LAST UPDATED 4/4/2026

Cal NORML is tracking the following and has reached out to the authors’ offices:

AB 1826 (Lackey) To improve due process around the recall, embargo, and destruction of cannabis products. Sponsored by CCIA. Referred to Com. on B. and P. Set FOR Hearing ON 07-APR-26 9 a.m.
Cal NORML has joined a sign-on letter in support of this bill.

AB 1965 (Sharp-Collins) Cannabis: testing: quality assurance. Referred to Com. on B. and P. Set FOR Hearing ON 07-APR-26 9 a.m. Cal NORML has sent a letter in support of this bill.

AB-2249 (Irwin) Cannabis: labels, packaging and manufacturing. Amendments dropped. Referred to Com. on B. and P. Set FOR Hearing ON 14-APR-26 9 a.m.

AB-2532 (Irwin) Cannabis: labels, packaging and manufacturing. Amendments dropped. Referred to Com. on B. and P. Set FOR Hearing ON 14-APR-26 9 a.m.
Cal NORML is addressing the provision in AB 2532 limiting cannabis beverage containers to 10 mg. We are suggesting amendments allowing greater amounts for concentrates, and calling for better labeling of edibles and drinks overall, and/or requiring a dosage cup or eyedropper to measure out smaller doses from containers with high THC levels, in keeping with current regulations.  

AB 2250 (Aguiar-Curry) Modify AB 8 to exclude CBN from the definition of cannabis concentrate. Referred to Coms. on B. and P. and REV. and TAX. Set FOR Hearing ON 07-APR-26 9 a.m.

AB-2420 (Caloza) Cannabis: donations: seniors. Authorizes cannabis retailers to donate cannabis or cannabis products to persons 65 years of age and older. Referred to Com. on B. and P. Set FOR Hearing ON 14-APR-26 9 a.m.

AB 2506 (Hart) Cannabis: tribal government licensure. Referred to Com. on B. and P. Set FOR Hearing ON 07-APR-26 9 a.m.

AB 2537 (Chen) Cannabis Enforcement Accountability and Public Health Prioritization Act of 2026. Referred to Com. on B. and P. Set FOR Hearing ON 07-APR-26 9 a.m.
Would “require the DCC to prioritize its enforcement of MAUCRSA in a manner consistent with a risk-based enforcement framework that focuses on material threats while applying less intensive and less punitive measures on minor technical or administrative violations by licensees.” Sponsored by CaCOA.

AB 2697 (Pellerin) Cannabis drive-throughs.
Would authorize a local jurisdiction to allow a licensed cannabis retailer to conduct sales or deliveries at a drive-through, pass-out window, or slide-out tray, if the sales and deliveries are made through a fixed-pane security window with a security drawer. Referred to Com. on B. and P.  Set FOR Hearing ON 21-APR-26.

AB 2667 (Hadwick) Vape products: household hazardous waste: advertising. Passed Com. on E.S and T.M. and B.; Set FOR Hearing in B. and P. ON 14-APR-26 9 a.m.
Would allow authorize hazardous waste collection facilities to mechanically disassemble vape pens and devices, and prohibit nicotine or cannabis vapes using branding to appeal to minors, packaged to conceal the nature of their use, or including interactive videogame capabilities.

AB 1884 (Hadwick) Interscholastic athletics: drug testing: suspensions: nicotine use. Set FOR Hearing in Assembly Committee on Arts, Entertainment, Sports, & Tourism ON 7-APR-26 9 a.m.
Would to require schools to drug-test 7-12 grade students for nicotine, and allow testing for controlled substances (like cannabis), as a requirement for participating in interscholastic athletics. Cal NORML has long opposed random drug testing. 

AB-2617 (Schiavo) NO LONGER A CANNABIS BILL. It’s now the Protecting Kids from Online Gambling Act.

AB-2246 (Wicks) NO LONGER A CANNABIS BILL. It’s now the Youth Social Media Protection Act: report.

Winning a cannabis license can feel like the hardest part: months (sometimes years) of applications, capital outlays, community positioning, and regulatory scrutiny distilled into a single approval. In limited-license states, that approval is scarce by design. It carries value the moment it’s issued.

But a license is not yet a business. It’s a permission slip with a timeline, and the next choice you make (build it out or sell it now) will largely determine whether you capture a quick premium or create a larger, more durable asset.

At Green Life Business Group®, Inc., we work with operators and investors nationwide who reach this fork in the road. The “right” answer isn’t universal, and it’s rarely ideological. It usually comes down to one decisive factor: capitalization, paired with a clear-eyed strategy.

When to Build-Out

If you have meaningful capital reserves and access to funding and you can withstand the time it takes to construct, clear inspections, secure final approvals, and ramp operations—building before selling can expand what a buyer is willing to pay. In this industry, buyers pay up for reduced execution risk. A license on paper is potential; a compliant facility with systems, staffing, and real operating traction is certainty. When the heavy lifting is done: buildout, municipal signoffs, regulatory inspections, early hiring, and initial revenue an acquirer is no longer buying a plan. They’re buying a functioning enterprise with far fewer unknowns.

That premium can be substantial, but it’s not “free money.” The build-first path asks you to carry the business through its most vulnerable phase, when delays are common, cash burn is steady, and a single compliance miss can set the timeline back. In many jurisdictions, the practical runway from approval to stable operations can stretch from six months to eighteen, depending on local processes, construction realities, and how quickly your team can operationalize compliance. The operational burden is also real: cannabis is heavily regulated, and early-stage execution requires experience, discipline, and a willingness to manage details most industries never face.

