operating under the OMMP and in the process of applying for recreational production licenses with the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC). Among other things, SB 56 provides relief from the newly implemented immature plant limits under SB 1057 for medical growers who have applied for their OLCC producer license.  Specifically the bill expressly states that the new plant limits do not apply, except as provided by OLCC rule, to a premises for which an OLCC application has been made on or before the effective date of SB 56, June 23, 2017.

We previously summarized this and some of the other key changes made by SB 56 in our post from June 21, 2017.

If you have any questions regarding SB 56 or any other compliance issue, don’t hesitate to contact one of our compliance attorneys and remember to stay tuned to our blog updates for more up-to-date information on changes to Oregon cannabis laws!

Continue Reading
image title

Today, the Oregon legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 56, which contains several of the anticipated “fixes” to the cannabis regulatory scheme currently in place.

SB 56, carried by Representative Fahey (D – District 14 – West Eugene and Junction City), includes the “Dash 39” amendments adopted by the Joint Committee on Marijuana Regulation which provides, among other things, relief from the newly implemented immature plant limits for those who submit a producer license application to the OLCC on or before the effective date.

Although SB 56 currently awaits the governor’s signature to take effect, here are some of the key changes you can expect to occur:

Immature marijuana plant limits. The bill exempts OMMP growers who submit their OLCC producer applications on or before the measure’s effective date from OMMP immature plant limits. Current law sets OMMP immature plant limits at twelve (12) plants. This is an important fix for growers intending to transfer their medical plants into the OLCC program.

Immediate suspension of license for suspected diversion. OLCC may restrict, suspend, or refuse to renew a license if the OLCC has probable cause to conclude the licensee has sold, stored, or transferred marijuana in a manner not permitted by its license.

Processing by small producers. OLCC-licensed Micro Tier I and Micro Tier II recreational marijuana producers may process marijuana into cannabinoid concentrates using two specified methods: (1) a mechanical process (i.e., keif sieves, silk screens, etc.) and (2) an extraction process using water as the solvent (i.e., ice water hash, bubble bags, etc.).

Transfer of product between retail locations. SB 56 allows a licensed marijuana retailer to transfer product from one retail location to another if the destination retail location is “owned by the same or substantially the same persons.” Although “substantially the same” is not defined in the bill, we expect the OLCC will provide further guidance on the matter.  Note: these transfers are subject to OLCC rules governing transportation of marijuana items.

Verification of lawful activity hotline. Until now, it was difficult for government officials to determine whether a farm was a registered marijuana grow site or OLCC licensed producer premises. This provision requires that the OLCC and OHA create a telephone hotline to inform inquiring city, county, and Water Resources Department representatives, or a district water-master, as to whether a farm is a registered medical grow site, an OLCC licensed producer premises, or a site for which a registration or license has been applied for.

Exclusively medical licensees. Previous legislation enacted this session (SB 1057) created an “exclusively medical” license designation for OLCC applicants. Under SB 56, city and county governments that currently allow or prohibit OHA processing sites or dispensaries may unilaterally prohibit or allow exclusively medical licensees. This would empower local municipalities to refine the cannabis regulatory structure within their limited jurisdictions as their constituents prefer.

Restricted licenses. At its discretion, the OLCC may issue a restricted license to an applicant if the OLCC makes a finding that the applicant meets the denial criteria found in OAR 845-025-1115 (2). This fix allows an applicants to obtain restricted licenses when they otherwise may have been simply denied.

Remember to always stay tuned to our blog updates for more information on changes to Oregon cannabis laws!

Continue Reading
image title

Yesterday, the California legislature passed Senate Bill 94, known as the “2017-18 Budget Trailer Bill” (BTB). The BTB reconciles the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MCRSA), which regulates medical cannabis, with the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA), which legalizes and regulates adult-use (a.k.a. “recreational”) cannabis. Although MRCSA largely supplied the framework for AUMA, the laws contain significant differences that many anticipated would cause complications in the licensing and regulatory process, both for industry and state regulators.

