Cal NORML Voter Guide to Cannabis Candidates

November 2026 Election

Got input on candidates or races? Write here.

Artwork: Ruth Anne

Quick Links: EXECUTIVE / CONGRESS / STATE SENATE / STATE ASSEMBLY / LOCAL

Governor

Xavier Becerra – In 2016, as California’s Attorney General, Becerra told Politico he would be defending California’s new law legalizing marijuana against possible federal interference, and admitted he tried weed “at a younger time.” Asked if it was illegal then, he compared it to driving over the speed limit. “Cannabis is last century’s argument. We’re beyond that,” he said. He continued the CAMP (Campaign Against Marijuana Planting) program (as have all AGs) and in 2020, he joined 34 other AGs to urge Congress to provide banking services for licensed cannabis businesses. In 2013, as US Secretary of Health and Human Services, oversaw the agency’s recommendation that cannabis should be reclassified as a Schedule III drug under the Controlled Substances Act, something that’s back in the news. Becerra has a longer record of public service in both state and federal government than all the other candidates. He compiled a consistently good voting record over 24 years as a Congressman from L.A.

Steve Hilton – Former Fox News host Hilton is running as a Republican with Trump’s endorsement. Hilton hales from Britain, where he campaigned for Brexit and compiled no record on cannabis.  Since then, however, he has made thoughtful comments on California’s cannabis laws, declaring that the state’s cannabis taxes and regulations are “too high.”  At an event in Sacramento, Hilton declared he’s “in a conversation in great detail with the industry to look at the specific parts of the regulatory and tax burden that need to be changed in order to achieve the goals of legalization, which is a thriving industry that provides a product safely that people want to consume.”  He called Prop 64 “another example of the corruption that we see here with the system in California.,  saying that the $370 million in cannabis taxes earmarked yearly for youth drug prevention is largely misspent on “Democratic political organizations…in small grants that they made deliberately hard to track.”  (The same organizations lobbied forcefully to raise the cannabis excise tax last year in order to keep their funding.)

Lieutenant Governor – ENDORSE FIONA MA

As state treasurer, Ma has been a longtime supporter of cannabis and of lowering taxes on cannabis. She responded to Cal NORML/CCIA’s 2026 Candidate Survey, saying she would support addressing “cannabis deserts” with no licensed businesses, streamlining state/local permitting and regulations, and encouraging cannabis tourism in our state. She also supports intensifying enforcement against the illicit market, and measuring enforcement effectiveness in terms of market growth/stability/outcomes. And she’s for providing MediCal and worker’s comp coverage for medicinal cannabis, and funding state-sponsored research into the safety and efficacy of cannabis products.

“We need to overturn Prop 64. It’s a complete failure,” declared Ma in a High Times interview.  She testified before Congress in favor of banking for cannabis businesses. She also offered a response to rescheduling, saying, “I welcome the long-overdue decision to reclassify cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III, a step that will provide meaningful relief by ending the unjust application of IRS Code Section 280E and beginning to dismantle barriers that have shut legitimate businesses out of the financial system. But let us be clear: reclassification alone is not enough.”

Ma will face Gloria Romero, who served as a California state senator from 2001 until 2010, when she was supportive of cannabis legalization. The majority leader of the California State Senate from 2005 until 2008, Romero joined the Republican Party in 2024, expressing disagreement with the Democratic Party’s positions on crime, gender identity, COVID-19 lockdowns, gas stoves and school choice. She endorsed Donald Trump in the 2024 election and offered praise for Robert F. Kennedy Jr., calling him a “personal hero.” She announced her campaign for Lt. Governor in 2026 as part of a slate with Steve Hilton.

Attorney General – ENDORSE ROB BONTA

As an Assemblymember, Bonta sponsored bills to regulate medical cannabis, lower taxes on cannabis, and protect employment rights of cannabis users while in the Legislature. As AG he helped expedite the clearing of criminal records for past cannabis offenses.  He has also successfully defended California law against federal interference in multiple court cases.

Faces Michael E. Gates (R)

CONGRESS

Here are some of the frontrunners in key new Congressional districts (all are up for election). Many are in crowded fields in these top-two primaries.

Don’t know your district? Look it up.

Find office holders’ NORML ratings.

Got input on candidates or races? Write here.

CD 1 – Susanville, Red Bluff, Chico, Ukiah

Democrat Mike McGuire (A NORML rating)  has had a strong voting record in the State Senate, where he has represented Sonoma-area and authored one of the three bills that regulated medical marijuana in California in 2015. He favors adult-use legalization, but opposed Prop. 64 until such time as regulation of medical cannabis could be solidified. He strongly supports local regulation and was a key opponent of outlawing local delivery bans.

Republican James Gallagher (D- NORML rating) has a bad voting record in the state legislature, slightly improved in 2024 with yes votes on ending double cannabis taxation at local level, and allowing small farmers to sell directly to consumers.

CD 2 – North Coast and inland to Modoc

Jared Huffman (D) (A+ NORML Rating) posted a fine voting record on marijuana while in the state assembly.  In Congress, he has co-sponsored reform bills, including the MORE and SAFE Acts.  He is a sponsor of the Small Homestead and Independent Producers (SHIP) Act, to allow small family farmers to sell their products in interstate commerce.  

Robin Littau (R) is a devout Christian and owner of Rockin Robin’s Cleaning Service & Joyful Living Magazine. She garnered 13% of the vote in the June primary, to Huffmans’s 52%.

CD 3 – Parts of Sacramento, Folsom, Rancho Cordova, Auburn, Truckee and South Lake Tahoe.

U.S. Rep. Ami Bera (D) (A NORML Rating) is a medical doctor who worked with AIDS patients and supports medical marijuana. He opposed Prop. 64 to legalize recreational use in California in 2016, but has voted twice in favor of the MORE Act to legalize recreational cannabis at the federal level, as well as co-sponsoring the SAFE Banking Act, and voting to allow VA doctors to recommend medical cannabis for veterans, and preventing the Justice Department from prosecuting medical cannabis patients and providers.

He faces Republican Nevada County Supervisor Robb Tucker in what looks like a close race.

CD 4 – Napa Valley through Yolo County and into the Sacramento Valley

Incumbent Democrat Mike Thompson (D) (A- NORML Rating) faces fellow Democrat Eric Jones, a younger progressive not accepting corporate PAC donations.

CD 5 – Tuolumne and surrounding counties

Incumbent Tom McClintock (R) (A NORML Rating) a small-government conservative, McClintock has taken a libertarian line on marijuana laws.  A leading House Republican supporter of cannabis reform, he co-sponsored an amendment to stop DOJ from interfering in state adult-use legalization laws.

He faces Michael Masuda (D), an engineer and former foreign affairs officer who is not accepting corporate PAC money.

CD 6 – Roseville, Citrus Heights, parts of West Sacramento

Dr. Richard Pan (D) –  A licensed pediatrician and active member of the California Medical Association, Dr. Pan voted favorably if cautiously on cannabis in the state legislature.   Along with other Democrats, Sen. Pan voted against a 2012 bill to reduce charges in marijuana cultivation cases, after strong police opposition. As chair of the Senate Health committee in 2018, he voted for a bill to redirect cannabis tax funds for youth programs despite the Dept. of Health Care Services writing an opposition letter saying it would require them to exercise preferential treatment. In 2022, he authored a bill to require costly, badly designed new label warnings on all cannabis products.

Kevin Kiley (R) (D+ NORML rating) voted wrong on nearly every key vote in the Assembly, although he did vote for cannabis compassion programs, automatic resentencing, and a resolution to ask the DOJ to allow cannabis businesses. Switched from Republican to Independent.

CD 7 – Placerville, Elk Grove

Incumbent Doris Matsui (D) (B- NORML rating) co-sponsored cannabis banking bills and has voted well on cannabis issues in Congress.

Mai Vang (D) also a Democrat, is a member of the Sacramento City Council since 2020, earned more votes (30.8%) than Matsui (29.1%) in the June primary. She is endorsed by various progressive groups including the California Working Families Party, Justice Democrats, Sunrise Movement, and Sacramento Democratic Socialists of America. If elected, Vang would be the first Hmong American in Congress.

CD 8 – Vacaville, Vallejo, Richmond

John Garamendi (D) (A NORML rating) co-sponsored cannabis banking bills and has voted well on cannabis issues in Congress. He tweeted on 4/20/22: “It’s time to legalize marijuana. Marijuana criminalization has left millions of Americans — disproportionately people of color — with a criminal record for the possession of a drug legalized in 18 states. It’s time to fix it. That’s why I voted in for the #MOREAct.”