For well-capitalized license holders who want to maximize long-term value, that effort can be worth it. If your aim is to build an asset that commands a higher multiple—because it is already operating, already compliant, and already de-risked—then building out can be the strategic move.

When to Simply Sell

The opposite strategy can be just as rational (and sometimes more profitable) when the goal is speed, liquidity, and risk reduction. If you prefer to avoid construction exposure, permitting drag, cost overruns, staffing complexity, and the day-to-day grind of compliance, selling the license prior to buildout may be the smarter business decision. In that scenario, you’re monetizing scarcity and the work you’ve already completed: the approval itself, the credibility required to win it, and the buyer’s urgency to enter the market. Instead of spending months converting the license into an operating company, you transfer the opportunity to someone else who has the balance sheet and operating appetite to finish the job.

This approach limits downside in a market where timing matters. Cannabis valuations are not static. They rise and fall with licensing scarcity, competitive intensity, pricing conditions, and capital availability. A build that looks sensible on day one can become far less attractive if the market softens while you’re mid-construction, or if new entrants flood the category and compress margins. Selling earlier can protect you from that cycle—and from the risk of becoming a forced seller if timelines slip and reserves thin out.

There’s also a market-timing layer that many license holders underestimate. If you’re pursuing multiple applications across states with an “asset strategy” (winning approvals with the intent to monetize them) the highest premiums often appear in newly legalized or newly regulated markets. Early licenses can trade at outsized values when supply is limited and demand is urgent, particularly from groups racing to establish footprint and brand presence. Over time, that premium often narrows. More licenses enter the market, competition intensifies, pricing pressure builds, and capital becomes more selective. Distressed operators begin to surface, and “last year’s multiples” stop applying. In other words, the value of a license can be as much about when you act as what you won.

So how do you decide?

Start by asking the questions most people avoid. Do you have the capital to build properly (not minimally) without cutting corners that later undermine inspections or operations? Can you carry twelve months or more without meaningful revenue if approvals take longer than expected? Do you actually want to operate a cannabis business, with all the compliance and execution that entails, or do you want to exit while the asset is still simple and scarce? And what does buyer demand look like in your specific state and license category right now not in theory, but in the deals actually closing?

When you answer those honestly, the strategy usually becomes clear. If you’re well-capitalized and positioned to execute, converting a license into a compliant, operating business can materially increase what you can command in an exit because you’re selling certainty and performance. If you want a lower-risk, faster liquidity event, selling pre-buildout may be the most strategic move. And if you’re playing across multiple emerging markets, early-cycle timing can often generate the highest returns: before competitive saturation and valuation compression take hold.

At Green Life Business Group®, Inc., we help license holders evaluate market cycles, buyer demand, capitalization plans, and execution timelines to determine which path is most likely to maximize outcomes. Winning the license was the milestone. Now the work is making sure you extract its full value.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, tax, or investment advice. Regulations and transfer rules vary by jurisdiction.

Green Life Business Group has SOLD over 400 Cannabis Licenses/Businesses all across the Country. Green Life Business Group currently has over 200 Active exclusive cannabis businesses or licenses on the Market Today.

Green Life Business Group is pleased to support California NORML as a Business Member — learn more about their services in their Cannabis Marketplace listing.

A “joint” hearing

Chair of the Joint Legislative Audit committee John Harabedian (D-Pasadena) opened the hearing and turned it over to Asm. Jacqui Irwin (D-Ventura) who requested an audit of cannabis packaging last year. The audit determined that laws and guidance are not always clear on what constitutes a package that is attractive to children, and that the DCC’s enforcement against companies with repeated violations was lacking.

DCC’s regulations prohibit cartoonish characters on cannabis packages, but examples were shown of gummy packages that arguably had such images, as well as those with images of marshmallows or candies and sweets like fruity rice, all of which had been determined to be within the agency’s guidelines. Also shown were bottles of drinks containing 100 mg of THC—ten times the standard adult dose—that provided no mechanism to consume a lower dose. It was recommended that CA either limit drink packages to 10 mg, unless a device is included to measure dosages.

Asm. Irwin pointed to increases in Poison Control Center calls and emergency room visits involving children ingesting cannabis, saying they are coming not just from the illicit market but also the legal, regulated one. It was pointed out that some of steepest increases in poison control center calls came after 2019 when hemp was descheduled at federal level and intoxicating hemp products proliferated. Also, it’s hard to distinguish if calls were coming from products on legal or illegal market. But Irwin kept coming back to, but some of the problems are from the legal market, to which DCC’s Christina Dempsey replied, certainly and said her department has taken steps to better coordinate and take action against violators.

Dempsey said the state audit happened during period where staff were still being combined from three different agencies that formerly regulated cannabis in CA. DCC has spent time developing a tool that will scan labels and highlight what staff might miss, she said, adding that in some cases it’s not obvious what’s attractive to youth. The agency is getting ready to roll that out their tool to licensees this summer.

DCC would love to have more inspectors, Dempsey said, but they have resource constraints. The agency has budget proposals under consideration for additional legal staff to review complaints, and to consolodate licensing systems, which are still in two separate databases (down from three, when Prop. 64 first took effect).

“We need cannabis products to look more like the pasta aisle than the cereal aisle,” Harabedian said, noting this his children don’t ask for pasta in the grocery store, but they want every cereal they see. He and others also objected to the name Root Beer being used on drink cans, to which the response was that root beer float was the name of a cannabis strain.