BTB repeals the bulk of MCRSA, though certain provisions survive in the resultant combined medical (now termed “medicinal”) and adult-use regulatory scheme – the cumbersomely named Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA). Through this reconciliation, the laws governing adult-use cannabis also received a slight makeover.

Here are some of the key changes the BTB will make once it takes effect:

No Residency.  There will no longer be a residency requirement to own or operate an adult-use cannabis business. AUMA had required that adult-use license-holders and owners demonstrate continuous California residency since January 1, 2015. BTB lifted this restriction, meaning that out-of-staters will now be able to participate in both the medicinal and adult-use markets.

Vertical Integration.  “Vertical integration” will be permitted, except for testing laboratories and, to a narrower extent, for large cultivators. Thus, both medicinal and adult-use licensees will be able to hold multiple license types. Licenses for large cultivation operations (larger than ½ acre indoors or 1 acre outdoors) will still be unavailable until 2023.

License Types. License types will be the same for medicinal and adult-use cannabis. The BTB eliminates the “producing dispensary” (MCRSA Type 10A) and transporter (MCRSA Type 12, AUMA Type 11) license categories but retains all others, including specialty cottage cultivation and microbusinesses (small retailers with farms not exceeding 10,000 sq. ft.).

ID Card Program Eliminated.   The statewide voluntary identification card program for medical patients is eliminated. The Medical Marijuana ID Card Program, established by Senate Bill 420 (2004), required counties to provide ID cards to patients who voluntarily requested them. Although counties can still choose to provide ID cards pursuant to local law, the state no longer mandates this service. The arrest protections previously provided to ID card holders are now extended to all qualified patients and primary caregivers with a valid physician’s recommendation that contains certain specified information.

Separation of Medicinal and Adult-Use.  Medicinal and adult-use cannabis activity must be separate. With some exceptions, including for testing labs, medicinal and adult-use cannabis businesses may not operate on the same premises.

Advertising Rules.  The advertising, marketing, adulteration, and misbranding restrictions and prohibitions from MCRSA and AUMA will apply to both medicinal and adult-use activity.

Industrial Hemp.  Industrial hemp will be regulated solely by the Department of Food and Agriculture, per the California Industrial Hemp Farming Act. This regulatory authority was formerly shared with the Bureau of Cannabis Control under the AUMA.

The BTB currently awaits the governor’s signature to take effect. Although the state is still taking public comment on the draft regulations implementing MCRSA, these regulations will likely be substantially rewritten to incorporate the BTB’s changes.  Stay tuned to our blog for more information on changes to California marijuana laws.

Continue Reading
image title

I’m just an old corporate attorney. At the large firm I worked at for nearly 20 years, “dabbling” into practice areas in which you were not an expert was frowned upon. Become an expert in one or two areas of the law, stick with them, and let the other attorneys at the firm handle the stuff that they know better than you. That was the mantra, and I have found it a convenient philosophy to maintain. And so, for the past few years, I have done everything humanly possible to avoid learning and keeping up with the voluminous and ever-changing marijuana rules and regulations of the Oregon Health Authority and the Oregon Liquor Control Commission. That’s what my (younger) colleagues are for.

However, there are a few OLCC rules that a business attorney practicing in the marijuana industry simply cannot avoid, including the rules governing:

• Who is an “applicant” for purposes of an OLCC application;
• Who has a “financial interest” in a licensed business; and
• What happens if any of these things change.

Business transactions appear to be happening more than ever in the industry, and two of the most common questions we get are:

• Who, exactly, has to be on (or added to) the OLCC application?
• Is this going to slow up the deal?

The OLCC published new rules effective January 1, 2017, which included some changes to the definitions of “applicant” and “financial interest.” The rules cleared up some issues nicely. However, the rules do not provide an obvious answer to every business scenario. For some scenarios, it is necessary to determine the OLCC’s interpretation or policy with respect to a particular rule.

I and others at our firm have had a series of recent discussions with the OLCC on these rules to make sure that our firm’s advice to our clients is consistent with the OLCC’s interpretations and policies.

