Tag: California

  • California Ban on Intoxicating Hemp Now in Effect

    California Ban on Intoxicating Hemp Now in Effect

    Credit: Niro World

    Emergency regulations issued by California Gov. Gavin Newsom a few weeks ago limiting the sale and production of intoxicating hemp products are now in force.

    According to a records request by SFGate, the rules were enacted Monday after being approved by the state’s Office of Administrative Law. Newsom issued the restrictions on Sept. 6, which were proposed by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH).

    Jonathan Miller, general counsel of industry trade group Hemp Roundtable, predicted the order will eliminate 90%-95% of hemp retail products.

    Newsom has argued that lax rules have allowed underage youth to access intoxicating products, and he filed emergency rules earlier this month to completely ban them. However, the hemp industry has said that the Newsom administration was abusing the emergency rulemaking process to pass the hemp THC ban and that banning hemp THC would have disastrous effects on medical patients who rely on hemp to treat a wide range of health conditions.

    The Office of Administrative Law agreed with Newsom, writing in the order that the emergency rules are “deemed to be an emergency situation.” The ban on hemp THC will be effective until March 25, 2025.

    Newsom’s hemp ban has caused outrage in the medical cannabis community, with families “panic buying” thousands of dollars of hemp in anticipation of the rules going into effect.

  • Lab Dismisses Lawsuit Against 13 Competitors

    Lab Dismisses Lawsuit Against 13 Competitors

    Credit: Victor Moussa

    Anresco Laboratories and Infinite Chemical Analysis Labs have dropped their lawsuit against 13 competitors. The lawsuit alleged that the competitors manipulated marijuana testing results to gain an unfair advantage.

    According to court documents, the two California-based labs filed a dismissal without prejudice on Aug. 3 in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

    Josh Swider, co-founder and CEO of San Diego-headquartered Infinite Chemical Analysis Labs, told MJBizDaily he plans to file a new lawsuit against the defendants.

    “We stand by the allegations and merits in the complaint filed in federal court,” he said.

    “However, with further analysis, and as each of the defendants is aware, we anticipate filing a new complaint very soon.

    “We look forward to providing further comment upon the filing of this new complaint.”

  • California Governor Proposes Total Hemp THC Ban

    California Governor Proposes Total Hemp THC Ban

    Credit: Promesa art studio

    Gov. Gavin Newsom fired a direct attack Friday on the booming hemp industry, filing emergency rules that would completely ban THC — an intoxicating compound found in cannabis — from hemp products in the state.

    Hemp products are sold outside of regulated cannabis stores and can be purchased online or at retail locations like gas stations throughout the state. Newsom said in a statement Friday that the emergency rules were needed to protect children, media reports state.

    “We will not sit on our hands as drug peddlers target our children with dangerous and unregulated hemp products containing THC at our retail stores,” Newsom said. “We’re taking action to close loopholes and increase enforcement to prevent children from accessing these dangerous hemp and cannabis products.”

    The emergency rules would require that all hemp products in California have “no detectable amount of total THC ” and that customers be over 21 to purchase them. The rules still need the approval of the California Office of Administrative Law before they go into effect.

    Reg title: DPH-24-005E-Emergency Regulations for Serving Size, Age, and Intoxicating Cannabinoids for Industrial Hemp has been proposed. Click here to read the proposed regulations. Click here to read the “Finding of Emergency” on which they are based. 

    Most notably, under the proposed regulations the definition of “THC” is expanded to include “THC or comparable cannabinoids” and adds over 30 cannabinoids to the list of “THC”. Additionally, the amount of THC allowed in a serving is “no detectable amount.”

    Cannabis attorney Rod Kight said, “This is an “all hands on deck” moment for the entire cannabis industry to stop this nonsense. If you have business interests in California, stop what you’re doing and call the Governor’s office and your state representatives now.”

  •  San Fran Seeks End to Online Flavored Pouch Sales

     San Fran Seeks End to Online Flavored Pouch Sales

    VV Archive

    San Francisco is cracking down on the online sale of flavored nicotine pouches. The new lawsuit targets a handful of online retailers that the city says are violating its prohibition on flavored tobacco products.

    Unflavored versions of the product, which are sold at corner stores and tobacco shops in the city, will remain available for online purchase.

    “The tobacco industry has gone to tremendous lengths to reinvent their products to addict young people,” said City Attorney David Chiu. “We aren’t going to allow these companies to disregard the law and unravel decades of progress on preventing youth from using tobacco.”

    The Standard obtained a draft of the complaint, which was filed Tuesday in San Francisco County Superior Court. The suit alleges that Northerner Scandinavia, Lucy Goods, Rogue Holdings, and Swisher International sell flavored nicotine pouch products online to San Franciscans despite the ban.

    “Tobacco companies market nicotine pouches as discreet — the ‘perfect way to enjoy the nicotine you love without getting noticed, and without the risk of staining your teeth’; and claim that they are smoking cessation devices that help users ‘focus better, think deeper, chill out smoother, and inspire creativity,’” the complaint states.