Several committee members like Legislative Audit Vice Chair Cabaldon asked if statutory clarity was needed on products like “Krispy Rice treats”? Asm. Hart asked, is the definition of child-attractive packaging or enforcement the issue? (Answers were unclear.) Asm. Bauer-Kahan noted that we must support the legal market, “it’s making us safer.” But we must protect children.

Asm. Berman, chair of Asm. Business and Professions committee, asked why strain names are a problem, saying that they’re used on flower, not products. He noted that this year marks 10 years of legal cannabis in CA, but the industry is still struggling to meet its expectations. He held up a package that “looks like it’s straight out of Alice in Wonderland,” calling it unacceptable.

Dr. Lynn Silver, a pediatrician and CDPH task force on packaging co-chair, noted that almost none of recommendations from the task force’s 2024 have been implemented. Those recommendations included moving to plain packaging or a system like Oregon’s where packaging is pre-approved. California has been a national leader in reigning in flavored tobacco, Silver noted, and should take the lead here as well. She raised an objection to Snoop Dogg onion rings and said that $70 million went from youth programs funded by cannabis taxes to the DCC to address child-attractive packaging.

Caren Woodson of CCIA noted that Prop. 64 tax money was to go to education and prevention. “How about instructing parents about safe storage?” she asked, noting that children can’t get into licensed cannabis retailers to see packages and must be accessing them at home.

Amy Jenkins of CaCOA said her organization just put out a White Paper based on an audit of 161 popular products, which found that 62% were compliant, 10% were clearly out of compliance, and the rest were unclear. CaCOA recommends:
1. Define observable design features
2. Align DCC guidance with regulation
3. Focus enforcement where risk is highest

“Protection without undermining the legal market is possible,” Jenkins concluded. The most egregious examples of dubious child-friendly products come from the illicit market, which has no age gating. The legislature has made substantial investments in enforcement, and needs to do more at the illicit retail level, she said.

Irwin said she would like to see CaCOA’s white paper, and was glad the industry was willing to work together for more precision in labeling.

During public comment, Dr. Alisa Padon from the Public Health Institute, said that with DCC funding, her organization used a Content Appealing to Youth Index and found measurable features like psychedelic effects that appeal to teens. Usage remains lowest in places without retail sales, she said, so the legal market matters.

Sam Rodriguez, who represents vertically integrated cannabis farmers from the Santa Barbara county area noted that labels that reflect the region – mountains, rivers, surfers – promote the industry and tourism for the county. While agreeing that cannabis must be kept away from youth, he asked, “Please be prudent and don’t overreach.”

Irwin’s last packaging bill was opposed by Cal NORML and the California cannabis industry and was vetoed by Gov. Newsom as overly broad. It disallowed any kind of picture, such as a picture of a farmer, on packages. The Assemblywoman has introduced a bare-bones packaging bill that will soon be flushed out, it is expected, along with a bill addressing marketing practices.

California NORML and our supporters worked hard in 2022 to sponsor and pass 

Our bill became law on January 1, 2023 (BPC 2228.5), prohibiting physicians and health plans to have policies denying medical treatment to qualified patients with a recommendation to use medical marijuana. The only exception is if a clinical determination is made on a case-by-case basis that a “medically significant” contraindication exists. The law further states, “The use of medical cannabis that has been recommended by a licensed physician and surgeon shall not constitute the use of an illicit substance in the evaluation described.” See a Fact Sheet about the law.

Unfortunately, we have continued to receive complaints from Kaiser patients who are being denied health care for using cannabis since the law took effect. This seems to impact pain patients the most, despite numerous studies demonstrating that the use of cannabis can lessen a patient’s need for prescription painkillers, and that access to medical cannabis lessens the rate of opiate abuse and overdose. Kaiser continues to drug test pain patients and prohibit its doctors from prescribing certain medicines if a patient tests positive for cannabis as a blanket policy, in direct violation of the law.

Cal NORML is working on a letter to Kaiser demanding they change their policy in accordance with state law, for which we need a critical mass of patients to act in unison with a single legal representative.

IF YOU HAVE BEEN DENIED MEDICAL CARE BY A KAISER DOCTOR DUE TO CANNABIS USE, WE WOULD LIKE TO INCLUDE YOU IN OUR EFFORT TO CHANGE KAISER’S POLICY. PLEASE WRITE TO ELLEN@CANORML.ORG WITH THE DATE AND OTHER DETAILS ABOUT WHEN YOU WERE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY KAISER. 

UPDATE 2/26/26 – The cannabis language in the bill has been erased, following opposition from some in the cannabis industry, concerned that it would open the door to broader shipping. 

UPDATE 2/20/26 – During a chat with Capitol Weekly, new DCC chief Clint Kellum said (@ 19:46 in), that direct-mail options for cannabis could be “quite beneficial” to consumers, noting that most people are getting goods via Amazon, etc. Kellum said that the cannabis consumer has “quite a confusing market to deal with, in that there’s not widespread access across the state, you have intoxicating hemp cannabinoids that aren’t allowed in the state but are allowed at the federal level that make their way in through direct-to-consumer efforts, so there’s quite a bit of confusion, and having more traditional lines like direct-to-consumer would be nice.” However, Kellum said we were a long way off from such a plan, due to federal law. 

1/25/26 – Asm. Patrick Ahrens (D-Silicon Valley) has introduced a bill, AB 1564, to allow for the shipment of certain medical products from specified cannabis license holders directly to patients. Ahrens’s attempt at the bill last year, AB 1332, passed unanimously in the Senate and Assembly last year; however Gov. Newsom vetoed it.