Rudy Recile (R) took only 32% of the vote in the primary, vs. Garamendi’s 54%. He served in the U.S. Army from 1988 to 2014 and is a business owner and member of the the National Rifle Association.

CD 9 – Antioch, Tracy, Manteca

Josh Harder (D) (A NORML Rating) faces John McBride (R), a strength-and-conditioning coach.

CD 10 – Concord

Mark DeSaulnier (D) (A- NORML Rating) faces Jeff Frese (R).

CD 11 – San Francisco

Sen. Scott Wiener (D) (A+ NORML rating) has been a champion for cannabis in the state legislature, sponsoring SB 34 to allow for tax-free compassion programs for patients, and SB 1186, requiring local governments to permit medical cannabis sales or delivery.   Wiener also championed a psychedelics decrim bill that was vetoed by Gov. Newsom.  Wiener has the strongest record of cannabis reform advocacy of any candidate in the race.

SF Supervisor Connie Chan (D) has posted a “dismal” voting record on the Board of Supervisors according to local cannabis advocates, despite running as a progressive with Nancy Pelosi’s endorsement.  Chan was one of only three supes to vote against delaying a special cannabis gross receipts tax, and has repeatedly refused to meet with representatives of the Brownie Mary Democrats.

CD 12 – Oakland, Berkeley, San Leandro

Incumbent Lateefah Simon (D) has a nationally recognized record of advocacy for civil rights and social justice. Cal NORML had a pleasant meeting with her and a staffer at the DC lobby day in 2026, where she spoke about the high cost of Marinol her husband needed during an illness. 

Challenger Jamie Joyce (D) took only 15% of the vote to Simon’s 85% in the June primary. 

CD 13 – Merced, Modesto

Adam Gray (D) (C- NORML Rating) has a weak voting record for a Democratic Assembly member, including voting against the Cal NORML–sponsored Employment Rights bill AB 2188 in 2022.  However, he voted for bills to expand interstate commerce and medical access to marijuana.  In 2019 he sponsored an anti-vape bill that would have impacted cannabis.

Kevin Lincoln (R) is the former mayor of Stockton. He is a former marine, pastor, and small business owner. He’s campaigning to “Keep the woke DEI agenda out of the valley.”

CD 14 – Livermore, Pleasanton, Hayward, Fremont

Sen. Aisha Wahab (D) (C NORML rating) – Has a rather weak voting record for a Democrat. Voted against cannabis cafes and farmers markets, but also against restrictive labeling for cannabis products in 2024. A well-funded attack campaign against Wahab is slamming her record against sex trafficking and fentanyl.

Melissa Hernandez (D) – fellow Democrat, former Dublin mayor and BART commissioner.

CD 20 – Tulare; Parts of Bakersfield & Fresno

Vince Fong (R) (D- NORML rating) posted a terrible voting record on marijuana & drug issues in the CA Assembly, just like his former boss, Kevin McCarthy.

Sandra Van Scotter (D)

CD 22 – Corcoran, Bakersfield

Randy Villegas – (D) progressive who’s endorsed by Bernie Sanders, Dolores Huerta, Ro Khanna, Lateefah Simon, others.

David G. Valadao (D+ NORML Rating) – As an Assemblymember, Valadao voted against every marijuana reform measure and opposed recreational legalization, but co-sponsored an industrial hemp bill. In Congress, he supported the SAFE banking act and medical marijuana research, but joined other Republicans in opposing the Democrats’ MORE legalization bill. One of just two Republican House members running for re-election who voted to impeach Donald Trump.

CD 23 – Victorville

Jay Obernolte  (R) (D+ NORML Rating) has had a poor voting record in the legislature and Congress. He did vote yes on a state bill (AB2020) to expand places where cannabis events can be held, and was absent for a vote on a resolution to the federal government to allow state-legal cannabis programs (AJR 27). Twice he voted against cannabis compassion programs for needy patients (SB 34).

Tessa Lynn Hodge (D) is Licensed Clinical Social Worker who has worked in San Bernardino County incorporating state and federal legislation into county policy and guidelines for county workers.

CD 26 – Oxnard

Asm. Jacqui Irwin (D) (C- NORML Rating) Mixed voting record. Sponsored failed bills to ban cannabis billboards and impose restrictive labeling requirements on cannabis products; voted against cannabis cafes; skipped votes on employment rights, medical access. To her credit, she did move AB 2555, a bill to extend cannabis compassion programs, through a key committee she chaired in 2024.

Samuel Gallucci (R)

CD 38 – El Monte, Yorba Linda, Montebello

Hilda Solis, a former Congresswoman, championed cannabis business licensing “that is rooted in equitable access, strong and effective enforcement, and community awareness and education” as an LA County Supervisor. She has also championed Prop. 47’s implemetation, saying she is is “deeply concerned about rising deaths within our correctional health system, driven in large part by overdoses….Every person in custody deserves timely, adequate, and humane health care, and we must continue working to achieve this goal.”

GOP challenger Pedro Antonio Casas.

CD 40 – Rancho Santa Margarita, Lake Elsinore

Ken Calvert (F NORML Rating) has voted badly on every cannabis bill in Congress.

Young Kim (D+ NORML Rating) had a poor voting record in the state legislature except on more recent regulatory bills, and she opposed Prop. 64. In Congress, she voted against the MORE Act but supported the SAFE Banking Act.

CD 41 – Santa Fe Springs, Lakewood, La Habra

Republican Mitch Clemmons 

Linda Sánchez (B+ NORML Rating) Co-sponsored the SAFE Banking Act of 2021, voted well on other bills.

CD 48 – Temecula, Vista

Daryl Issa’s district. 

Jim Desmond (R) U.S. Navy Veteran, Delta Air Lines pilot for 33 years, former Mayor of San Marcos, and current San Diego County Supervisor.

Marni von Wilpert (D) – served in the Peace Corps in Botswana during the AIDS epidemic, founded a legal clinic to combat discrimination in the Deep South, and served in Congress as counsel on the House Education and Labor Committee, where she helped write the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act to strengthen workers’ rights. She was a civil prosecutor in the San Diego city attorney’s office, and is currently a San Diego City councilmember.

STATE LEGISLATURE

Find your districts.

Find office holders’ NORML ratings.

Got input on candidates or races? Write here.

Senate

State Senate District 4 – Counties of Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, El Dorado, Inyo, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Mono, Nevada, Placer, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne
Alvarado-Gil’s district. Both these candidates beat her in the primary. 

Jaron Brandon (D), a Tuolumne County Supervisor

Alexandra Duarte (R), a farmer who wants to cut taxes, crack down on crime, and build dams.

State Senate District 10 – South Bay Area, from Hayward down to Santa Clara north of San Jose.
Aisha Wahab’s district.

Scott Sakakihara – Union City councilmember/Navy officer; served in Obama White House. Endorsed by State Senator Jesse Arreguín, Assemblymember Bill Quirk (Ret.), East Bay Young Democrats, unions. Just voted against raising cannabis tax in Union City.

Linda R. Price – Republican mediator, coach, consultant, hypnotherapist and trainer

State Senate District 12 – Fresno, Clovis, Tulare, parts of Bakersfield
Shannon Grove’s district. She’s running for Board of Equalization.

Nathan Magsig (R) is a member of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors

William Brown Jr. (L)

State Senate District 14 – Central Valley south of Highway 99. Includes Merced, Madera, Chowchilla, Fresno and Mendota.

Esmeralda Soria (D) (A NORML Rating) – Democratic Assemblymember with a good voting record. 

Darin DuPont (R) – Merced city councilmember

State Senate District 16 – Central Valley district that includes portions of Fresno, Kings, Tulare and Kern counties and much of Bakersfield’s east side

Melissa Hurtado (D) (D NORML Rating) – Worst voting record of any Democrat in State Senate 2021-2, and just as bad in 2023-4. Did vote in favor of parental rights.

Guillermo Gonzalez (R) – a field representative for the cannabis unfriendly Rep. David Valadao

State Senate District 24 – Coastal Los Angeles County; Malibu, Santa Monica and Torrance
Ben Allen’s district (running for Insurance commissioner)

Brian Goldsmith – Democratic media consultant, has a roster of prominent names behind him.

John Erickson – West Hollywood City Councilmember, also a Democrat.