The following is a summary of the current rules, based on both the text of the rules and the OLCC’s current interpretations and policies of the same.

Applicant

The rules concerning applicants are relatively clear, and can be found at OAR 845-025-1030(3-4) and OAR 845-025-1045.

The following persons are applicants:

1. An individual or legal entity who holds or controls an interest of 10% or more in the licensed business;
2. An individual or legal entity (other than an employee acting under the direction of the owner) that: (i) exercises or is entitled to exercise control over the licensed business; (ii) incurs or is entitled to incur debt or similar obligations on behalf of the licensed business; or (iii) enters into or is entitled to enter into a contract or similar obligations on behalf of the business; and
3. An individual or legal entity identified as the lessee of the licensed premises.
Additionally, if a legal entity is an applicant, the following individuals within the legal entity are also applicants:
4. For a limited partnership, each general partner;
5. For an LLC, each member whose investment commitment or membership interest is 10% or more; and
6. For a corporation: (i) each director who owns or controls 3% or more of the voting stock; (ii) each principal officer; and (iii) each shareholder who owns or controls 10% or more of the voting stock.

Categories 1, 4, 5, and 6 have to do with ownership and the executive management team. These categories are always relevant and we focus on them all of the time.

There are definitely some logical inconsistencies with Categories 4 through 6, and there are a number of instances where different results would occur based solely on the form of the legal entity, even though there would appear to be no substantive differences between certain scenarios. For example, a 15% passive nonvoting member of a parent company LLC would be an applicant, whereas a 15% passive nonvoting shareholder of a parent company corporation would not be an applicant. These inconsistencies rarely “wag the dog” when organizing an entity structure, but they could.

The items in Category 2 do not frequently come into play, but they should never be overlooked. One not-uncommon scenario we have seen is when a licensed business hires a third-party management company that has the authority to enter into certain purchasing or other contracts on behalf of the business. In that case, the management company (and some or all of its owners, depending on the entity type of the management company) would be considered applicants of the licensed business.

Category 3 ideally should never arise because the legal entity that owns the licensed business should always be the lessee or sublessee on the lease. However, again, this item should not be overlooked.

Financial Interest
Here’s where it gets more interesting (which is an attorney’s way of saying less clear).

The term “financial interest” is defined in OAR 845-025-1015(20). The general definition states: “Financial interest” means having an interest in the business such that the performance of the business causes, or is capable of causing, an individual, or a legal entity with which the individual is affiliated, to benefit or suffer financially. The definition then provides a short non-exclusive list of scenarios that constitute a financial interest.

The definition does not specifically address many common business scenarios that we have encountered. And so, rather than take a guess at things, we felt the best move was to contact the OLCC to determine their current interpretations and policies regarding those scenarios.

We have learned that the following persons have a financial interest in a licensed business:

A. A direct or indirect equity owner of the licensed business (with one exception specified below);
B. An employee or agent who receives out-of-the-ordinary compensation;
C. A lender who lends money or property to an applicant or the licensed business for use in the business at a commercially unreasonable rate;
D. A person who gifts money or property to an applicant or the licensed business for use in the business;
E. The spouse of an applicant;
F. A person who receives out-of-the-ordinary consideration as a result of any commercial transaction;
G. A person who is entitled to receive any payment based on a percentage of profits, sales, or other performance metric of the licensed business;
H. The holder of an option or warrant to purchase a direct or indirect equity interest;
I. An employee or other service provider who is granted an option to acquire a direct or indirect equity interest;
J. The holder of a convertible promissory note;
K. A person who is granted a security interest in the assets or a direct or indirect equity interest; and
L. A person who has any right or potential right (based on any potential future contingencies) to acquire the assets or a direct or indirect equity interest.