“While I appreciate the author’s goal of expanding patient access to medical cannabis, the proposed direct-shipping program would be burdensome and overly complex to administer,” Newsom said in his veto statement. “The Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) will need to revamp the California cannabis track-and-trace system, which will take significant resources and time. Moreover, this measure includes numerous restrictions on eligible products – many of which are unclear, overly narrow or unworkable, adding to the implementation challenge.”

As reported by Cannabis Business Times, according to a fiscal analysis of the bill from the Senate Appropriations Committee, the DCC estimated a one-time implementation cost of approximately $269,000 to modify the track-and-trace system, and ongoing annual costs of $472,000 to oversee shipments and ensure compliance with product restrictions. That annual cost represents less than 0.05% of what the state collected in taxable cannabis sales in 2024, according to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration.

The bill would have allowed any microbusiness with an M-license whose licensed activities include retail sale, manufacturing, distribution, and outdoor cultivation may directly ship medicinal cannabis to a medicinal cannabis patient in the state. “Given that this measure allows just two businesses to ship medical cannabis directly to patients, the costs of administering this program far outweigh the possible benefits to patients,” Newsom claimed.

Dr. Laurie Vollen testified in favor of A.B. 1332, saying that 29 years after medicinal marijuana was legalized in California, “medicinal products have become virtually extinct in today’s cannabis marketplace. Long-term patients cannot find any of the products that they were using effectively five years ago. No dispensary or delivery service has a full complement of medicinal products suitable for serving the needs of a variety of cannabis patients, especially cannabis-naive patients desperately seeking to begin alternatives to dangerous and addictive pharmaceuticals.”

The legislation as written would limit product shipments to cannabis flower and tinctures manufactured with non-volatile solvents, mechanical extraction or infusion only, sent by common carriers like FedEx or UPS. Ahrens had included a three-year sunset provision in A.B. 1332 in an effort to allow lawmakers to revisit its effectiveness. The new bill AB 1564 extends that date out to January 1, 2030. More revisions are expected.

In his 2025 veto statement, Newsom said he remains open to working with state lawmakers to adopt strategies to effectively advance equitable access to safe medical cannabis. Some 57% of California cities and counties still prohibit retail cannabis businesses, according to the DCC.

“I need the shipping bill,” wrote one Cal NORML supporter.  “I live in a legal cannabis desert, which creates both logistical and financial burdens for obtaining my necessary medication.”

Tell us: How might cannabis shipping benefit you? 

Cal NORML favors shifting to vapes with removable batteries and developing disposal options for cannabis vape waste. 

Manufacturers and retailers should explore re-designing vapes with removable batteries, and/or provide waste disposal programs for cannabis cartridges, vape pens, and batteries. 

See: THE GREEN PUFF: TRANSFORMING CANNABIS VAPING INTO A SUSTAINABLE PRACTICE  and

Raising the Volume: How Regulations and Consumer Market Trends Have Increased the Volume of Cannabis Packaging Waste in California

Consumers should be aware of proper disposal options for cannabis cartridges and integrated cannabis vaporizers. 

Consumers: Check with your licensed cannabis retailer to see if they have a waste disposal program.

You can use this link to find an authorized hazardous waste facility near you.

Find battery drop-off sites.

Find Waste Management Locations.

Also see: How to Dispose of Vape Pen Batteries.

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality guide on cannabis waste disposal, including vape waste (page 17).

If All Else Fails…

If you live hundreds of miles away from any of these drop-off points and don’t want a pile of batteries building up (as they may catch fire), you will need to process the batteries yourself:

1. Discharge each battery completely and allow them to cool.
2. Submerge them in cold salt water for a full two weeks, covered with a secure lid.
3. Wrap them in a newspaper and put them in the trash.

The aim of this process is to make the electrolyte fluid safe so that the batteries won’t explode or ignite. Remember that ignition is the main risk of improper disposal.

Treat your lithium-ion e-cigarette batteries just as you would your vape pen batteries. And if you have plastic e-liquid bottles (or liquid nicotine bottles) and cartridges for your e-cig, you can recycle those normally. Just make sure to first rinse any remaining residue from bottles.

Also see: Vaping Resources and Products

Cal NORML Launches Vape Safety Study

Read our report below on the bill’s first hearing this year, along with feedback on the bill from Cal NORML members and supporters.

Asm. Jacqui Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks) brought her bill AB 762, to ban disposable nicotine and cannabis vape pens, to the Assembly Business and Professions Committee for a hearing on Tuesday, January 13. Disposable devices are incredibly popular, you can see them everywhere, including in childrens’ backpacks, Irwin said. Most look like pens, but screens and buttons are being added to play video games like PacMan or Tetrus. Disposable vape pens designs intend them to be thrown away, rather than refilled or recharged. Lithium ion batteries are flammable, igniting garbage trucks and recycling centers.

She pointed to the UK, which has banned disposables, and reported that 85% of customers there switched to reusable products. She said she had to omit vape products from her battery recycling bill because “we couldn’t find a way to recycle them.” We’ve been on a mission, she said, with AB 2440 just coming online and SB 1215, one on loose batteries, one embedded. This category got carved out of the embedded law that just came online January 1. She passed around samples of reusable vs. disposable vapes. (Jokes were made about about how they were just to look at, not use.)

Irwin brought up witness Joe La Mariana of ReThink Waste and a Doug Subers from CA Professional Firefighters to talk about problems with fires at recycling centers due to lithium ion batteries. LeMariana said there have already been two fires at facilities this year; they are quite common.

