The order states:

“State medical marijuana regulatory systems have matured significantly since California first authorized medical use in 1996, and today the vast majority of States maintain comprehensive licensing frameworks governing cultivation, processing, distribution, and dispensing of marijuana for medical purposes. These state regimes have developed robust infrastructure for preventing diversion, ensuring product safety, maintaining records, and conducting facility inspections—functions that fulfill the objectives of federal registration and recordkeeping requirements. The Attorney General has reviewed the operation of these state systems and finds that, taken as a whole, they demonstrate a sustained capacity to achieve the public-interest objectives that underlie the CSA’s registration framework, including protecting public health and safety and preventing the diversion of controlled substances into illicit channels.”

“The Acting Attorney General further notes that, as a consequence of this rule, state licensees will no longer be subject to the deduction disallowance imposed by Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code, which applies only to businesses engaged in trafficking in controlled substances… in a schedule I or II…qualifying state licensees should consult with tax counsel regarding the applicability of Section 280E to their specific circumstances.”

Hearings Set for Broader Rescheduling

In addition, DOJ announced “procedural updates to expedite the ongoing rulemaking process required to fully remove marijuana from Schedule I and place it into Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act.”

According to Marijuana Moment, DOJ is moving to end a prior administrative hearing process on the rescheduling proposal that stalled near the end of the Biden administration amid litigation from pro-reform parties that alleged improper agency communications and witness selection decisions. The DOJ release states that DEA is “terminating those proceedings in order to move more efficiently toward the completion of marijuana’s complete redesignation.”

Beginning on June 29, there will be a new expedited administrative hearing process to consider the broader rescheduling of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III. Terry Cole, administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), said that the agency is “expeditiously moving forward with the administrative hearing process—bringing consistency and oversight to an area that has lacked both.” The hearing process will conclude no later than July 15, 2026, according to the notice that Blanche signed. It would then have to be published in the Federal Register for 30-90 days before it could take effect.

DEA Involvement to Satisfy Treaty Obligations?

The proposed amendments establish “a new registration pathway for state-licensed medical marijuana entities seeking federal DEA registration as manufacturers, distributors, and/or dispensers.” The regulation creates an expedited review process under which the Administrator must take action in 60 days.

The order states, “Pursuant to a 2018 OLC opinion, DEA must buy marijuana crops from registered manufacturers, be the seller of that marijuana to any eligible registered purchaser, and establish prices for such purchase and sale. Marijuana growers must pay DEA an administrative fee for such transactions. These actions are necessary for the United States to meet its obligations under articles 23 and 28 of the Single Convention.”

Looking Forward

Rescheduling from Schedule I (“no accepted medical use”) to Schedule III won’t federally legalize cannabis, but it could remove barriers to research as well as offer tax benefits to cannabis businesses. And it could have other benefits for patients in the areas housing, employment, and medical care, where discrimination against medical cannabis users continues.

Cal NORML will be closely monitoring the effect of this announcement and subsequent actions on state laws and regulations, and exploring possible future legislation and regulation to advance cannabis consumers’ rights. Join us at the Cannabis Unity Coalition Lobby Week May 12 – 14 in DC to meet with Congressmembers and their staffs on reforms at the national level, including pending bills to allow VA doctors to recommend cannabis, and more.

NORML first sued the DEA to reschedule marijuana in 1972. Read National NORML’s release: Justice Department Moves to Federally Reschedule State-Approved Medical Cannabis Products.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates. 

Join Cal NORML through 4/30 with a discounted $42 Gold Membership and get a free thank-you gift: Our popular gold lapel pin in the shape of a pot leaf. It’s a great way to represent your support for Cal NORML and cannabis!

As another special offer, Cal NORML Business or Legal Committee Memberships, usually $500/year, are discounted to $420 through the end of the month.  Get your discounted membership today!

Introduction: Returning To India With Purpose

 When I first visited India in 1981, cannabis cultivation was still legal in certain regions. During that trip, I photographed a large, government-regulated ganja farm—an experience that left a lasting impression. The plants were grown openly, harvested responsibly, and taxed by the state.

Today, cultivation is no longer legal anywhere in India. Yet cannabis remains widely available throughout the country—typically of poor quality, harvested prematurely before flowering, and sold through unregulated channels. Prohibition has not eliminated cannabis use; it has simply ensured inferior products while generating no public benefit.

On earlier trips, I came to India as a tourist. This time, I returned with a purpose: to support the growing re-legalization movement and to help spark what civil rights leader John Lewis once called “good trouble.” At a recent meeting with activists, I was asked to outline clear reasons why India should re-legalize ganja. That outline is now circulating throughout the country.