State Senate District 26 – Downtown Los Angeles
Maria Elena Durazo’s District (running for LA County supervisor). No Democratic Party endorsement in the race. 

Sara Hernandez (D) is a member of the Los Angeles Community College Board of Trustees.

Sarah Rascon (D) – Community Development Organizer and field representative Assemblymember Jimmy Gomez.

State Senate District 38 – Coastal north of San Diego, including Mission Viejos, Carlsbad, Encinitas and La Jolla

Catherine Blakespear (D) – (A NORML Rating) – Democratic State Senator who flipped the district and faces her first re-election

Laura Bassett (R) – a small businesswoman.

State Senate District 40 – Inland San Diego County, north and east of city of San Diego (includes Escondido)
Brian Jones’s district

Mara Elliott (D) was the San Diego City Attorney

Kristie Bruce-Lane (R) – twice unsuccessful Assembly candidate endorsed by cannabis-unfriendly Asm. Carl DeMaio

Assembly

State Assembly District 3 – Butte, Glenn, Placer, Sutter, Tehama, Yuba counties
Gallagher’s district – he’s running for Congress

Republicans Dom Belza and James Johansson facing off.

State Assembly District 12 – Petaluma
Damon Connolly’s district (running for state Senate)

Jackie Elward (D) is a labor organizer and the first Black woman elected to the Rohnert Park City Council. Born in the Congo. Endorsed by: Congressmember Mike Thompson, Former Congressmember Lynn Woolsey, State Assemblymember Tina McKinnor, Former State Senator Steven Bradford, State Treasurer Fiona Ma

Eric Lucan (D) – Marin County Supervisor and businessman

State Assembly District 27 – Fresno
Esmeralda Soria’s district (running for state Senate)

Brian Pacheco (D) – Fresno city councilmember, has support of leading Democrats, including Soria.

Mike Murphy (R) – attorney and former Merced mayor

State Assembly District 34 – Barstow
Tom Lackey’s district; he’s termed out

Randall Putz (D) – Former school board member, city councilmember, and three-time Mayor of Big Bear Lake. Endorsed by California Democratic Party, California Teachers Association, California Young Democrats, Communication Workers of America, and San Bernardino County Professional Firefighters Local 935, State Treasurer Fiona Ma, Superintendent Tony Thurmond, Senator Tom Umberg, Assemblymembers Josh Lowenthal, Juan Carrillo, John Harabedian, Nick Schultz, James Ramos, Robert Garcia, Corey Jackson, and Congresswoman Norma Torres.
3 Republicans are also in the race. 

Facing Republican Charles Hughes. U.S. Navy from 1987 to 1990; farmer and small business owner.

State Assembly District 35 – Bakersfield
Jasmeet Bains’s district 

Andrae Gonzales (D) – Bakersfield councilmember

Saul Ayon (R) – mayor of McFarland

State Assembly District 36  – Coachella

Jeff Gonzalez (R) – incumbent; voted for cannabis tax reform in his first term. A retired Marine, pastor and business owner.

Ida Obeso-Martinez (D) – Imperial Councilmember

State Assembly District 42 – Thousand Oaks
Jacqui Irwin’s district (running for Congress)

Deborah Klein Lopez (D)

Ted Nordblum (R)

State Assembly District 47 – Palm Springs

Greg Wallis (D) – (A NORML rating)

Leila Namvar (D) – former local labor leader and city planner; has labor support

State Assembly District 58 – Corona

Leticia Castillo (R) – the incumbent; voted for a hemp bill and didn’t vote on the cannabis tax reform bill

Clarissa Cervantes (D) – Riverside councilmember who narrowly lost to Castillo in 2024.

State Assembly District 65 – Compton
Mike Gipson’s district; terming out

Ayanna Davis (D) – trustee for the Compton Unified School District; backed by the state Democratic Party

Lydia A. Gutiérrez (R) – public school teacher

State Assembly District 66 – Torrance
Muratsuchi’s district

Sara Deen (D)

Paul Seo (D)

State Assembly District 67 – Fullerton
Quirk-Silva’s district

Paulo Morales (R)

Mark Pulido (D)

State Assembly District 68 – Anaheim
Avelino Valencia’s district

Jessie Lopez (D)

David Penaloza (D)

State Assembly District 72 – Huntington Beach
Diane Dixon seat

Chris Kluwe (D)  An ex-NFL football player for the Minnesota Vikings, Kluwe is a strong believer in medical cannabis.

Gracey Van Der Mark (R)

State Assembly District 74 – Oceanside

Laurie Davies (D NORML Rating) – has a pretty bad voting record

Sergio Farias (D) – San Juan Capistrano councilmember and former mayor

Local Measures

https://ballotpedia.org/California_2026_local_ballot_measures

Prop. 215 activists were honored at the California State Fair on Saturday, in celebration of the 30th anniversary of the passage of the landmark Compassionate Use Act.

“Thirty years ago, this whole wonderful event here was inconceivable. it was a mandatory felony to grow or sell any marijuana, anywhere in the US,” Cal NORML director Dale Gieringer, a co-author of the Compassionate Use Act, said in a speech at Saturday’s event. “But a growing number of people were discovering that marijuana was useful for AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, chronic pain, and many other conditions. And people were getting arrested for growing and distributing marijuana for medical use.”

As the names of Prop. 215 activists scrolled behind him on the screen, Gieringer recognized Dennis Peron, the “godfather of medical marijuana” who founded the world’s first cannabis buyer’s club, along with early leaders Anna Boyce, Scott Imler, John Entwhistle, Dr. Tod Mikuriya, DA Terence Hallinan, and Sen. John Vasconcellos. Also, Ethan Nadelmann of DPA, who brought together benefactors George Soros, George Zimmer, Peter Lewis and John Sperling. Professional campaigners Bill Zimmerman, Dave Fratello and Jim Gonzales were aided by Mikki Norris and Chris Conrad, who helped organize “a host” of volunteer signature gatherers. Prop. 215 won with 56% of the vote, and for the first time it became legal to both grow and distribute marijuana for medical use in California.

“I’m proud to say that since we passed Prop 215, some 41 states and 57 foreign countries now have legal medical marijuana—and maybe the United States will join them shortly,” Dale said. “Thanks to all of you who made this happen and helped changed the world for the better. You did good.”

Rachelle Gordon of Greenstate, who emceed the event, gave a shout out to the patients. Elvy Musikka, the first woman to receive medical marijuana from the federal government, was on hand to celebrate. The excellent film “Join the Club” about Peron and the San Francisco Buyer’s Club was screened on Sunday night, and Dale participated in a panel discussion after the screening.

Watch a livestream of the event, at which the Golden Bear awards for top product in their category were presented, along with the Pebbles Trippet Lifetime Achievement Award to all Prop. 215 activists.

Now in its fifth year of operation, The California Cannabis Experience has now taken over the fair’s Raging Waters water park space, and the first day of the 2026 State Fair saw 50% more visitors to the expanded cannabis area than the first day of the 2025 fair.

UPCOMING EVENTS AT THE FAIR
Budtenders Day is July 22 and Home Grow Day is Saturday, July 25th. The day will be filled with educational talks, including a presentation by Ed Rosenthal, and the very first Home Grow Awards. The inaugural Golden Bear for Home Grow Flower will be awarded at 7 pm.

August 1 is Consumers Day. There will be contests and giveaways all day long, culminating with the Consumers Choice Award at 7 pm. Final round voting is happening here.

The rest of the days will feature DJs, giveaways, movies, and other cannabis fun. Hours for the California Cannabis Experience are Monday-Thursday, 4pm-10pm, and Friday-Sunday, 10am-10pm. Regulated sales close at 9pm. The Fair will close on August 2.

Also see: The California Cannabis Awards Celebrates Prop 215

Introduction

In our prior articles for California NORML, we discussed how federal gun laws intersect with California’s legalization of recreational and medical marijuana use. We explained that, even though California law allows marijuana use, federal law continued to treat marijuana as a controlled substance and barred “unlawful users” of controlled substances from possessing firearms or ammunition.

That analysis has now changed in a big way. On June 18, 2026, the United States Supreme Court decided United States v. Hemani (2026) a case directly addressing whether the federal government may prosecute a marijuana user for possessing a firearm under 18 United States Code section 922(g)(3). The Court held that the government’s prosecution of Mr. Hemani under section 922(g)(3)’s “unlawful user” provision was inconsistent with the Second Amendment.