Those standing to add their support included the League of CA Cities, CSAC, RCRC, the cities of Alameda and Thousand Oaks, Santa Clara and Santa Barbara counties, LA County Sanitation Districts, and the San Francisco Board of  Supervisors. Also, the Product Stewardship Council – Stop Waste, Nor Cal Recycling Association, Parents Against Vaping, and the Teamsters, among others.

THE OPPOSITION SPEAKS

Amy Jenkins of CaCOA provided opposition testimony on behalf of the cannabis industry. Lithium ion batteries are ubiquitous, she said, and this bill doesn’t address improper disposal or educate consumers about it. Disposables serve unique medical patients and accessibility, since dexterity issues preclude changing batteries for some. Consumers do shift to readily available illegal products, e.g. harmful EVALI products.

Sacramento County Sheriff’s deputy Nate Grgich spoke about the illicit market, which he said is increasingly tied to organized criminal networks, many coming from overseas, calling it a health risk and national security concern. He said there were 150 operations into smoke shops last year in Sacramento County raiding businesses with products marketed to minors.

Opposition support came from CCIA, the CA Roundable Business Assn., CA Grocers and Retailers Associations, and the Hispanic and Asian Pacific Chambers of Commerce, along with Weedmaps, the Cannabis Distribution Association, Marsh & Ash and the Catalyst Cannabis Co.

THE COMMITTEE ASKS QUESTIONS

Asm. Philip Chen (R-Orange, San Bernardino) said that 90% of unregulated market comes from from China and asked how does the bill would address that. “We find it hard to believe this bill will impact illicit market,” Irwin said, pointing to two “very strong” enforcement mechanisms in bill: license revocation and civil penalties.

Chen then asked the opposition, “Does this have teeth or is this a drop in the bucket?” Jenkins responded that the lion’s share of enforcement dollars have gone to illicit grows; there has been a lack of emphasis on retail. She noted there is an illicit dispensary on K St. near the capitol, where you can buy an integrated vaporizer, and will continue to be able to buy if this bill passes.

Asm. Heather Hadwick (R-Alpine, Amador, El Dorado, Lassen, Modoc, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou counties) asked if CA’s ban on flavored vapes increased the illicit market? Irwin pointed out this would make enforcement easier, since law enforcement won’t have to distinguish between flavored and nonflavored vapes. (She added: I’d like to see the K St. store closed too.) The Sheriff’s deputy agreed that it is hard to distinguish flavored vapes from others. Fine is $500. Jenkins added that flavored vapes are rampant, despite very robust penalties already in MACURSA, can be $30K per violation.

Hadwick said she spent 12 years on her county’s tobacco coalition. There is no punishment possible for kids at school, and 90% of products are from China and not FDA controlled. “I just don’t think this bill is the answer. The 10% of those who are legal aren’t the problem,” she said. “My average age of kids caught was 10 years old. This is ruining our youth.”

Asm. Sade Elhawary (D-Los Angeles) drilled down, asking: Based on some of the illicit market packaging coming from China, what would be effective?

Jenkins replied that previous legislation did require packaging and labeling, and consumer information about proper disposal. If you eliminate a portion of our retail vaping sales, you’re eroding some of that education material that is provided. Integrated vaporizes represent 40% of sales. There are responsible suppliers who do have take-back programs e.g. Marsh & Ash. This bill would take some of that away.

[AB 1894, which took effect in July 2024, requires labeling and mandatory consumer education about proper disposal at hazardous waste facilities on disposable. Licensed manufacturers are complying, and the regulated market has the infrastructure and accountability to address environmental concerns responsibly, CaCOA says, adding that AB 762 dismantles that progress.]

Elhawary noted the llicit market is huge, and oftentimes the fires are coming from that market. She said, I don’t want to be harmful to an industry that’s struggling; although I support bill.

Newcomer Asm. Natasha Johnson (R-Riverside) opined that she can’t imagine a consumer who’s buying an illicit product will be concerned with waste management. Don’t understand how banning a legal product will help. Irwin replied that this is an incremental change that will have negligable impact on consumers. She pointed again to UK and enforcement piece. Johnson replied, I don’t know how we can regulate what we can’t ban. If we’re removing the cleanest version of what we have right now, we’re left with the dirtiest version.

Johnson asked what has happened in good faith negotiations with opposition since the bill was introduced last year. Irwin replied that there was concern from business owners about stock on hand, which was addressed with the addition of a sell-through date of January 1, 2028. The AG’s office or city and county attorneys would be responsible for enforcing the bill.

Asm. Maggy Krell (D-Sacramento) also expressed concerns about the illicit market; does this bill exacerbate that? Asm. Bauer-Kahan thanked Sac sheriff for his work in district. She said she will be supporting; she represents a very large senior community that relies on cannabis for things like arthritis. I want them to have access to the legal market. There’s a difference between how long tobacco vapes last vs. cannabis (others said cannabis vapes could last 6 months). I support related to tobacco piece. I’m hopeful that we can move in that direction going forward.

Dr. Jasmeet Bains (D-Kern Co.) said she will be supporting. We have two fundamental things: illicit vs. licit. But inaction is not a good thing either. Implementation is a factor; where is the implementation of many laws we pass? Also, I don’t our kids to be caught in this debate.

Asm. Alexandra Macedo (R-Fresno) asked about border states selling disposables, relating it to flavored tobacco, saying, “I know people that load up on flavored tobacco when they go to border states. We’re missing that tax income.” I share environmental concerns but I think there are other work arounds, she said.