What follows is a practical, historically grounded case for reform.

Cannabis And India — A Deep Historical Relationship

Cannabis is not foreign to India. The plant originated in Central and South Asia and has grown naturally in the Himalayan foothills for millions of years. Humans have used cannabis on the subcontinent for at least 10,000 years—for food, fiber, medicine, ritual, and pleasure.

For centuries, ganja and charas were cultivated, traded, regulated, and taxed. Cannabis use was woven into daily life, Ayurvedic medicine, and religious practice long before modern drug laws existed.

Why India’s Cannabis Laws Are Ineffective

Cannabis Is Widely Available Despite Prohibition

After nearly four decades of prohibition, ganja and charas remain easy to obtain across India. Criminalization has failed to reduce demand or supply. Instead, it has pushed cannabis into an unregulated underground market.

Poor Quality And Premature Harvesting

Because cultivation is illegal, growers often harvest plants early to reduce risk. The result is cannabis of poor quality, low potency, and inconsistent effects. Prohibition has degraded the plant itself.

Enforcement Encourages Corruption

When a widely used plant is illegal, enforcement becomes selective. This fosters bribery and corruption while diverting law enforcement resources away from serious crimes. Over time, the law loses credibility.

Public Health And Safety Considerations

In legal cannabis markets, products are tested for pesticides, heavy metals, and microbial contamination. In India’s unregulated market, consumers have no such protections.

Prohibition also produces unintended consequences. When cannabis becomes scarce due to enforcement actions, some users turn to alcohol—an intoxicant associated with greater social and health harms.

Regulation allows risk to be managed responsibly.

Economic And Scientific Opportunities

Lost Tax Revenue And Rural Opportunity

India forfeits significant revenue by keeping cannabis illegal. A regulated market could generate tax income, create agricultural jobs, and support rural economies—especially in regions where cannabis grows naturally.

Protecting India’s Landrace Cannabis Genetics

India is home to unique landrace cannabis varieties—genetically distinct plants shaped by geography, climate, and centuries of open pollination. These landraces contain rare cannabinoid and terpene profiles with potential medical and scientific value.

Under prohibition, these genetics are neither studied nor protected—and are often exported illegally with no benefit to India.

Barriers To Medical Research

Indian pharmaceutical companies are currently restricted to immature cannabis plants with low cannabinoid content. Legal access to mature flowers would enable meaningful research and allow India to compete globally in cannabis-based medicine.

Cultural And Religious Significance

Cannabis has long played a role in Indian religious traditions, particularly in connection with Shiva and festivals such as Holi and Shivaratri. While bhang remains legal, the continued prohibition of ganja forces traditional users into unsafe, unregulated markets.

Re-legalization would acknowledge cultural reality rather than deny it.

What Sensible Cannabis Regulation Could Look Like

A practical regulatory framework could include:

• Licensed cultivation and distribution
• Mandatory testing and labeling
• Age-restricted sales
• Taxation to support public health and education
• Protection for traditional and religious use
• Inclusion of small farmers and cooperatives

This is not radical policy—it is responsible governance.

Ganja In India — A Historical Record

Ganja in India is a photographic and historical record of a legal cannabis farm during my 1981 visit. At that time, ganja was cultivated openly, regulated by the government, and taxed.

The book documents a moment in Indian history that is now largely forgotten—a reminder that legalization is not a new idea, but a return to a system that once worked.

Conclusion — A Return To Reason

India’s cannabis prohibition has failed to eliminate use, protect public health, or reduce harm. Instead, it has produced inferior products, empowered illegal markets, and erased economic opportunity.

Re-legalizing ganja would not be a leap into the unknown. It would be a return to regulation, tradition, and common sense—guided by history, science, and lived experience.

FAQ — Cannabis Legalization In India

Is Cannabis Completely Illegal In India?

Cannabis flowers and resin are illegal under the NDPS Act, but bhang made from leaves remains legal in many states.

Why Was Ganja Banned In India?

India criminalized ganja primarily due to international pressure following the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.

What Are Landrace Cannabis Varieties?

Landraces are genetically distinct cannabis plants that evolved naturally in specific regions over centuries. India’s Himalayan landraces are among the most unique in the world.

Could Legalization Benefit India’s Economy?

Yes. Regulation could generate tax revenue, support rural agriculture, reduce enforcement costs, and enable scientific research.

Did India Ever Regulate Cannabis Legally?

Yes. Cannabis cultivation was legal and taxed in parts of India until the mid-1980s, including during Ed Rosenthal’s 1981 visit.