The short answer now is this: marijuana use alone is no longer enough to automatically justify a federal felony prosecution for firearm possession. But the ruling is narrow, and marijuana users should still be cautious. Possessing or using firearms while impaired, making false statements on government forms, addiction, violence, threats, drug trafficking, or individualized proof of dangerousness can still create serious legal exposure.

The Federal Firearms Statute

Federal law, 18 United States Code section 922(g)(3), prohibits any person who is an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” from possessing firearms or ammunition. The statute incorporates the Controlled Substances Act’s definition of “controlled substance.” Marijuana has historically been treated as federally controlled even when state law allows its use.

The Supreme Court in Hemani described section 922(g)(3) as a law that, under the government’s view, automatically banned a person from possessing a gun from the moment he became an unlawful user of any controlled substance until he stopped being one, regardless of the amount used, the drug involved, whether the use made him dangerous, why he kept a firearm, or how safely he did so.

Before Hemani, the safest practical advice was simple: if you currently use marijuana, you are exposed to criminal prosecution under federal law if you possess a firearm or ammunition. After Hemani, that categorical answer is no longer accurate.

The Process of Buying a Firearm

Anyone buying a firearm from or through a federally licensed firearms dealer must complete ATF Form 4473, the Firearms Transaction Record. The current version has a question that asks whether the buyer is an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or another controlled substance, and warns that marijuana use or possession remains unlawful under federal law regardless of state legalization for medicinal or recreational purposes.

That form is signed under penalty of perjury. False answers can create separate criminal liability even if the underlying possession issue becomes more defensible, or legal, after Hemani.

So, for people who use marijuana and want to buy a firearm, the Form 4473 issue remains one of the most practical and immediate risks.

The Supreme Court’s Decision in United States v. Hemani

Ali Hemani used marijuana a few times a week and kept a firearm in his home. Federal agents searched the family home in 2022, and Mr. Hemani cooperated. He surrendered a gun, pointed agents to marijuana on the property, and told law enforcement he used marijuana about every other day.

More than six months later, the government prosecuted him under section 922(g)(3), relying solely on his admitted marijuana use and his possession of a firearm in the home. The government did not allege that he was addicted to drugs, that he was intoxicated while possessing the gun, that his marijuana use made him dangerous, or that he had misused the firearm.

The Supreme Court rejected the government’s theory. The government argued that historical laws addressing “habitual drunkards” supported disarming regular marijuana users. The Court disagreed, explaining that those historical laws generally targeted people whose drinking rendered them practically incapacitated or unable to manage their affairs, not merely people who regularly used intoxicants.

The Court also emphasized the “how” problem. The historical laws the government relied on generally required some kind of process before a person lost liberty, such as a conviction, a probate proceeding, or a surety proceeding. Section 922(g)(3), as applied by the government, automatically disarmed a person the moment he became an unlawful user and did so without any pre-deprivation process.

The Court also found it hard to square the government’s categorical-danger theory with the federal government’s own approach to marijuana. The Court noted that DOJ had curtailed federal enforcement against marijuana users, that most states had legalized marijuana to some degree, and that the government had recently moved some marijuana products from Schedule I to Schedule III.

What Hemani Means for Marijuana Users Who Want to Possess Guns

Marijuana use alone can no longer automatically support a federal felony prosecution for firearm possession under section 922(g)(3), at least where the facts look like Hemani: ordinary marijuana use, a firearm kept for lawful purposes, no intoxicated gun handling, no violence, no threats, no addiction finding, and no individualized proof that the person’s marijuana use makes them dangerous.

But Hemani does not erase every risk, nor clear up the process to purchase. The Court made clear that it was deciding a narrow case. It did not address laws banning firearm possession by people who are addicted to drugs, presently intoxicated while possessing a firearm, convicted felons, or people whose drug use can be shown through individualized proof to make them dangerous.

That means a marijuana user who keeps a firearm safely stored at home for self-defense is in a stronger position after Hemani. A person who carries or handles firearms while impaired, combines marijuana with threats or violence, traffics drugs, or gives false answers on firearm paperwork is in a very different position.

Other Courts Are Already Applying Hemani

The impact of Hemani is already being felt in other marijuana-and-firearms cases. On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted, vacated, and remanded the Third Circuit’s decision in United States v. Erik Harris (3d Cir. 2025) 144 F.4th 154, directing the lower court to reconsider the case in light of United States v. Hemani.  Erik Matthew Harris, a frequent marijuana user, bought three pistols and answered “no” each time on the federal firearm form asking whether he was an unlawful user of marijuana. After he lost one of the guns following a night of drinking and marijuana use, police later recovered it from a convicted felon. Harris admitted he regularly used marijuana, and he was charged with both possessing firearms as an unlawful drug user and lying on the 4473 purchase forms. The Third Circuit had held that section 922(g)(3) could constitutionally restrict drug users who present a special danger of misusing firearms, but it remanded for additional fact-finding because the record did not establish whether Harris’s marijuana use made the statute constitutional as applied to him.

The Supreme Court also denied the government’s petition for review in United States v. Kevin LaMarcus Mitchell (5th Cir. 2025) ___ F.4th ___, leaving in place a Fifth Circuit ruling in Mitchell’s favor. In Mitchell, Kevin LaMarcus Mitchell had a prior felony conviction under section 922(g)(3) after officers found a loaded pistol and a small bag of marijuana during a 2018 arrest; Mitchell admitted to being a drug user and later admitted the firearm was his. Years later, the government charged him under section 922(g)(1), the felon-in-possession statute, based on that prior section 922(g)(3) conviction. The Fifth Circuit held that permanently disarming Mitchell based on that prior marijuana-related firearm conviction went further than the Nation’s historical tradition allowed, especially because the record did not show that he was actively under the influence of marijuana while possessing the firearm.

These developments still do not answer every question about purchasing or possessing a firearm for marijuana users. A denial of certiorari does not create nationwide Supreme Court precedent, and a remand simply tells the lower court to reconsider the case under the new rule. But the message from SCOTUS is that after Hemani, courts should be skeptical of laws or prosecutions that treat marijuana use by itself as proof that a person is too dangerous to possess a firearm.

So, Can a Marijuana User Buy a Gun?

The practical answer is: maybe, but do not treat Hemani as a green light to walk into a gun store and answer the Form 4473 question without risk.

After Hemani, the federal government should no longer be able to deny or prosecute a person based solely on marijuana use, without more. But buying a gun from a licensed dealer still requires completing ATF Form 4473, and that form still asks about marijuana and controlled-substance use. Until ATF finalizes its revised Form 4473 and issues guidance applying Hemani, the purchase process remains legally uncertain.

So the practical answer depends on the facts:

• If you are an occasional cannabis user, are not impaired when handling firearms, have no history of violence or threats, are not addicted, and keep firearms safely for lawful purposes, Hemani gives you a strong argument that marijuana use alone cannot constitutionally disqualify you.
• If you are currently impaired, regularly handle firearms while using cannabis, have addiction issues, have made threats, have violence-related incidents, or have other aggravating facts, Hemani may not protect you.
• The Form 4473 issue remains the biggest practical problem. A false answer on that form can create a separate federal criminal issue, regardless of whether the government could constitutionally prosecute simple possession after Hemani.

For now, the most accurate practical guidance is this: a cannabis smoker is in a much better legal position after Hemani, but the safest course is to wait for ATF’s revised Form 4473 and post-Hemani guidance before assuming that marijuana users can purchase firearms without risk.

Form 4473 Is Being Revised by the ATF

ATF has proposed comprehensive revisions to Form 4473, the Firearms Transaction Record used by federally licensed dealers in connection with NICS background checks. ATF has also issued an interim final rule revising the definition of “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.” That rule adds language clarifying that isolated or sporadic use is not enough, and that a single incident is not sufficient for a denial under section 922(g)(3).

The final version of Form 4473 will be very important. The specific wording ATF chooses after Hemani, particularly how it asks about marijuana use and how it distinguishes recreational use, medical use, addiction, current use, and dangerousness, will likely reveal how the federal government intends to apply section 922(g)(3) going forward.

Until ATF finalizes the form and issues post-Hemani guidance, buyers should assume that Form 4473 remains a serious federal document signed under penalty of perjury. Whatever Hemani means for possession prosecutions, false answers on Form 4473 still create a separate prosecution risk.

