![](\"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/MM_Bill_Tracker_V5_blank-34.jpg\"){kind=tracking}
<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
The California attorney general\u2019s office has been soliciting input from local government and cannabis industry groups as it works to finalize an opinion on the potential legal risks of authorizing interstate marijuana commerce under ongoing federal prohibition, documents obtained by Marijuana Moment show.<\/p>\n
At least three organizations representing local governments have so far answered the attorney general\u2019s call, saying that they do not expect California would be at \u201csignificant risk\u201d of facing federal enforcement action if officials were to authorize the import and export of cannabis with other consenting legal states.<\/p>\n
California, Oregon and Washington State have all passed laws allowing officials to enter into cross-border cannabis trade agreements with other states, although Oregon\u2019s and Washington\u2019s laws both require some form of federal reform or guidance to proceed. California\u2019s law, by contrast, contains a provision empowering Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) to craft interstate agreements<\/a> if the state\u2019s attorney general determines that doing so would not put the state in legal jeopardy.<\/p>\n The review now underway in the California AG\u2019s Opinions Unit was initiated following a request from the state Department of Cannabis Control (DCC)<\/a> in January. Emails and letters provided to Marijuana Moment in response to a Public Records Act request offer a sense of how the process has unfolded in the months since.<\/p>\n DCC\u2019s January request asked whether \u201cstate law authorization, under an agreement pursuant to Chapter 25 of Division 10 of the Business and Professional Code, for medicinal or adult-use commercial cannabis activity, or both, between out-of-state licensees and California licensees, will result in significant legal risk to the State of California under the federal Controlled Substances Act.\u201d<\/p>\n Matthew Lee, general counsel to DCC, told Marijuana Moment in a phone interview on Tuesday that he has \u201cno concerns at all\u201d about the amount of time that\u2019s transpired since the department submitted the request, saying \u201cwe feel very confident that the longer and more carefully you look at this issue, the more likely you are to agree with the conclusion that that we reached.\u201d That is, interstate cannabis commerce carries no substantial federal legal risk for the state.<\/p>\n \u201cThey have a very serious job. They need to make sure that they\u2019re being very, very careful looking at all the angles that are necessarily when dealing with novel, complex areas of law where the stakes can be quite high,\u201d Lee said of the attorney general\u2019s office. \u201cSo I think that a huge part of giving them the time and space they need to do their job is recognizing that that process takes time. And and it should take time.\u201d<\/p>\n After receiving the agency\u2019s request, California Deputy Attorney General Karim Kentfield sent emails to several potentially interested parties in February, inviting feedback on the question. Kentfield said responses should ideally be submitted by April 4, but that \u201cmaterials received after that date may nonetheless be considered.\u201d<\/p>\n Records obtained by Marijuana Moment show that several organizations\u2014including Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC), the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) and the California Cannabis Authority (CCA)\u2014have shared their perspectives. Each group expressed to the attorney general\u2019s office that it believes authorizing interstate marijuana commerce would not lead to federal enforcement action.<\/p>\n CCA\u2014a joint powers authority representing local governments that promotes cannabis industry oversight and taxation\u2014sent a letter in April saying it does not believe that repealing a law that bans interstate cannabis commerce carries any<\/em> risk, \u201cmuch less a \u2018significant\u2019 one,\u201d of federal enforcement under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).<\/p>\n \u201cBecause the express language of the CSA \u2018preserves state laws except where there exists such a positive conflict that the two laws cannot consistently stand together, the implied conflict analysis of obstacle preemption appears beyond the intended scope of [the CSA],’\u201d the letter says. \u201cWithout a foundation for the CSA to preempt California\u2019s repeal of the present ban on the interstate sale of licensed commercial cannabis, the legal risk of the federal government suing the State under the CSA is effectively nullified.\u201d<\/p>\n RCRC and CSAC, for their part, sent a joint letter in March which acknowledged that the \u201cprospect of state-authorized interstate cannabis commerce often evokes skepticism on first blush.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cHow can a state permit interstate commerce that Congress itself has forbidden? Similar skepticism greeted California\u2019s early efforts to authorize commercial cannabis activities in the first place,\u201d it said. \u201cHowever, in this case, as then, the skepticism evaporates upon closer examination.\u201d<\/p>\n In their estimation, \u201cfederal CSA enforcement action against the State of California is unlikely to be brought as the \u2018result\u2019 of \u2018state law authorization\u2019 under Senate Bill 1326\u2026and even more unlikely to succeed,\u201d the groups said.