  • California County Shutters Shop for Illegal Sales

    California County Shutters Shop for Illegal Sales

    Credit: Wesnice

    A county district attorney in California wants to keep vapes, tobacco products and other prohibited items off of store shelves out of the hands of children.

    Monterey County is handing down civil penalties to Rubystar Gems and Gifts, a local business accused of doing just that. The Monterey County District Attorney’s Office says they received word in late 2023 from the Monterey Police Department and Monterey Sheriff’s Department about complaints against the store for selling tobacco products to minors.

    The store was also allegedly selling flavored tobacco products, which are illegal in California, hallucinogenic mushroom gummies containing a substance that is illegal to sell in California and illegal weapons like “metal knuckles.”

    The mushroom gummies contain psilocybin, which is a hallucinogenic controlled substance that is illegal to sell in California. The packaging was counterfeit and did not indicate the actual product and its true manufacturer on the label, according to media reports.

    The store’s owner agreed to a civil settlement and has to pay a $25,000 penalty for the violations. In 2022 and 2023, two sales clerks were prosecuted in a criminal court for selling tobacco products to minors. Continued complaints prompted the Monterey District Attorney’s Office to investigate further.

    The store is currently closed, but Emily Hickok, a chief deputy district attorney at the Monterey County District Attorney’s Office, says it can legally continue to operate. The store owner didn’t want to go on camera but did say the store is closed because of personal health reasons and that he is retiring.

  • Federal Judge Gives Final OK in Altria, Juul Class Action

    Federal Judge Gives Final OK in Altria, Juul Class Action

    A federal judge approved the final part of a class action settlement with the e-cigarette company Juul Labs and its parent company Altria, bringing the settlement total to just over $300 million.

    In 2018, the plaintiffs charged Juul Labs with misleading the public about the addictiveness of Juul and the risk of the e-cigarettes and its nicotine cartridges.

    The plaintiffs also said Juul had targeted teenagers with candy-flavored Juul pods and “multimillion-dollar ad campaigns and social media blitzes using alluring imagery.”

    The case survived a number of hurdles: The judge denied multiple motions to dismiss the suit and agreed to certify four different classes of plaintiffs (a nationwide class, a nationwide youth class, a California class and a California youth class).

    In January, the judge gave preliminary approval to a $255 million settlement between Juul Labs and the plaintiffs, according to Courthouse news. Friday’s ruling grants approval to Altria’s payment of $45,531,250. The sides have yet to reach an agreement on attorneys fees.

    “Court finds that this monetary recovery is fair, reasonable, and adequate given the risks of proceeding to trial and the maximum recovery potentially available to Settlement Class Members if the Class Representatives had prevailed at trial,” wrote U.S. District Judge William Orrick in his order.

    Last year, Juul agreed to pay six states $462 million to settle claims that it had marketed its vaping products to teenagers. The year before that, it agreed to pay $438.5 million to 33 different states and Puerto Rico.

    Altria Group exchanged its entire investment in Juul Labs in 2023 for a non-exclusive, irrevocable global license to certain of Juul’s heated tobacco intellectual property.

  • SCOTUS Rejects RJ Reynolds Flavor Ban Challenge

    SCOTUS Rejects RJ Reynolds Flavor Ban Challenge

    The Supreme Court of the United States has rejected R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company’s bid to challenge a voter-approved ban on flavored vaping and other tobacco products in California, the most populous state in the U.S.

    The justices rejected an appeal by R.J. Reynolds, a unit of British American Tobacco, and other plaintiffs of a lower court’s ruling holding that California’s law did not conflict with a federal statute regulating tobacco products.

    California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat who defended the law in court, in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, called the Supreme Court’s decision “excellent news.”

    “We look forward to continuing to fight to prevent addiction and protect the health of our people,” Bonta said, Reuters reports.

    R.J. Reynolds declined to comment.

    Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom in 2020 signed into law a ban on all flavored tobacco products – including menthol cigarettes and cotton candy-flavored vaping products – in response to concerns about a rise in e-cigarette and tobacco use by teenagers.

    The ban’s implementation was delayed after a tobacco industry coalition gathered enough signatures to put to voters a ballot measure that would block California from becoming the largest state to ban flavored tobacco product sales. But nearly two-thirds of voters casting ballots on the measure known as Proposition 31 approved the sales ban in November 2022.

    The law made California the second state to ban all flavored tobacco product sales after Massachusetts in 2019. Several other states have restricted flavored vaping products and several municipalities have adopted their own bans.

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2020 banned all flavors except tobacco and menthol in Juul and other cartridge-based e-cigarettes. In 2022, the FDA sought to ban sales of all Juul e-cigarettes, though it later put the order on hold.

    Beyond vaping, the FDA in April 2022 proposed banning menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars. Those rules have yet to be finalized and have been the subject of lobbying by tobacco groups.