Chair Marc Berman (D-San Mateo, Santa Clara) closed the hearing by saying, this is a very thoughtful, detailed conversation. This is not a silver bullet. It won’t solve the problems of the illicit market or youth use. But it’s an incremental step in the right direction. People can drive to Reno for a disposable but that seems like a lot of work when could get a reusable one here. There needs to be more enforcement, towards stores instead of grows. But this addresses concerns about environment and waste facilities (he added that he appreciated a tour he got of one facility). Risk and insurance costs have gone up and that gets passed on to all consumers. I know you’ll continue to have conversations with opposition on “tweaks” to bill.

The measure then passed by a vote of 10-5, with Democrats Ahrens, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Caloza, Elhawary, Haney, Irwin, Lowenthal and Pellerin voting in favor. Voting no were Republicans Alanis, Chen, Hadwick, Johnson and Macedo. Not voting were Democrats Jackson, Krell and Nguyen. The bill now heads to the Assembly Appropriations committee on January 22. The next stop would be the Assembly floor, and then Senate committees. 

Cal NORML put out a call last week for feedback on the bill from our members and supporters. Here are some of the responses:

UPDATE: City councilmembers heard from several patients, activists and West Sacramento residents in support of cannabis equity at their meeting on 1/21/2026. 

The City of West Sacramento is choosing to scrap its cannabis equity program rather than grant a license to an equity applicant it approved last year.

Applicant Richard Miller not only meets all of California and West Sacramento’s stated social equity eligibility criteria, he and his business STASH successfully advanced in the RFP process to open an equity business, receiving a letter on July 17, 2025 so stating. However, in late September 2025, the City notified Miller that it was canceling the entire Equity Retail RFP, offering no rationale for the move, as required by law. City officials had until had until January 9, 2026 to respond to a demand from Miller’s attorney Khurshid Khoja; no response was provided.

EQUITY AND THE APPLICANT

Cities across California (and in other regulated US state markets where cannabis commerce is lawful) have adopted social equity cannabis licensing programs, professing an intent to redress the harms of the War on Drugs. Specifically, social equity was intended to redress the myriad injuries endured by individuals who were previously arrested and/or convicted of non-violent offenses that would today constitute lawful cannabis commerce.

According to the CA Dept of Cannabis Control’s website, “California’s cannabis equity efforts support people and communities harmed by cannabis criminalization. These efforts lower barriers to the cannabis industry for those hit hardest by the War on Drugs.” This includes, “people convicted of a cannabis offense. In 1988 Miller was targeted in a sting operation in Foster City by someone posing as a medical marijuana patient and convicted of a cannabis offense. Subsequent arrests in Rancho Cordova and Auburn have affected his employment opportunities, his health, and his driving and child custody rights.

Born in San Francisco, Miller owned printing businesses in the Bay Area. He became active in the medical marijuana movement when his uncle was diagnosed with AIDS, and donated supplies and printing services to San Francisco’s Prop. P campaign to legalize medical marijuana in 1991 and the subsequent statewide Prop. 215 campaign in 1996. Meanwhile, he baked cannabis cookies to donate to AIDS patients at Golden Gate Charities and the Bartlett House where his uncle was house, and assisted patients in wheelchairs at protests.

Miller, who identifies as gay, still proudly holds one of the original pre-Prop 215 caregiver cards issued by legendary medical cannabis patient advocate and AIDS activist Dennis Peron. In 2005 he moved to Sacramento and has worked to implement reforms at the state level, working with several advocacy organizations like California NORML and Americans for Safe Access. In 2022, Richard was named “Patient Advocate of the Year” by ASA.

WEST SAC’S GRANT TO DEVELOP CANNABIS RETAIL & EQUITY BUSINESSES

The DCC’s Cannabis Local Jurisdiction Retail Access Grant Program provided funding to local governments to support the development and implementation of a local cannabis retailer licensing program in 2023. DCC’s grant guidelines state: “An eligible jurisdiction may receive funding up to the maximum amounts listed in Table A, based on the local jurisdiction’s population…Additional funding will be awarded to local jurisdictions that include a proposal to issue retail licenses to qualified local equity businesses.”

At West Sac’s population level, they were eligible for a grant of $175K, plus an additional $60K if they were implementing an equity program. They were awarded a total of $235K, since their grant application had an equity component. The City is missing out on millions more in grants from the Governor’s GoBiz office that other cities and counties with equity programs are being awarded. In addition, two-year grant funding of $250K each year to support cannabis equity businesses was reportedly earmarked as part of the Entertainment District Public Safety and Security project to be funded by West Sacramento’s Measure N, which passed on November 6, 2018. Those funds have yet to be disbursed.

West Sac’s website states that planning commission staff is “developing a retail (storefront and non-storefront) program with a social equity component for further consideration by the City Council.” But now the council plans to scrap the program for which they accepted a state grant to develop.

WHAT’S NEXT?

“If anyone deserves a license to serve California’s medical marijuana patients, it’s Richard Miller,” said Ellen Komp, Deputy Director of California NORML. “West Sacramento would enjoy tax revenue, employment opportunities, and other benefits to the City if it does the right thing and reverses its decision to rescind Richard’s RFP award.” The City now plans to open up their General Retail Cannabis Program, for which anyone can apply. “Unfortunately, we’ve seen small and equity businesses squeezed out of these processes, where licenses largely go to out-of-town chain stores that often don’t include local or equity brands among their offerings, and don’t prioritize patient needs,” Komp added.

West Sacramento residents are encouraged to contact their councilmember in support of the city’s equity program, and plan to attend the city council meeting on Wednesday, January 21 to make a public comment.