Overall, this is a rather broad interpretation of the rule. Categories A through F are clear from (or are clearly implied by) the text of OAR 845-025-1015(20). For Category G, receiving a percentage of profits from a licensed business is also clearly implied by the text of the rule. However, receiving a percentage of sales or other performance metric is not. Likewise, the OLCC easily could have interpreted OAR 845-025-1015(20) differently with respect to Categories H through L. Still, this is the OLCC’s current interpretation.

And so what scenarios are we left with that do not constitute a financial interest?

In short: (a) ordinary and fair market value compensation and consideration; (b) unsecured loans at a commercially reasonable fixed interest rate; (c) fixed dollar payments (rather than percentages); (d) the absence of collateral having anything to do with the business; and (e) the absence of contingencies that could result in a person acquiring the assets or any direct or indirect equity interest in the business.

Additionally, the rules expressly provide for one specific exception to the general rule that every direct or indirect equity owner of a licensed business holds a financial interest. OAR 845-025-1015(20)(b) provides that a financial interest does not include any investment that the investor does not control in nature, amount or timing. While this language is not absolutely clear on its face, the OLCC’s interpretation is that this exempts persons who have invested in a company or financial fund that, in turn, invests in a specific licensed business (assuming that the exempt person is passive in nature and would not otherwise be considered an applicant). For example, if an individual buys shares in a public company and the public company, in turn, invests or has invested in one or more licensed businesses, then the individual investor would not be deemed to have a financial interest in the licensed businesses.

Of course, no list of all conceivable scenarios could ever be complete, and there are certainly scenarios that will arise that do not fit neatly into the text of the rules or the OLCC’s interpretations or policies regarding the same. Similarly, the OLCC could change its interpretations and policies at any time.

Consequently, before applying for or renewing any OLCC license, and before entering into any new business transaction that could potentially affect who may have a financial interest in a licensed business, it is always advisable to speak with an attorney (or, at a minimum, with the OLCC itself).

Distinction #1 – Criminal Background Checks

Based on the text of the rules, there is only one distinction between an applicant and the holder of a financial interest. The OLCC is required by statute to conduct a criminal background check on each applicant who is an individual. Applicants must submit fingerprints and other information to the OLCC. See OAR 845-025-1030(6)(a) and OAR 845-025-1080. The OLCC may require each individual who holds a financial interest to submit the information necessary for a criminal background check, but they are not required to do so by statute. See OAR 845-025-1030(7).

Distinction #2 – Changes

There is one other significant distinction between an applicant and the holder of a financial interest that is not in the text of the rules, but is instead based on the OLCC’s current policy position. OAR 845-025-1160(4) provides that a licensed business must obtain the OLCC’s preapproval before changing who has a financial interest in the business. Here is a link to the form that must be submitted to the OLCC if there is a change in financial interest or business structure: http://www.oregon.gov/olcc/marijuana/Documents/Licensing_Forms/mj_change_financial_fillable.pdf.

Although OAR 845-025-1160(4) and the OLCC’s change form apply to all financial interests, the OLCC’s current policy is that only the addition of a new applicant requires the preapproval of the OLCC. If a licensed business is adding a person that merely holds a financial interest (and who is not an applicant), then the licensed business can finalize the transaction first, and then notify the OLCC after the fact.

This is a significant benefit for businesses who are adding only financial interest holders and who do not want to delay the closing of the transaction.

Conclusion

The OLCC’s rules governing applicants, financial interest holders, and changes to the same are a bit complicated and are not always clear from the text of the rules themselves. Compliance is always important naturally, but these days perhaps it is more important than ever.

Before applying for or renewing any OLCC marijuana license, and before entering into any new business transaction that could potentially affect who may have a financial interest in a licensed business, it is advisable to speak with an attorney.

Finally, if you currently have an OLCC license and are uncertain whether you have disclosed to the OLCC all applicants and financial interest holders, you also should speak with an attorney. The OLCC considers violations of the applicant and financial interest rules to be serious Category I or Category II violations, depending on intent. Correcting an omission is certainly possible, but it should be undertaken with legal advice.

If you have any questions or issues, please contact any of our business attorneys or compliance and licensing attorneys.