    A day after the California vote, R.J. Reynolds along with a group representing tobacco retailers, the Neighborhood Market Association, and a vape shop, filed a lawsuit arguing the federal Tobacco Control Act, which the FDA enforces, preempts state and local laws that bar flavored tobacco product sales.

    But a federal judge ruled those arguments were foreclosed by an earlier decision by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding a similar ban in Los Angeles County.

    The 9th Circuit upheld the judge’s ruling on California’s law in June, after the U.S. Supreme Court earlier in 2023 declined to hear an appeal of the Los Angeles ruling.

    R.J. Reynolds had previously unsuccessfully asked the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent the California law from taking effect while it pursued its appeals. The justices rejected that request in December 2022.

  • California Files Lawsuit Against 2 Online Vape Shops

    California Files Lawsuit Against 2 Online Vape Shops

    Credit: Niro World

    California has filed lawsuits against two online retailers of vaping products.

    Attorney General Rob Bonta alleges that the California companies violated state and federal laws governing tobacco sales and the state’s Unfair Competition Law, in part by failing to properly verify the ages of consumers before selling them tobacco products and by selling tobacco products through remote sales transactions.

    The complaints against the company and its CEO (together, “Ejuicesteals”) as well as E-Juice Vapor, Inc. along with an affiliated entity and individuals (collectively, “E-Juice Vapor”) allege multiple violations of California tobacco sale laws, including failing to comply with age verification requirements and with various shipping and delivery requirements, according to JD Supra.

    The AG’s office requests injunctive and equitable relief, civil penalties, damages, and costs.

  • Flavored Vapes Still Available After California Ban

    Flavored Vapes Still Available After California Ban

    Image: Olga

    Californians, including minors, are still able to buy flavored vapes online a year after the state enacted a ban on such products, reports The Conversation, citing a study published in Jama Network Open.

    In effect since Dec. 21, 2022, California Senate Bill 793 prohibits the sale of most flavored tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, to people of all ages. Hookahs, premium cigars and loose-leaf tobacco are exempted from the legislation.

    Posing online as minors under the age of 21, researchers tried to buy flavored e-cigarette products from 26 websites that sold them in California. Before SB 793, they succeeded in 52 percent of attempts. After SB 793, the team’s success rate rose to almost 61 percent.

    The study did not explain why flavored e-cigarettes are still available from online retailers in California. “It may be that vendors are flouting the new law, are ignorant of it, or do not believe the new law applies to online sales,” speculated corresponding author John-Patrick Allem, associate professor of social and behavioral sciences at Rutgers University.

    Allem urged authorities to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of SB 793 compliance among brands and vendors that sell their products online in California to help determine the extent to which flavored e-cigarettes are still available.

    Another research team collected weekly Google search rates related to online shopping for cigarettes and vaping products in California from January 2018 to May 2023. They found that shopping queries were 194 percent higher than expected for cigarettes and 162 percent higher than expected for e-cigarettes—which according to the authors suggests consumers are searching on Google for vendors promoting banned products.

  • San Francisco Files Lawsuits Against 3 Vapor Makers

    San Francisco Files Lawsuits Against 3 Vapor Makers

    San Francisco City Hall (Credit: Alonso Reyes)

    A new lawsuit filed by San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu’s office accuses three online retailers, The Finest E-Liquid, the Vape Society and DaSmokey, of illegally selling flavored vape products in the city.

    According to a complaint filed at San Francisco Superior Court Tuesday, city investigators purchased products from the three sellers that included a container of “The Finest Vanilla Almond Custard e-liquid,” a disposable vape called “Flum Pebble 6000 Puff, Matcha flavor” and packages of “Apple Pearadise” and “Straw Melon Sour Belts” e-liquid, among others.

    Moreover, the city alleges that the companies violated a state regulation, codified in California’s Stop Tobacco Access to Kids Enforcement (STAKE) Act, that requires online sellers to call the purchaser before shipping tobacco products and use certain language on the package—both safeguards intended to prevent minors from buying the products online.

    “We are bringing our lawsuit to send a clear message to tobacco retailers that selling their products will not be tolerated in San Francisco,” Chiu said. “We’re bringing this lawsuit to protect the public, especially youth, from the health risks of tobacco products.”

    Sales of flavored tobacco products have been banned in San Francisco since 2018, when voters approved Proposition E, which prohibited the sale of such products in response to the rising popularity of youth vaping.

    In 2019, the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a ban on the sales of most electronic cigarettes in the city over the protests of Juul Labs, which was then headquartered in San Francisco and a major producer of vapes.

    That same year, Juul sponsored a ballot measure that would have reauthorized the sale of e-cigarettes—but it was overwhelmingly defeated.

    Now, Chiu’s office believes that the three online sellers are flouting bans and regulations of e-cigarette products by continuing to ship flavored vaping supplies to buyers in San Francisco.

    The alleged sales are happening despite broad restrictions on flavored vape products both locally and elsewhere, according to media reports. The websites gave no indication that the products could not be shipped to San Francisco and the products were shipped in short order to an address in the city, the complaint states.