Today, January 12, 2025, is the Sesquientennial of author Jack London’s birth 150 years ago.

Jack London was California’s most celebrated literary figure at the turn of the last century. London had achieved worldwide fame through such novels as Call Of The Wild, The Sea-Wolf, and White Fang. He was also an enthusiastic booster for social reforms ranging from socialism to–paradoxically–prohibition.

London first described his adventurers with hashish in John Barleycorn, his “alcoholic memoirs,” devoted to his struggles with drink. Published in 1913, the book was dedicated to the prohibitionist cause, which was then in the midst of a statewide initiative campaign.

In the book, London describes what he calls the “White Logic,” the irresistible drive leading him to intoxication. There he mentions his experience with hashish.

How to describe this White Logic to those who have never experienced it! It is perhaps better first to state how impossible such a description is. Take Hasheesh Land, for instance, the land of enormous extensions of time and space. In past years I have made two memorable journeys into that far land. My adventures there are seared in sharpest detail on my brain. Yet I have tried vainly, with endless words, to describe any tiny particular phase to persons who have not travelled there.

I use all the hyperbole of metaphor, and tell what centuries of time and profounds of unthinkable agony and horror can obtain in each interval of all the intervals between the notes of a quick jig played quickly on the piano. I talk for an hour, elaborating that one phase of Hasheesh Land, and at the end I have told them nothing. And when I cannot tell them this one thing of all the vastness of terrible and wonderful things.

London was introduced to hashish by a fellow Oaklander, the poet George Sterling. Now largely forgotten, Sterling may be best remembered for his lines about San Francisco, “The City by the Sea,” the “Cool, Grey City of Love.” He achieved minor fame as a kind of unofficial bohemian poet laureate presiding over an artists’ colony in Carmel. There he and his friends indulged liberally in alcohol and occasionally in other drugs, including hashish. Sterling left no account of his own hashish travels, though he is said to have written his masterwork, “The Wine of Wizardry,” under the influence of opium.

London’s boyhood friend, Frank Atherton, tells the of London’s first hashish trip with Sterling:

Sometimes Jack would go out for an afternoon with George Sterling. I well remember one night when they had been together. It was quite late when Jack came home.

His eyes looked glassy, and apparently he had been drinking too much. Still he was very quiet, retiring immediately. We didn’t see him again until the next morning when he related his experience of the previous night. He and George had tentatively indulged in hashish.

“To one who has never entered the land of hashish,” he said, “an explanation would mean nothing. But to me, last night was like a thousand years. I was obsessed with indescribable sensations, alternative visions of excessive happiness and oppressive moods of extreme sorrow. I wandered for aeons through countless worlds, mingling with all types of humanity, from the most saintly persons down to the lowest type of abysmal brute.”

“But why in the devil did you want to take the damned stuff?” I asked him. “It’s a wonder you and George didn’t go crazy.”

Jack smiled evasively. “Say, Frank, you’ve read some of Marie Corelli’s books, haven’t you? No doubt you’ve read Wormwood.”

“Yes, I have, but what has that to do with hashish?”

“Everything.” Jack replied. “Marie Corelli couldn’t have written Wormwood if she hadn’t drunk enough Absinthe to experience all those strange dreams and fancies described in Wormwood. And I’ve read that she even became an inmate of brothels to get the material for other books. So you see in order to write intelligently, one must have certain experiences that coincide with the subject.”

In Planchette (1906), London wrote, “She pondered the flower slowly and thoughtfully, as a hasheesh-eater, heavy with the drug, might ponder some whim-flower that obtruded on his vision.”

In London’s Martin Eden (1909), Eden’s counterpart Russ Brissenden is described as having “fire, the flashing insight and perception, the flaming uncontrol of genius.   Living language flowed from him.” He admits to “wandering in hasheesh dreams.” Written when London was 33, just after his success as an author, Martin Eden is similarly successful, but his newer collection “Smoke of Joy” is not well received.

In Burning Daylight (serialized in The New York Herald, June-August, 1910), Daylight’s lawyer and confidant Larry Hegan “was a confirmed but temperate eater of hasheesh.” He is called “that able hasheesh dreamer.”

London’s hashish adventures ended abruptly during his famous yacht voyage on the Snark on a visit to the Solomon Islands. There the party was entertained by the charming British owners of a coconut plantation, Penduffryn, on the island of Guadalcanal. The story is told by Martin Johnson, the Snark’s cook, engineer and photographer:

“The merrymaking lasted several days, until it ended by all present agreeing to take the Oriental dope called hashish.

“Darbishire was the first to partake. After he had passed under the influence, we decorated him with parts of Mrs. London’s clothes, and I did a little artistic work with water-colors. For several days he went around the house in a half-dazed state, and would at times drop dead asleep while standing on his feet. One after another took this hashish, until the night Jack took it. He went clear off his head, acted so wild that Mrs London was frightened; and no one else would take it. Next night was to have been my turn.”

Cannabis was still legal when London and Sterling tried it. However, just as John Barleycorn was being published in the spring of 1913, the California legislature outlawed cannabis at the behest of the state Board of Pharmacy.

The Board, a nationally recognized pioneer in the war on drugs, expressed concern about the use of cannabis by East Indian “Hindoo” immigrants. Ironically, only after cannabis was prohibited did it come into widespread popularity in California, but that would be years in the future.

California NORML is sponsoring a laboratory study to investigate the safety of electronic vape pens.