We will update this blog if and when we become aware of any change in the OLCC’s interpretations or policies on this issue.

Continue Reading
image title

marijuana-clip-art-cliparts-co-vhlbmy-clipart

Yesterday’s election was historic in many ways.  The imminent change in federal administration may have repercussions for state-run legal marijuana regimes.  Until now, states with legal marijuana regimes have been functioning under the protection of what’s called the “Cole Memo” – a document issued by the US Department of Justice, which directs federal prosecutors to use discretion in prosecuting marijuana-related crimes per eight enforcement priorities.  While many believe that Hillary Clinton would have most likely maintained the status quo regarding the Cole Memo, President-Elect Donald Trump’s position is less clear.  Look for future blog posts for more comprehensive analyses on this issue.

Yesterday’s election was a watershed moment for marijuana legalization among the states.  Please see our summary of the results of marijuana initiatives.

Adult-Use Marijuana

Four states have legalized marijuana for adult-use, joining Alaska, Colorado, Oregon and Washington.

  • Arizona (Failed) – The state electorate defeated Proposition 205 with a 52.1 percent “no” vote.  It would have allowed adults to carry up to one ounce, grow up to six plants (12 total per household), and consume marijuana in private spaces.  Retail marijuana sales were set to have a 15 percent tax imposed.  Some Arizona residents expressed concern that decriminalization would not keep up with the new law.  They pointed out that any possession of plants in excess of the limit could still have been charged as a felony.
  • California (Passed) – Proposition 64 makes recreational marijuana legal all along the West Coast and many people argue will mark a path to federal legalization.  Also known as the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, the law allows for adults to possess up to an ounce of cannabis and purchase dried flower and cannabis products from licensed retailers as well as grow six plants for personal use.  Initial taxes imposed include a 15 percent excise tax on retail sales plus a cultivation tax per volume.  Proponents estimate that the Act could result in $1 billion annually in state tax revenue.  One major concern, however, is that large, well-funded investors will swallow up smaller family farmers formerly engaged in the state’s medical marijuana program.  One LA-based private equity fund plans to deploy $75 -$100 million over the next few years to acquire property and build out cultivation centers and dispensaries in Southern California.
  • Massachusetts (Passed) – Question 4 provides for adults to possess up to one ounce of marijuana, keep up to 10 ounces at home, and grow up to six plants.  Marijuana sold by licensed retailers is subject to an excise tax of 3.75 percent in addition to the state’s 6.25 percent state sales tax.  Some concern exists regarding the timetable to get the legal regime up and running.  It took about 3 years for the first medical marijuana dispensary to open after passage of Massachusetts’ medical marijuana law.  Some have also expressed worries that the 3.75 percent tax will fall short of the funds necessary to launch the state’s regulatory scheme which includes the creation of a cannabis control commission.
  • Maine (Passed) –  Question 1 allows people 21 years of age and older to use marijuana recreationally.  The measure would permit each adult to grow up to six plants for personal use and would levy a 10 percent sales tax on retail marijuana and marijuana products while restricting use to private residences.  Under the measure, municipalities could regulate the number of retail stores or ban them entirely.  One concern voiced by legalization proponents is the state-wide cap on canopy space and language which designates 60 percent of licenses for large growers and only 40 percent for small growers.
  • Nevada (Passed) – Question 2, also known as The Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act, expands moves already made by some Nevada counties to adopt medical marijuana regulations.  The Act makes it legal for adults age 21 and over to purchase marijuana for recreational use, possess up to an ounce of marijuana, and grow up to six plants at home (if that residence is more than 25 miles from a licensed dispensary).  Wholesale marijuana is subject to a 15 percent excise tax.  Unlike Oregon, the Act limits the number of retail licenses by each county’s population.  Counties with fewer than 55,000 residents could only have 2 retail establishments.