What Marijuana Users Should Do Now

For now, marijuana users who own or want to own firearms should keep these points in mind:

• Do not possess or handle firearms while impaired. Hemani did not protect intoxicated firearm possession.
• Do not make false statements on Form 4473 or any firearm application. The form itself can become the evidence in a false-statement case.
• A medical marijuana card does not solve anything. The law is changing, but ATF’s final form and guidance will matter.
• Do not assume all marijuana users are now automatically clear. Hemani rejected categorical disarmament based on marijuana use alone, but it left room for prosecutions involving addiction, dangerousness, impairment, or other aggravating facts.
• Watch for ATF updates. The final Form 4473 language and any agency guidance will likely show how aggressively the federal government intends to apply section 922(g)(3) after Hemani.

Know Your Rights

If contacted by law enforcement about firearms, marijuana, or both:

• Remain silent.
• Do not consent to a search.
• Do not explain your marijuana use, firearm ownership, storage practices, or purchase history.
• Give your name and basic identifying information if required.
• Say clearly: “I want to remain silent and speak with my lawyer.”
• Do not discuss the matter with police, friends, family, cellmates, or anyone other than your lawyer.
• Remember that jail calls and police car conversations are recorded and can be used against you.

Conclusion

Hemani is a major Second Amendment decision for marijuana users. The federal government can no longer rely on marijuana use alone to automatically strip a person of the right to possess a firearm. The Supreme Court’s follow-on orders in Harris and Mitchell confirm that Hemani is already changing how courts handle marijuana-and-firearms cases. But this area of law is still in transition. The statute is still on the books, ATF is revising Form 4473, and the next wave of disputes will likely focus on what counts as addiction, impairment, dangerousness, recreational use, medical use, and truthful disclosure on firearm purchase forms. Marijuana use alone is no longer enough to be prosecuted for possessing a firearm after Hemani, but impaired firearm possession, false statements, addiction, dangerousness, or other aggravating facts still create serious risk of federal prosecution.

Michel & Associates, P.C. is a proud member of California NORML’s Legal Committee. Learn more about their firm from their member listing.

Although the number of people arrested for cannabis crimes in California has dramatically declined since the voters legalized adult use and sales of cannabis in 2016, people of Latino descent are more than twice as likely as Whites to be arrested for cannabis crimes in California, and Blacks are more than five times more likely. These racial disparities have worsened since legalization.

According to the 2025 Crime in California report released by California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta on July 1, the felony marijuana arrest rate decreased 13.3% in 2025 (440 in 2024 to 399 in 2025).

Of the 399 felony arrestees (Table 31):
65 were White (16.3%)
179 were Hispanic (44.9%)
114 were Black (28.6%)

Misdemeanor marijuana arrests rose from 1,929 in 2024 to 2,033 in 2025. Of those (Table 34):
340 were White (16.7%)
983 were Hispanic (48.4%)
396 were Black (19.5%)

The felony level marijuana offenses arrested for were for violations of Health and Safety Codes: 11358(d) (cultivating over 6 plants); 11359(c) (possession for sale), 11359(d) (sales), 11360(a)* (importing cannabis – *can be either a felony or a misdemeanor); 11361(a) & 11361(b) (hiring or selling to minors), and 11362.4(d) (manufacturing with a volatile solvent).

The misdemeanor arrests were for Health and Safety Codes: 11357(b) & 11357(c) (possession of more than 28.5 grams of cannabis, or more than eight grams of concentrated cannabis); 11357.5(a) & 11357.5(b) (selling or possessing synthetic cannabis);  11358(c) & 11359(b) (growing over 6 cannabis plants), 11360(a)* (importing cannabis – *can be either a felony or a misdemeanor); 11362.4(c) (smoking in a public place); and 11362.77(a) (exceeding patient/caregiver possession/cultivation limits); also Revenue and Tax codes 34014(a) and 34016(b), 34016(d) & 34016(e).

ARREST DISPARITIES KEEP INCREASING SINCE LEGALIZATION FOR BLACKS AND LATINOS

US Census numbers also released on July 1 estimate that California’s current population is 39,355,309. Latinos are estimated to be 41.2% of that population, Whites are at 32.5% and Blacks at 6.4%.

Weighted for their populations, in 2025 Blacks were 6.4 times more likely as Whites to be arrested for marijuana crimes in California, a jump from 2024, when they were 5.2 times as likely. The disparity for Latinos also saw a jump in 2025, when they were 2.26 times more likely to be arrested than Whites, versus 1.97 times in 2024. 

Latinos are, year after year, the most-arrested race for cannabis, with 1162 marijuana arrests within that group in 2025, an increase from 1112 in 2024.

In 2016, before Prop. 64 took effect, the arrest disparities were only 3.51 times for Blacks and 1.43 for Latinos. Those numbers began to jump in 2017 after legalization, when Blacks were 3.83 times more likely than Whites to be arrested, and Latinos were 1.54 times as likely.

JUVENILE NUMBERS EVEN WORSE

Among the felony marijuana arrests in 2025, 9 (2.3%) were juveniles under 18, and 36 (9.0%) were ages 18-19 (Table 32). Only 3 Blacks and 4 Whites under 20 years old were arrested for cannabis felonies, while 37 Hispanic juveniles were arrested. A total of 165 (8.1%) of misdemeanor arrests were in the under 18 age group, and 234 (11.5%) were age 18-19 (Table 34). Only 47 Blacks and 59 Whites under 20 were among those arrested, while 271 young Hispanics were.

For total juvenile marijuana arrests (ages 10-19) in 2025, of 444 total arrests, 69.4% were from the Latino population. In 2024, that figure was 66.8% and has also been rising, e.g. from 2021 (60.2%) and 2020 (61%).

“That the injustice of these racial disparities in cannabis arrests continues to exist, and has even worsened since legalization, is appalling,” said Cal NORML deputy director Ellen Komp. “Prop. 64’s goals included bringing justice and equity to communities and individuals impacted by the War on Drugs. We must do better.” Komp pointed to bringing more cities and counties onboard with the licensing of cannabis businesses, including consumption lounges and cafes, and strengthening cannabis equity programs, as things that could be improved.

by Brandon Moore, Phenominal Consulting

The Department of Cannabis Control publishes every recall and every enforcement action it issues on two public web pages.¹ No login, no records request, no fee. Anyone can read them, search them by license number, and walk the entire history. Almost nobody in the industry does.

That is the strange part. For the operator named in a recall, those pages are the worst day of the quarter. For everyone else, the same pages are the regulator quietly telling you, in advance, where it has been looking and what it has been finding. That is useful to anyone with a partner to vet, which is to say almost everyone in the chain: the distributor deciding whose product to carry, the brand vetting a co-packer, the cultivator or retailer weighing the distributor who will take their product to market. The cited party reads the record too late. There is nothing stopping the rest of the industry from reading it early, except that hardly anyone thinks to.

So read it. Here is what falls out when you do.

The first thing is that recall risk is not spread evenly, and it is not where most people brace for it. Of California’s roughly 7,630 active licenses, only about 140 have been named in a recall since the start of 2024.² That is under 2% of the active universe; recalls are rare. But within that small group, the concentration is extreme: 86% of the recalled licenses are distributors or manufacturers. Count microbusinesses, which carry distribution privileges, and the share climbs past 98%. Cultivators and retailers together account for under 2% of the entire recall record.

That is not the regulator picking on distributors. It is structural, and it follows the supply chain. A cultivator sits upstream of the Certificate of Analysis. By the time a lab result becomes a printed label and that label reaches a shelf, the flower has already left the cultivator’s hands and passed through the distributor’s quality-assurance hold. That hold is the statutory checkpoint where a batch is supposed to be verified against its COA before it moves, and it is not a courtesy. California Code of Regulations Title 4, section 15307,³ puts the quality-assurance review on the distributor. Before any product moves to a retailer, the section requires the distributor to confirm that the label is “consistent with the certificate of analysis… regarding cannabinoid content,” with the labeled amounts “accurate” against the COA. The recall lands at the point of release, not the point of origin. In California’s chain, that release happens at the distributor’s quality-assurance review and on the manufacturer’s packaging line. So the recall record is, in effect, a map of where the regulated act of releasing a product happens. A distributor who has never read it is the one party in the chain least informed about its own exposure.

The second thing the record shows is a single failure that repeats, and it is not the one the language suggests.

About a third of California cannabis recalls since the start of 2024 are for a label or data failure rather than a contaminant. Inside that group, one phrase appears over and over: Inaccurate Labeling (Cannabinoid inflation). It is cited in 21 separate recalls, roughly 40% of every label-and-data recall in the record. The phrase reads like an accusation. It sounds like someone in a back office was padding a potency number to move more product.