<\/p>\n \u201cIn both legal analysis and the real world, this is not a \u2018fairly large\u2019 probability,\u201d it continued. \u201cThus, state law authorization, under an agreement pursuant to this Senate Bill 1326, for commercial cannabis activity between foreign licensees and state licensees, will not result in \u2018significant legal risk to the State of California under the federal Controlled Substances Act,\u2019 and the Attorney General should therefore issue an opinion as requested by the Department.\u201d<\/p>\n Lee of DCC said that it\u2019s \u201calways encouraging to see other smart, thoughtful lawyers reach the same conclusion that you have on a on a novel question.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cOne of the amazing things about interstate commerce is that it\u2019s a way to grow the pie,\u201d he said. \u201cThis is good for everybody. It\u2019s a win for the state. It\u2019s a win for local governments. It\u2019s a win for licensees. It\u2019s a win for just the whole project of legalization and everyone who benefits from it.\u201d<\/p>\n None of the letters or emails that the attorney general\u2019s office released indicated that any parties who were consulted believed there was a discernible risk of federal legal action against California for simply authorizing cross-border marijuana commerce. That said, certain records responsive to Marijuana Moment\u2019s request were exempted from release under various provisions of the state\u2019s public information law covering documents subject to the attorney-client privilege, work-product exception and deliberative-process privilege.<\/p>\n The attorney general\u2019s office also invited comment from the American Trade Association of Cannabis and Hemp (ATACH), but the organization\u2019s president told Marijuana Moment that they did not ultimately submit input on the issue.<\/p>\n \u2014 Lee previously discussed the issue during a webinar hosted by the Alliance for Sensible Markets, at which he made the case that the there is already an interstate cannabis market that\u2019s been effectively established in the U.S.<\/a>. But so far it\u2019s been unregulated, forcing operators to make the choice between staying legal\u2014but keeping products within a single market\u2014or engaging in illicit activity by selling across state lines.<\/p>\n On a separate but related legal question, a federal circuit court ruling in Maine last year<\/a> affirmed a lower court\u2019s ruling that state marijuana laws with residency requirements for cannabis businesses violate the U.S. Commerce Clause, part of the Constitution meant to prevent states from enforcing policies that unduly restrict interstate commerce.<\/p>\n In November, an\u00a0Oregon marijuana business filed a lawsuit in another federal court<\/a>, declaring that the state\u2019s current ban on cannabis exports and imports to and from other states violates the Constitution.<\/p>\n Other states where cannabis is legal have considered passing similar legislation to allow cross-border trade. New Jersey\u2019s Senate president introduced an interstate marijuana commerce bill<\/a> last year. And a legislative committee in Maine recently rejected similar legislation<\/a>, but the chair said the matter could be revisited through another vehicle.<\/p>\n Read the letters<\/a> from local California government groups on the legality of interstate marijuana commerce below:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n Top Alcohol Industry Association Gives Congress Advice On Regulating Hemp Derivatives Such As CBD And Delta-8 THC<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n Photo courtesy of Mike Latimer.<\/em><\/p>\n The post Allowing Interstate Cannabis Commerce Would Not Risk Federal Enforcement, Local Government Groups Tell California AG<\/a> appeared first on Marijuana Moment<\/a>.<\/p>\n
The California attorney general\u2019s office has been soliciting input from local government and cannabis industry groups as it works to finalize an opinion on the potential legal risks of authorizing interstate marijuana commerce under ongoing federal prohibition, documents obtained by Marijuana Moment show. At least three organizations representing local governmentsContinue Reading<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":458,"featured_media":67932,"comment_status":"false","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[18,81],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67931"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/458"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=67931"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67931\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":67933,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67931\/revisions\/67933"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/67932"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=67931"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=67931"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=67931"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nMarijuana Moment is tracking more than 1,000 cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills<\/a> in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters<\/a> pledging at least $25\/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don\u2019t miss any developments.<\/strong>
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/MM_Bill_Tracker_V5_blank-33.jpg\"){kind=tracking}
<\/a>
\nLearn more about our marijuana bill tracker<\/a> and become a supporter on Patreon<\/a> to get access.
\n\u2014<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n
\n
\nRead More: Allowing Interstate Cannabis Commerce Would Not Risk Federal Enforcement, Local Government Groups Tell California AG<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"