Medical Marijuana

Four states have joined the ranks of 25 states and the District of Columbia in passing or expanding some form of medical marijuana law (not including CBD-only laws):

  • Arkansas  (Passed)  – Issue 6, also known as the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Amendment, is a constitutional amendment that allows an independent commission to grant licenses for up to eight grow facilities and 40 for-profit dispensaries statewide.  It does not provide for home growing.  A second measure, Issue 7, was disqualified by the Arkansas Supreme Court due to lack of compliance with registration and reporting laws for paid canvassers.  This measure would have allowed for some home growing for patients who live more than 20 miles from a cannabis care center.
  • Florida  (Passed) – Amendment 2 provides for the state Department of Health to register and regulate dispensaries and issue ID cards to marijuana patients and caregivers.  Individuals with medical conditions such as HIV/AIDS, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, PTSD, and Crohn’s disease would be eligible for a card with approval from a licensed Florida physician.  Because Florida’s demographics include 20 million residents, many of whom are seniors, baby boomers, and veterans, many see the passage of Amendment 2 as a lucrative business opportunity.  One newly-formed venture capital firm is currently raising $15 million to fund various medical marijuana-related ventures.
  •  Montana  (Passed) – Ballot Issue 14, also known as I-182, expands legal access to medical marijuana.  It repeals the three-patient limit and other requirements like unannounced inspections and review for physicians who provide certifications.  Newly added qualifying conditions include chronic pain and PTSD.  The implementation of the law could be delayed for months because of an error written into the measure.  The initiative aims to immediately repeal the three-patient limit, but the measure’s language indicates that the limit would not be lifted until June 30, 2017.
  • North Dakota  (Passed) – Initiated Statutory Measure No. 5 or The North Dakota Compassionate Care Act allows for the possession of up to 3 ounces of marijuana for conditions such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, epilepsy, and glaucoma.  It also provides for patients who live more than 40 miles from a licensed dispensary to grow up to eight plants.  The most vocal opponent to this measure was the North Dakota Medical Association.  It claimed that the petition “would be very difficult to implement in a safe and cost-effective manner.”

While these results undeniably illustrate a broad movement by states across the nation to legalize marijuana use in some form, our experience in watching what it takes for an initiative to go from “passed” to fully-implemented suggests that there is a lot that can happen, and there may be more uncertainty regarding what will be required of the industry in each of the states (at least in the short term).  We look forward to assisting our existing clients (as well as new ones) as they navigate the waters in these new markets.

Continue Reading

On September 30, we blogged about the OLCC and OHA’s emergency rulemaking in the face of the October 1 labeling, packaging, and testing deadline. One of the rule changes reduced the OLCC’s requirement for pesticide testing for usable marijuana.  The new rule calls for OLCC staff to assess pesticide testing capacity for the limited number of licensed labs approved for such testing.  After making the assessment, the rule requires the OLCC to issue an order dictating the percentage of usable marijuana a producer must test for pesticides.  Last week, the OLCC issued its first order.  The order states that each producer must submit 33% of its harvest lot batches to pesticide testing.  The entire text of the order can be found here.

The OLCC will most likely issue future orders which increase the percentage of pesticide testing required. We will post future blog entries as each order is published.

Continue Reading

IMG_3491

Many people have been asking about what to do if their container is too small to fit all of the required label information. Think tinctures, single-serving shots, or small edibles. Fortunately, the OLCC and OHA heard these concerns and created special rules for small containers. If your container is too small to include all required label information, you may now use additional packaging for display purposes to include this required information.

Minimum Information on Small Container

The container actually holding the marijuana item must contain:

  • Information in a minimum 8-point font, Arial, Helvetica, or Times New Roman;
  • A principal display panel containing required information (product identity, universal symbol, net weight) if required for the type of marijuana item;
  • Business or trade name and licensee or registrant number;
  • For OLCC licensees, package unique identification number;
  • For OHA registrants, batch or process lot number;
  • Concentration of THC and CBD; and
  • Required warnings.

Additional Information

All other required information must be included on:

  • a leaflet or hangtag that will accompany the marijuana item; or
  • an outer package.

If an outer package is used, all required information must be listed on the outer packaging, even if some of it has been included on the inner container.  In other words, outer packaging must have a full label.