Ed Rosenthal’s expert advice has advanced marijuana cultivation and know-how for decades, helping gardeners achieve his strategy of over-growing the government to propel marijuana normalization. At the same time, he was active in the legalization movement. Now he is interested in classic varieties, breeding strategies, and landrace research. His books have sold over 1 million copies, including his latest grow guide “Cannabis Grower’s Handbook.” Ed’s warning: “Marijuana may not be addictive, but growing it is.”

EdRosenthal.com is a proud member of California NORML. See their Cannabis Marketplace listing here. 

Join Cal NORML now through the end of April with a discounted $42 Gold Membership and get a free thank-you gift: Our popular gold lapel pin in the shape of a pot leaf (shown). It’s a great way to represent your support for Cal NORML and cannabis!

Join Cal NORML through 4/30 and we will send your gift to you by mail. Membership renewals qualify; email here if you are unsure of your membership status. Members receive our printed newsletter and discounts on events and items throughout the year.

As another special offer, Cal NORML Business or Legal Committee Memberships, usually $500/year, are discounted to $420 through the end of the month.  Get your discounted membership today!

Business memberships include a listing in our online cannabis marketplace and guest blog post on the high-authority CaNORML.org, plus other great promotional benefits and discounts. Contact kharla@canorml.org, 707-337-9747 for more info. Sign up by 4/30 for this $80 discount.

Cal NORML is completely funded by personal and business memberships and donations from within California. We are the only organization advocating for the rights of all cannabis consumers in our state.

Read more about Cal NORML and Our 50 Years of Progress.

LAST UPDATED 4/21/2026

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. Passed Assembly Business & Professions and Judiciary committees. Heading to Appropriations.
Cal NORML has joined a sign-on letter in support of this bill.

AB 1965 (Sharp-Collins) Cannabis: testing: quality assurance. Passed unanimously in Com. on B. and P. and referred to the Committee on Appropriations with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. Hearing set for 22-APR-26. Cal NORML has sent a letter in support of this bill.

AB-2249 (Irwin) Cannabis: labels, packaging and manufacturing. Passed Com. on B. and P. with amendments. Heading to Appropriations.

AB-2532 (Irwin) Cannabis: labels, packaging and manufacturing. Passed Com. on B. and P. with amendments. Heading to Appropriations.
Cal NORML has taken a neutral position on this bill following the news that amendments have been worked out with the cannabis industry removing the 10 mg cap on beverages and requiring industry-wide precision dosing and product identification features on all multi-serving cannabis beverages, warning label standards, child-resistant container requirements, while prohibiting single-serve marketing and supporting a funded, statewide campaign on responsible, informed cannabis beverage consumption, potentially modeled on alcohol responsibility campaigns. We will be continuing to follow this bill as amendments are published. Thanks to all who have taken our Beverage Safety survey; you can continue to provide input there. 

AB 2250 (Aguiar-Curry) Modify AB 8 to exclude CBN from the definition of cannabis concentrate. Passed Asm. Com. on B. and P. and REV. and TAX. In Appropriations.

AB-2420 (Caloza) Cannabis: donations: seniors. Authorizes cannabis retailers to donate cannabis or cannabis products to persons 65 years of age and older. 14-APR-26 hearing in Asm. B & P cancelled at request of author. Cal NORML supports. 

AB 2506 (Hart) Cannabis: tribal government licensure. Passed unanimously in Com. on B. and P. with amendments; referred to Appropriations.

AB 2537 (Chen) Cannabis Enforcement Accountability and Public Health Prioritization Act of 2026. Passed Asm. Com. on B. and P.; in Appropriations.
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. Passed Asm. Com. on B. and P.; in Appropriations
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 Asm. Committees on E.S and T.M. and B. and B. and P.;  heading for Appropriations on 4/22.
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. Cal NORML has taken a “support if amended” position on this bill. 

AB 1884 (Hadwick/Sharp-Collins) Interscholastic athletics: drug testing: suspensions: nicotine use. Passed Assembly Committee on Arts, Entertainment, Sports, & Tourism; hearing in Education committee cancelled at request of the author.
This bill has been amended to allow schools with drug testing programs to also test for nicotine, limit it to athletics, and require diversion instead of banning participation for a positive drug test. We will continue to watch.  

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. We are also hearing from patients who have been denied surgery due to a positive drug test for THC.

Cal NORML is working demanding Kaiser change its policy in accordance with state law, for which we need a critical mass of patients to tell us their stories. All information will be kept confidential and anonymous, unless you give us permission to share it. 

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.