The study is designed to measure toxic emissions such as benzene, formaldehyde, and heavy metals that could be dangerous to health, as well as the amounts of THC and cannabinoids they deliver to users.

The study is a follow-up to California NORML’s 2001-2004 lab studies of herbal vaporizers, which heat up natural buds or leaf. The studies demonstrated that they could deliver virtually pure THC without any of the toxins or carcinogens present in smoke.

Less is known about electronic vape pens, however. Cannabis vapes differ from herbal vaporizers in that they vaporize concentrates, not natural buds and leaf, and operate at higher temperatures. However, there has been little research on cannabis vapes, because antiquated federal regulations forbid researchers from testing federally unlicensed products even if they are stare-regulated and tested. Cal NORML has therefore enlisted a private lab not dependent on federal permits or funding.

There is good reason to suppose that cannabis vapes are effective in screening out harmful smoke toxins, as studies with nicotine e-cigarettes have shown. Nonetheless, California’s influential anti-smoking lobby, funded by the tobacco tax, has sought to scare the public about vapes, wrongly portraying them as dangerous as cigarettes.

In fact, valid concerns about the safety of cannabis vapes were raised by an outbreak of fatal EVALI lung disease among users in 2020-1. The problem was traced to a toxic additive used in black-market vape concentrates. No fatalities were reported in California-licensed vapes, whose contents are tested for contaminants. Nonetheless, researchers have raised other concerns about possible leakage of heavy metals from vape cartridges or formaldehyde contaminants caused by overheating.

Cal NORML’s study is intended to cast light on these risks. Initial results are expected shortly. Because there are many brands of cannabis vapes, Cal NORML would like to pursue further studies with different devices. Donations for this work are cordially solicited. Contact dale@canorml.org, 510-540-1066.

This story is from Cal NORML’s 2025 year-end newsletter. Support Cal NORML and receive our newsletter. 

Efforts to reform federal cannabis laws remain stuck on hold in Washington, D.C. 

There is no indication as to whether the administration plans to move marijuana from Schedule I to III, as proposed by the Biden administration in April 2024. The DEA’s leadership has expressed skepticism about the proposal and has been sitting on it ever since. President Trump is reported to have privately indicated his interest in rescheduling to cannabusiness interests. However, his advisors are thought to have mixed views. In August, Trump declared that he was actively reviewing the question and would reach a decision in “the next few weeks.” So far he has failed to act.

NORML believes that cannabis should be de-scheduled, not re-scheduled, in order to become federally legal. That said, Cal NORML supports rescheduling to Schedule 3 as an interim measure. A major advantage of Schedule 3 classification would be to relieve canna-businesses from the IRS Section 280e tax provision, which bars them from claiming most business tax deductions. The 280e taxes have been estimated to cost as much as 25% of business revenues. Schedule 3 would be a major financial boon to the legal cannabis industry, which is struggling to break even and compete with illegal traffickers (Schedule 2 would not provide 280e tax relief, however). Rescheduling would in no way change the illegal status of state-legal cannabis under federal law. Only FDA-approved Schedule 3 cannabis pharmaceuticals could become legal. Such products would take years to develop and would likely be far more expensive than home-grown or dispensary-bought cannabis.

There appears to be no chance of any action to legalize or de-schedule cannabis in the current Congress, whose conservative Republican leaders – Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana and Sen. John Thune of South Dakota – have long been hostile to the idea. More modest reforms, such as safe banking legislation to facilitate access to financial services for canna-businesses, have languished for lack of support in Congress.

To the disappointment of veterans, an amendment to let V.A. doctors recommend medical cannabis was dropped from the budget bill. Instead, the bill included a last-minute amendment to ban psychoactive hemp products, a popular choice in states without legal adult-use cannabis laws. Hemp advocates, led by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), are seeking to reverse the hemp ban. (Read more.)

As in previous years, the Congress approved a budget amendment to prevent the Department of Justice from interfering in state medical marijuana laws. Efforts to extend the ban to protect adult-use laws have fallen short. Congress has likewise continued to block the District of Columbia from establishing adult-use dispensaries, although they were authorized by DC voters.

The first Trump administration rescinded Obama’s Cole Memorandum, which instructed prosecutors to refrain from targeting state-legal marijuana businesses. Now, the DOJ has announced that it will no longer ignore marijuana possession offenses on federal land such as national parks. The U.S. attorney for Wyoming has announced that such offenses will henceforth be “rigorously prosecuted.”

With action in Congress stalled, cannabis advocates have turned to the Supreme Court, which will be hearing a challenge to the federal ban on gun ownership by marijuana users. The court will be reviewing an appellate court ruling that overturned the conviction of a Texas man charged with a felony because he had a gun at his home and was an acknowledged regular cannabis user. The appeals court dismissed the conviction on the grounds that a blanket ban on gun ownership for illegal drug users would violate the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, which expanded the right to own firearms. NORML attorneys are submitting an amicus brief in support of Second Amendment rights for cannabis users.

In another case, the Supreme Court has been asked to review the constitutionality of the federal law against cannabis in states where it is legal. A group of cannabis companies have petitioned the court to reconsider its 2004 decision in Gonzalez v Raich, which declared that the Controlled Substances Act overrode California’s law protecting medical marijuana users on account of the federal government’s interest in preventing interstate commerce in marijuana. Petitioners argue that “changed circumstances,” including federal prosecutors’ de facto tolerance of state legalization laws, militate for reversing Gonzalez v Raich.

This article is from Cal NORML’s year-end newsletter. Support Cal NORML and receive our newsletter by becoming a member today.