Check back next week for more updates, including details on the registration procedure for OHA processors, what to do with unsold dispensary inventory on October 1st, and more!

Continue Reading

If you are an Oregon marijuana business owner, you will need to ensure compliance with not only new labeling rules, but also new packaging rules. The general rule to remember is that all marijuana items must comply with these packaging rules at retail sale to the end consumer. This rule applies to OLCC licensees immediately, and OHA registrants on and after October 1, 2016.

OLCC retailers and OHA-registered dispensaries will want to pay particular attention to the new packaging rules as they are ultimately responsible for ensuring that marijuana items leaving their businesses are properly packaged. With that said, any marijuana business that wants its product to be sold to consumers in their own packaging – without first being placed in “exit packaging” (which is explained below) – will also need to ensure that their products are properly packaged.

Pre-Approval

All packaging must be “pre-approved” by the OLCC. Both OLCC licensees and OHA registrants can pursue packaging pre-approval through the OLCC’s licensing portal (this is the same method used to obtain labeling pre-approval).

The OLCC will publish a list of pre-approved packaging. Any OLCC licensee or OHA registrant may use pre-approved packaging without first seeking permission from the OLCC. If you plan to use a pre-approved package from this list, be aware that:

  • the OLCC has not yet published the list;
  • once the OLCC does publish the list, there is no guarantee that the packaging you plan to use will be on the list; and
  • if you plan to use pre-approved packaging, but of a different size or color than is specified on the list, you may not use that packaging without first obtaining pre-approval from the OLCC.

General Requirements for Packaging

The general rule is that packaging used in retail sales to end consumers must:

  • protect marijuana items from contamination or exposure to toxic and harmful substances;
  • not be attractive to minors; and
  • be child-resistant.

There are three types of child-resistant packaging:

      1. Single Use. This packaging loses its child-resistance once opened; it may be used for usable marijuana (dried flower), single-serving edibles, single-serving topicals, single-serving concentrates, and single-serving extracts. singleusepackage
      2. Continual Use. This packaging maintains its child-resistance throughout the life of the marijuana item within; it may be used for usable marijuana, edibles, topicals, concentrates and extracts. continualusepackage
      3. Exit Packaging. This packaging can be used at the point of sale to enclose non-child resistant packaging. Use of exit packaging ensures that the sale to the end consumer complies with the new packaging rules. exitpackaging

For a complete list of packaging requirements and restrictions, see Oregon Administrative Rules 845-025-7000 to 845-025-7060.

Exception to the Child-Resistance Rule

Packaging does not need to be child-resistant if the product being sold is a marijuana seed or immature marijuana plant. Regardless of this exception, all packaging – including non-child resistant packaging and exit packaging – must be pre-approved by the OLCC.

Transportation Packaging

An additional rule applies to all transfers of marijuana items among OLCC licensees. In short, these transfers must use shipping containers and must be labeled with a UID tag prior to transport. For a complete list of requirements and restrictions applicable to these transfers, see Oregon Administrative Rule 845-025-7700.

For more information, please visit the OLCC’s page for packaging and labeling pre-approval. There you will find links to guides, workshop presentations, and frequently asked questions. If you have further questions, please contact one of our compliance attorneys and we will be happy to assist you with your packaging or other needs.

Tune in tomorrow for information on how small packages (e.g., 5ml plastic screw top containers) can comply with the new packaging and labeling rules.

Continue Reading

labelimage

Whether you are involved in the medical or recreational side of the Oregon cannabis industry, you will likely be required to comply with new labeling regulations on and after October 1, 2016. These regulations, contained in Oregon Administrative Rule 333-007-0010 to 333-007-0100, apply to all recreational licensees at all times during licensure, and most medical registrants. These labeling requirements do not apply to you if you are:

  • A grower providing usable marijuana or an immature plant to a patient who designated you as their grower or to the caregiver of a patient who designated you as their grower; or
  • A designated caregiver who is transferring a marijuana item to the patient who designated you as their caregiver

Generic Labels

A label that provides only the necessary information required by the rules, and no graphics, photographs, or logos, is considered a “generic” label and requires no pre-approval. You are not required to provide notice to OLCC that you will be using a generic label.