The record points at something quieter. For dried flower, the figure the label is required to carry is Total THC, expressed as a percentage. What the citation describes is a different number landing in that spot: the value for Total Cannabinoids, printed where Total THC is supposed to be. Total Cannabinoids is the bigger figure. It is THC plus everything else the panel detected, so when it lands in the Total THC field the label overstates potency. The two numbers come from the same lab panel, which is why the pattern reads less like a lab error than like a transcription slip, something that happens between the COA and the label artwork. The recall, in any case, lands on the licensee whose name is on the package. The regulation names the figure that has to be right: section 17407⁴ requires Total THC as a percentage on the label of nonmanufactured cannabis goods, and section 15307 makes it the distributor’s job to confirm that labeled figure is accurate against the COA before the product moves. The mismatch lives in exactly that gap, the one the regulation assigns the distributor to close.

The check that would catch it is simple: Total THC on the label has to equal Total THC on the COA. Not the bigger number. Where that check belongs, whether in software, in a packaging proof, or in a person’s hands, depends on how an operation is built. But the thing to look for never changes, and knowing what to look for is most of the job.

This is not a pattern you have to take on faith. Here are the 21 recalls where the phrase has been cited, in date order, each linked to its entry on the DCC recall page.⁵ Open a handful and read what the record says across different operators, different brands, 18 months apart:

• 2024-03-29 — Malibu Gold, LLC / Blem Flower — https://recalls.cannabis.ca.gov/recalls/6761b4b3449a15805975dafe
• 2024-04-25 — UC Advisor Corporation / C CREME Infused Pre-Roll — https://recalls.cannabis.ca.gov/recalls/6761bc23449a15805975db04
• 2024-04-30 — RWC Manufacturing / Mary’s Medicinal Transdermal Topical — https://recalls.cannabis.ca.gov/recalls/67608862141ebf4b23e92750
• 2024-05-06 — TBP Indoor Facilities, Inc. / Canndescent Whole Flower Pre-Roll — https://recalls.cannabis.ca.gov/recalls/6760919a141ebf4b23e9275e
• 2024-05-09 — JDI Farms / Cali Kosher Flower — https://recalls.cannabis.ca.gov/recalls/676090aa141ebf4b23e9275c
• 2024-05-17 — Crafted Canopy Co., LLC / LAX Packs Premium Flower — https://recalls.cannabis.ca.gov/recalls/67608ef1141ebf4b23e92759
• 2024-06-03 — Paet Real Estate LLC / BloomBox & Pat’s Flower — https://recalls.cannabis.ca.gov/recalls/676075d467bff701781d9596
• 2024-06-12 — Shield Management Group, LLC / West Coast Cure Flower — https://recalls.cannabis.ca.gov/recalls/67608282141ebf4b23e92734
• 2024-09-12 — LVLUP Manufacturing LLC / Lime Ultra Infused Pre-Roll — https://recalls.cannabis.ca.gov/recalls/676062d92dec600a5fdab858
• 2024-09-27 — Higher Ground Holdings, LLC / Flower — https://recalls.cannabis.ca.gov/recalls/676321559f9bcc32fed462a9
• 2024-12-13 — Hypeereon Corporation / Connected Flower — https://recalls.cannabis.ca.gov/recalls/6761f90394a546fcd1a8843a
• 2024-12-16 — 2JC LLC / Connected Flower & Pre-Roll — https://recalls.cannabis.ca.gov/recalls/6761c1de449a15805975db10
• 2024-12-31 — NLT NCA LC-5851, LLC / Cream of the Crop Flower — https://recalls.cannabis.ca.gov/recalls/67743be120de76de169418b0
• 2025-01-06 — 2JC LLC / Alien Labs Flower — https://recalls.cannabis.ca.gov/recalls/677c1ce27b818645f37d81b5
• 2025-01-30 — Med for America Inc. / Jeeter & Baby Jeeter Pre-Roll — https://recalls.cannabis.ca.gov/recalls/679aa03c6c2cf8a3a782d944
• 2025-02-28 — 2JC LLC / Connected Flower & Pre-Roll — https://recalls.cannabis.ca.gov/recalls/67c0a8966a1df8e2aab2a805
• 2025-03-28 — Hypeereon Corporation / Connected & Alien Labs Flower — https://recalls.cannabis.ca.gov/recalls/67d9a58bee53fc0e4a85cfd0
• 2025-04-24 — Artisan Canna Cigars LLC / Hi Pre-Roll — https://recalls.cannabis.ca.gov/recalls/68080bb50a02d94b409051c1
• 2025-05-21 — Full Spectrum Group Inc. / Legion of Dank Delights Edible — https://recalls.cannabis.ca.gov/recalls/6826696d651df98cac943a90
• 2025-06-26 — Natura Distribution LLC / Sluggers Flower & Pre-Roll — https://recalls.cannabis.ca.gov/recalls/6859b52b6240f323aa90f91f
• 2025-09-18 — Crème de Canna Collective / Terpys Infused Flower — https://recalls.cannabis.ca.gov/recalls/68c9eaf9ee3f253d00cfa2be

Those 21 are not 21 unrelated mistakes. They are one workflow gap, repeating, in plain view, on a page the regulator has been publishing the whole time.

Which brings up the third thing, the one underneath the other two: the record only works if you can read it, and reading it means learning a vocabulary. The DCC writes its recalls and citations in a small, controlled set of phrases, and they are not interchangeable, however much they sound like it. The phrases are not evenly used, either. Counted across the recall record, the distribution is steep:⁶

The shape of that table is the point. Misbranded dominates because it is the catch-all, cited 3 times more than anything else. Inaccurate Labeling and the Cannabinoid inflation cases nested inside it are the next tier. Attractive to Children sits just below, and it is a different track entirely: it has nothing to do with whether the printed numbers are right, and a reader who lumps it in with the labeling phrases will miss what it actually triggers, which is scrutiny of how a product is packaged and sold, not how it is tested.

The distinction most people miss is the first two. Misbranded and Inaccurate Labeling sound like synonyms and are not, and a reader who treats them as the same phrase will misread half the record. The vocabulary is small enough to learn in an afternoon, and learning it is the difference between skimming a list of other people’s problems and seeing the shape of what the regulator keeps finding.

The record carries one more signal, in when the actions land rather than what they say. Recalls and enforcement actions are not spread evenly across the license year. They cluster late in the license year: a license is about 50% more likely to draw a recall or enforcement action in the 60 days before its renewal than in the 60 days after.⁷ Some of that is the calendar, since California’s annual licenses concentrate their renewals in late spring and summer. But the direction holds. When you read a partner’s history, the weeks right before their renewal are where the record is most likely to have something to say.

The pages themselves are plain to use once you know what you are after. The recall page is at recalls.cannabis.ca.gov; the enforcement page, the second public record, is at cannabis.ca.gov under the department’s enforcement actions, carrying over 800 actions.⁸ Neither comes with a guide, and neither is built to be browsed for insight, but both let you search by license number, which is the search that matters: put in a partner’s license and read its history straight off the page. The two pages together are not a list of other people’s bad luck. They are a standing record of what the regulator checks and what it keeps finding, published in advance, free, for anyone who thinks to read it. The operators in the recall list above likely did not. The only thing separating them from everyone who comes after is that the record was already there, and they learned what it said the slow way.

You can read it the other way. A distributor can check a brand before carrying it. A brand can check a co-packer before handing over a formulation. A cultivator or a retailer can check the distributor about to take their product to market, which is the partner whose QA hold decides whether their name ends up in the record alongside someone else’s mistake. The check runs the same in every direction: pull the license number, read its history, decide with the record in front of you instead of after it.

The commercial case for spending the half hour is obvious enough. The one underneath it is simpler. Every recall in those pages is a product that reached a shelf with something wrong on it, and a consumer who bought it on the strength of a number the label could not back up. The record is the DCC’s best public account of how that happens. Reading it before any major purchase is, in the end, the cheapest thing any operator can do. It keeps their own product out of the record, while protecting the people who buy that product.

Sources and notes

1. California Department of Cannabis Control, public records. Recalls: recalls.cannabis.ca.gov. Enforcement actions: cannabis.ca.gov (Enforcement Actions).
2. Recall and license figures in this article are the author’s own counts, compiled from the DCC public recall record and the department’s license data, current as of June 2026. Because the DCC records update continuously, exact counts will drift over time; the figures here are rounded and reflect the record as it stood when this was written.
3. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 4, § 15307 (Quality-Assurance Review): law.cornell.edu/regulations/california/4-CCR-15307. Subsection (c) requires the distributor to ensure the label “is consistent with the certificate of analysis for regulatory compliance testing regarding cannabinoid content,” with labeled amounts “accurate,” before transporting cannabis goods to a retailer.
4. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 4, § 17407 (Cannabinoid Content Labeling): law.cornell.edu/regulations/california/4-CCR-17407. Subsection (b)(3) requires that nonmanufactured cannabis goods be labeled with “Total THC content expressed as a percentage.”
5. The 21 recalls listed above, each citing “Inaccurate Labeling (Cannabinoid inflation),” with their entries on the DCC recall page at recalls.cannabis.ca.gov. Compiled by the author from the public recall record, current as of June 2026.
6. Citation-phrase counts compiled by the author from the DCC public recall record, current as of June 2026. Counts reflect how often each phrase appears across the recalls in the record and will change as new recalls are published.
7. Timing observation compiled by the author from the DCC public recall and enforcement records together with the department’s license-expiration data, current as of June 2026. For each action, the gap between the action date and the license’s next annual renewal was measured across the full record. In the 60 days before renewal there were about 50% more actions than in the 60 days after (roughly 170 versus 115); because every license passes through both its own before-window and after-window each year, that count ratio is also the per-license rate ratio. The same lean holds at the 90-day window. The “50%” figure compares the 60 days before renewal with the 60 days after, not with the yearly average, which is a smaller difference. California’s annual licenses concentrate their renewal dates in late spring and summer, so part of the distribution reflects the renewal calendar rather than enforcement timing; the figure is offered as an observed pattern in the record, not a causal claim about how the regulator times its actions.
8. DCC Enforcement Actions, cannabis.ca.gov (Enforcement Actions). Action count current as of June 2026.

Brandon Moore is the owner of Phenominal Consulting, where he works with California cannabis businesses on compliance and the operational details that keep the over regulated industry viable.

Phenominal Consulting is a proud business member of California NORML. See their Cannabis Marketplace listing for more information.

Since Californians legalized adult cannabis use and sales 10 years ago in 2016, our state and its citizens have seen many benefits from the laws that Prop. 64 put in place.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS BENEFITS

• Prop. 64 has lead to reduced cannabis arrests and imprisonments. The CA DOJ reported 7,949 felony and 5,861 misdemeanor arrests in 2016 vs. 399 felony and 2,033 misdemeanors in 2025. Unfortunately, racial disparities in arrests remain.
• Over 215,000 past cannabis crimes have been expunged or reduced from people’s records, opening up job and other opportunities for Californians.
• Parents who are medical marijuana patients have their child custody rights protected under Prop 64.

ECONOMIC BENEFITS

• The California cannabis industry has created 80,000+ legal jobs in what was previously a criminal enterprise (Source.) Many of these are union jobs, and equity businesses are supported in many jurisdictions.
• Cannabis brings in over $4 billion in legal sales yearly.
• Cannabis sales generate $1 billion/year in tax revenues ($600M in state excise taxes and $400M in sales taxes) that fund programs across the state supporting law enforcement, environmental clean up, and youth substance abuse prevention. Since 2018, California has collected more than $7 billion in cannabis tax revenue supporting research, enforcement, environmental clean-up and community programs.
• Local jurisdictions that allow legal cannabis businesses across California have also benefited from sales and payroll taxes, funding local programs.
• Cannabis events and tourism are bringing people to cannabis-producing regions of California, boosting spending on hotels and restaurants. Cannabis lounges and cafes are opening across the state, re-building community and educating consumers.

HEALTH BENEFITS

• California cannabis consumers can now enjoy products that are tested for contaminants and labeled for potency, purchased in safe environments.
• Medical marijuana offers safe legal alternatives to opioids and other prescription drugs in the treatment of chronic pain and other medical conditions.
• There has been no increase in cannabis use by school children post legalization. A Kaiser study found increased teen use in early years post-64, but the trend reversed with COVID, and adolescent use is down to 6.5% in 2024, slightly below 2016 rate of 6.8%. According to CDPH, CA youth had significantly lower cannabis use than the national average for 8th, 10th, and 12th graders as of of 2019. There has also been “No Significant Uptick in CA Adult Use After Legalization” (CA Health Interview Survey 2018-23).
• Studies have shown decreased binge drinking by young adults. “Binge drinking down among young adults 18-25: LA County.”  There is no clear trend in overall alcohol consumption following legalization – beer and wine consumption are down, but hard liquor is up.
• There has been an increased reported incidence of emergency room visits, cannabis use disorder and psychotic reactions, especially among young users, but Prop 64 is funding ongoing research and evaluation of cannabis and legalization. Cal NORML advocates for better education and labeling of cannabis products to reverse these trends, which may be bolstered by increased self-reporting and evaluation. We also advocate for increased research on vaporization and other safety measures.

PUBLIC SAFETY BENEFITS

• Crime rates have dropped in communities with legal cannabis retailers.
• Licensed retailers don’t sell to minors, and Prop. 64 banned advertising directed at children and required child-proof packaging.
• Contrary to the prediction of critics, there has been no surge in auto fatalities since cannabis legalization. DUI arrests are down 21% from 2016 to 2024 (from 131,157 to 104,057). California has followed a general national trend, which was toward lower overall auto fatalities, until jumping up during the pandemic.  As of latest data in 2024, California had a lower rate of auto fatalities than the national average (9.8 deaths/100,000 CA vs 11.5 for US).

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS

• Licensed cannabis businesses must meet CEQA requirements, including strong environmental protections for noise, air quality, cultural resources, protected species, energy use, hydrology and water quality etc.
• Cannabis farms must have biological reports prepared by licensed professionals before licensure, to ensure protection of species and habitat. Cannabis cultivation is overseen by CDFW, CalFire, State Water Resources Control Board etc. – making it one of the most highly regulated forms of agriculture. Due to strict testing requirements, legal cannabis is often grown without harsh pesticides.

A well-attended event in Berkeley on Saturday, May 16 presented the Budist 2025 California Cannabis Harvest Report, with outdoor farmers represented from the report’s covered counties: Humboldt, Trinity, Mendocino, Sonoma, Lake, Nevada and Santa Cruz. Starting from DCC dashboard numbers and adding in the number of licensees producing outdoor crops, the report highlights farmers and cultivars in each region, and looks at statewide trends.

The 2025 outdoor cannabis harvest was the largest since 2022; however all counties in the report except Mendocino lost market share in California’s outdoor market in 2025 vs. 2024, as counties like Santa Barbara and Kings came onboard with large, multi-licensed farms, with much of the output going straight to distillate. There was quite a difference between counties, with Sonoma and Santa Cruz only licensing a handfull of outdoor farmers, with other counties producing millions of pounds at hundreds of farms. Local control, real estate prices, and weather variations impacted each county differently: counties saw a colder summer in 2025, with twice to 6x as much rain during harvest months.

Budist hopes to bring marketing methods from the wine industry’s appellations, terroirs, and vintages to the cannabis space, comparing cannabis-growing regions with the Champagne and Bordeaux valleys of France. Both flower and hash/rosin change year to year, depending on growing conditions and methods of curing or preserving. “Appellations tell the story of the season, and the relationship to variability, which has value in the marketplace,” it was said. Each farm reported its best-performing cultivar in the harvest report.

Caleb Chen of Budist, who presented the data, highlighted regional events such as the Trinity County Fair cannabis competition, open to homegrowers and licensed farmers, and to flower and hash. Also mentioned were the the Sonoma County Harvest Festival, the inspiration for the High Times Cannabis Cup; the Humboldt Showdown, also open to home growers and licensees; Lake County clone swaps; and this year’s Mendo Cup, which donated profits back to farmers.

On a panel on Appellations with Genine Coleman of Origins Council and Zoe Schreiber of CCIA (who also works for both a cannabis provider and a wine producer in Livermore), Hannah Whyte of the Humboldt County Grower’s Association noted that, “Appellations develop a relationship with land” and that legitimization fo the indstry provides the opportunity for keeping records and of “healing a lot of the wounds of hiding.” Working together with other farmers and educating the consumer are goals.