Pre-Approved Labels

All other labels require pre-approval from OLCC before they may be placed on a marijuana item. OLCC licensees and OHA registrants may submit labels for pre-approval through the OLCC’s licensing portal. Although not ideal, if you are unable to obtain pre-approval prior to October 1, 2016, you may use a generic label until you are pre-approved. Going forward, certain label information may be changed without the need for a new pre-approval. The OLCC has been working on detailing what label information this applies to (e.g. strain, net weight, test results, etc.). We will update you as we learn more.

General Requirements for Labels

A container holding a marijuana item must have a principal display panel (PDP) that provides:

  • The product’s identity;
  • The universal marijuana symbol at a minimum size of .48” x .35 inches; universalsymbol
  • If applicable, the medical grade symbol at a minimum diameter of .35 inches; and medicalsymbol
  • Net weight in US Customary and metric units.

Labels must:

Pictograms may be used in place of written label information where appropriate, such as for activation time.  activationpictogram

Specific Labeling Requirements by Product Type

Follow the links below to find administrative rules containing lists of labeling requirements for each different product type.

Prohibitions

A label may not contain any untruthful or misleading statements. These include:

  • Use of the term “organic” unless the product has been certified;
  • Claiming that the product is gluten-free, unless labeling follows FDA labeling requirements for gluten-free products; and
  • Health claims that have not been substantiated by the totality of publicly available scientific evidence, for which there is scientific agreement among experts.

A label must not be attractive to minors. This includes:

  • Brands or designs that resemble a product marketed to children;
  • Brands or designs typically marketed to children;
  • Cartoons; and
  • Images of minors.

For more information, please visit the OLCC’s page for packaging and labeling pre-approval. There you will find links to guides, workshop presentations, and frequently asked questions. If you have further questions, please contact one of our compliance attorneys and we will be happy to assist you with your labeling or other needs.

Tune in tomorrow for information on packaging requirements under the new rules.

 

Continue Reading

ORDOJ

We get this question a lot.  Can I have six mature medical plants and four home grow plants?  The answer is YES, (assuming you are over 21 and a patient growing at home).

The Oregon Department of Justice has published an opinion regarding the intersection of the laws that govern Oregon’s medical and recreational marijuana programs.

In summary, an OMMP grow site located at a patient’s residence may have:

  • 6 mature medical marijuana plants (a per-patient limit), and
  • 4 recreational marijuana plants (a per-household limit).

In addition, a patient may possess up to:

  • 24 ounces of usable medical marijuana (a per-patient limit), and
  • 8 ounces of usable recreational marijuana (a per-household limit).

There are different usable marijuana possession limits for growers, depending on whether the grower is producing marijuana at a patient’s residence.

Members of the public may possess only:

  • 4 recreational marijuana plants at his or her household (a per-household limit),
  • 8 ounces of usable recreational marijuana (a per-household limit), and
  • 1 ounce of usable marijuana in a public place.

The opinion also concludes that the limits in the Oregon Controlled Substances Act apply to possession of marijuana concentrates and extracts. Both patients and members of the public must abide by the following possession limits:

  • 16 solid ounces of marijuana products or concentrates,
  • 72 liquid ounces of marijuana products, and
  • 1 ounce of marijuana extract purchased from a licensed retailer or dispensary.

While members of the public may make their own marijuana concentrates, edibles, or other cannabinoid products for personal consumption, it is still illegal to process marijuana extract without a license issued by the Oregon Liquor Control Commission or Oregon Health Authority. The entire opinion is available here: http://www.doj.state.or.us/agoffice/agopinions/op2016-2.pdf.

The information in this blog post is a summary. These laws and rules are nuanced, and are applied differently based on several factors, such as location of possession. Contact a member of our compliance team with any questions.

Continue Reading