Schreiber, perhaps alluding to a pending bill in the CA legislature that would severly restrict regional elements on cannabis packaging, spoke of “running into a wall of limitations at the state level,” and said the industry needs to be “heard and present in face of new legislation, as a movement.”

Asked by an audience member about how small farmers can combat the attempt to file patents and corner the market in genetics likely to follow the recent federal rescheduling announcement, Coleman said that educating farmers about intellectual property rights is part of Legacy Genetics, a project involving Cal Poly Humboldt and UC Berkeley that will be holding a seminar on the topic in Sacramento on June 26.

Claudio Miranda from Budist spoke of the Medieval Dark Age when “ecclesiastical hierarchies suppressed knowledge, medicine, and light.” He called for a new Renaissance to spread all three. The event was held at the Berkeley Chapel of the Flowers event space, which seems to be part of that Renaissance.

Also present at the Oaksterdam University booth at the event were representatives from the new Oakland Legendary Cannabis Certified Equity Label, the nation’s first initiative to promote city-verified equity businesses in the cannabis industry. The label lets buyers know they are supporting businesses that are invested in creating high-quality products with a priority on equity. “Oakland continues to lead with courage and conviction. During my time in Congress, I co-chaired the Cannabis Caucus and introduced the first bill calling for the establishment of cannabis equity programs to repair the harm done to Black and Brown communities,” commented Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee. “The Oakland Legendary label puts power back where it belongs, helping consumers make informed choices and ensuring those most impacted are leading and thriving in today’s economy. Oakland is proud to lead the way!”

Also see: Sungrown tells a story: Harvest Report shows California’s cannabis shift

Coming events:

Tuesday, May 26 • 12PM – 1 PM
Preparing for Schedule III: A Webinar for Cannabis Producers
National Craft Cannabis Coalition
Register

Thursday, May 28 • 10 AM
Schedule III in Adult Use States
Oaksterdam University
REGISTER NOW

Friday, June 26
Legacy Cannabis Genetics Research Dissemination Event
Capital Events Center, 1020 11th St., Sacramento

Cal NORML participated in Cannabis Unity Coalition lobby day last week in Washington, DC to lobby for full cannabis decriminalization, release of federal marijuana prisoners, and the clearing of records for past marijuana convictions.

Watch the coalition press conference held at the US Capitol at which Cannabis Caucus Co-Chairs Dina Titus (D-NV) and Ilhan Omar (D-MN) spoke, along with Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN). Read more.

Also speaking were representatives from Latino and Indigenous groups, prisoner advocates, Students for Sensible Drug Policy, NORML, MPP, DPA, and others. Information packets were dropped by Coalition members in all Congressional offices. In addition, 2,148 letters were sent to Congress in support of 44 organizations united around 13 bills, educating all 541 offices in the House and Senate.

Cal NORML’s director Dale Gieringer and deputy director Ellen Komp met with staffers for several Congressmembers, and Senators Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla. We even got a personal moment with Rep. Lateefah Simon (D-Oakland), Senator Schiff, and Rep. Titus. Staffers were interested to hear about the potential effect of the recent rescheduling order on California consumers and businesses.

At a California Constituent Coffee with Sens. Schiff and Padilla, Ellen had asked for both of them to sponsor this year’s expected Senate version of the MORE Act to fully deschedule cannabis, pointing out the pitfalls of partial rescheduling for recreational states like CA.

Californian Jackie Simion from NCIA thanked the Senators for their attention to the issue, and asked the Cannabis Unity contingent to raise their hands in a show of force. We all got a group photo with the Senators (above).

Kristi Kem of Freedom Grow spoke about the effective 70% tax rate on cannabis businesses in California, and about prisoner Pedro Moreno, currently serving a life sentence in Atwater, CA for a cannabis offense, one of 3000 federal cannabis prisoners still incarcerated.

“This was never just about one week,” writes Kat Murti, executive director of SSDP. “Cannabis Week of Unity was a launchpad for ongoing coordination, advocacy, and movement-building. We are just getting started, and the relationships, momentum, and visibility built this week will continue to power our work moving forward.” Cal NORML is following up with California-based members of the unity coalition, working towards reform efforts in our state as well as federally.

Cannabis vape pens expose users to significantly less harmful toxins than smoked joints, according to a new lab study  sponsored by California NORML.  The study compared the emissions of two different vape pens – a disposable and a reusable cartridge model – with pre-roll joints purchased from a San Diego dispensary.  The vape pens emitted significantly cleaner emissions than the joint for almost all toxins tested, and, unlike the joint, were within EPA safe daily exposure limits for regular users.

“The dangers of vapes have been misrepresented by anti-smoking advocates to suggest their emissions are as hazardous as smoke,” says Cal NORML director Dale Gieringer.  “They are not.”

Why Vaporization Research?

Vaporizers are designed to evaporate a plant’s active ingredients – cannabinoids and terpenes in the case of cannabis, nicotine in the case of tobacco  –  at temperatures  below that of burning leaf, where noxious smoke byproducts and carcinogens form.

Unfortunately, academic research on cannabis vape pens has been stifled by federal regulations that prohibit government-sponsored researchers from working with state-legal cannabis products. California NORML accordingly chose to sponsor a first-of-its kind pilot study of  state-legal cannabis vape pens bought off-the-shelf from a California-licensed dispensary.  The study was conducted by NN Analytics, a San Diego laboratory with expertise in nicotine and cannabis vapor testing, in consultation with MayThe5th, a consulting company devoted to the development of safer electronic vaporization devices.

Vape pens differ from herbal vaporizers, which heat natural cannabis leaf and buds, in that they operate at higher temperatures and use concentrates fortified with additives – typically terpenes – to facilitate vaporization.  They also have metal components that might leak into the vape stream.  These present different risk factors from herbal vapes, which have been shown to be effective in reducing harmful smoke toxins in prior studies by Cal NORML and others.

In this current study, a puffing machine was used to draw equal samples from the vape pens and the joint.   The emissions were tested by standard mass spectrometry methods for cannabinoids and a dozen key toxic emissions (for details see white paper report).

KEY RESULTS

• The vape pens completely eliminated benzene and acrolein, two highly noxious compounds that appeared above safe exposure levels in the joint.  Most other toxins were reduced tenfold or more, except for heavy metals and formaldehyde.  High temperatures are known to generate formaldehyde and other toxins from terpenes and vape oils.
• The vape pen concentrates were nearly 4 times more potent than the joint  (83-86% THC vs 23% THC), but emitted only 1.2 to 2.2 times as much delta-9 THC per puff as the joint.  THC delivery varies greatly depending on device design, temperature, and usage – factors that deserve further research. In practice, some users report they can’t get as high from a vape as a joint, while others report the opposite.   “Potency differences are not an accurate gauge of THC vapor delivery,” comments Gieringer.
•  The only toxins for which vapes scored worse than the joint were the heavy metals nickel and chromium.  Both metals are key components of nichrome wire, which is used for vape heating coils but might well be replaced by a less volatile substitute.  The joint had higher levels of lead and cadmium.
• Devices were evaluated for safety to human health based on EPA and OSHA exposure standards.  Exposure to toxins was measured on the assumption that a regular user inhales 22 puffs per day, or about three joints.  The vapes were well within all applicable EPA daily exposure limits, while the joint was not.  Heavy metals were far below OSHA, NIOSH and Cal-OSHA occupational exposure limits for both vapes and joints.

CONCLUSIONS / FURTHER RESEARCH

In sum, the study showed that cannabis vape pens can be a useful harm reduction substitute for smoked cannabis.  The results of the study are consistent with other research, including a recent study by the vape manufacturer PAX, which indicate that vaporizers can drastically reduce harmful smoke emissions.

However, there exist hundreds of different vape products on the market, whose performance remains to be tested.  Many have different power and temperature settings that could affect toxic emissions.  Variations in concentrate composition, terpene content, device design, and metals content could also affect device performance.

Study sponsors (Cal NORML, MayThe5th and NN Analytics) call on the industry and public health agencies to support further research on cannabis vape pens.  Vape products are now outselling flower in California, yet virtually all published research on inhaled cannabis has focused on smoking, not vaping.

“It’s time to end government restrictions that have hindered research into cannabis vape products that are readily available to U.S. consumers,” says Gieringer. The recent federal rescheduling order could help open the way for state-licensed medical cannabis products to finally become eligible for research.

Also see: New Study: Electronic Cannabis Delivery Systems Show 99.7% Lower Screening Hazard Than Pre-Roll Combustion