Connect with us

Cannabis News

What to Expect in Cannabis Real Estate Deals

Published

on


Cannabis real estate transactions can be notoriously complicated – much more so than your average real estate deal. On January 9, 2024, I’ll be speaking on a panel called “Navigating Real Estate Issues Impacting the Cannabis Industry” for the Los Angeles County Bar Association, where my co-panelists and I plan on touching on many of the most precarious issues in these sorts of transactions. Today, I want to preview some of the key issues we see in these kinds of deals.

Location, location, location

The most important factor in any cannabis real estate transaction is location. Licensing authorities impose all sorts of requirements or restrictions on real estate locations, including:

  • Zoning laws are usually hyper restrictive for cannabis companies. Cannabis businesses may be relegated to very small areas within a city. Permissible zones often change depending on the type of use. For example, some cities may allow storefront retail facilities closer to residential areas, whereas you can virtually guaranty that volatile manufacturing will be stuck in industrial zones.
  • States and cities also impose all kinds of location-specific restrictions. Cannabis businesses, for example, may be prohibited within X feet of schools, parks, churches, libraries, etc. In places like California, cities often add restrictions on top of state-specific requirements.
  • States or cities may also impose limitations on the number of cannabis businesses that can be located in a specific area. Sometimes we see caps on licenses within a city (more on that later), whereas some cities will instead prohibit two different cannabis businesses from existing within a certain distance from each other.
  • In addition to location-specific issues, there may be a host of property-specific issues that could disqualify a potential property. A piece of real estate may be properly zoned and outside buffer zones, but may not comply with local parking requirements, setback requirements, electricity needs, and so on.

Each of the issues above can be automatic disqualifiers for a parcel of real estate. Things like buffer zone locations can be difficult to figure out and change over time. For example, a school might open up in an area before a cannabis business submits a license application, and it may lose out on its chance to do so. All of this is to say that performing diligence on a property and its location is absolutely critical prior to entering into a lease or committing to purchase a piece of real estate.

Buying v. leasing?

When a cannabis company finds a good piece of property in a good location, the next most important decision it needs to make is whether to buy it or lease it. There are some key exceptions here, like large farms or processing facilities in industrial or agricultural areas. But in general, most cannabis companies tend to lease. There are a lot of reasons why cannabis companies opt to lease real estate instead of buying. I discussed that in detail here. But generally speaking:

  • Cannabis companies are startups with limited funds that opt to lease, rather than buy.
  • Buying real estate is usually much more complicated than leasing it.
  • Businesses don’t want to commit to a multi-million dollar purchase before knowing they can secure a license and/or have any prospect of success.
  • Financing is a big challenge! That brings me to the next point.

Financing, escrow, and title

Securing financing has long been a challenge for cannabis companies. In fact, my last post analyzed key issues that cannabis companies can expect when trying to secure financing. Few startup cannabis companies are sufficiently capitalized to purchase real estate without financing, and because traditional financing is almost never available, buyers usually end up with much higher interest rates and more lender-friendly terms.

But buyers are not the only ones that have to deal with financing-related issues. If a cannabis company wants to lease a piece of property that is subject to a mortgage, it will probably not happen. Big banks do not usually bank cannabis money, and usually will have the ability to default their borrower (the landlord) for leasing to a cannabis company. I’ve seen a lot of potential real estate leases fail for this reason alone.

Another difficulty here is getting escrow companies or title insurance companies to work on cannabis real estate transactions. Like bigger banks, many of them simply won’t do touch cannabis transaction. This is especially so in jurisdictions when they commence licensing.

Addressing licensing uncertainty in cannabis real estate deals

There is no way a cannabis company can guarantee that it will secure a license. Even in non-competitive jurisdictions, there are a host of potential property- or location-specific issues that could bar a license application. The chance of losing out is much, much higher in a city with 3 licenses up for grabs and 30 different applicants. I recently wrote about some key issues for competitive licensing jurisdictions and real estate leases here.

Of course, there are ways to hedge against these kinds of uncertainty. Here are a few I’ve seen:

  • Non-binding letters of intent or term sheets may be acceptable to some cities, but they obviously come with the risk that the lessor could walk away or change key terms if the agreement is not binding.
  • Options to lease or purchase upon securing a license, as opposed to full-scale leases or purchase agreements, can be a good way to tie up a piece of property while waiting for a license to issue.
  • Leases with termination rights if a license is not secured are yet another way to hedge against denial of an application.

It’s key to point out that licensing authorities may have strict requirements on what a tenant needs to show in order to apply. Some cities will not allow a document unless it is binding (i.e., an option or a full-fledged lease). This is yet another reason why early diligence is so key.

Other issues for cannabis real estate transactions

Some other key issues that I’ve seen come up more than once include the following:

  • I have never seen a cannabis applicant that did not construct at least some tenant improvements to their facility in order to get licensed. Tenant improvements can lead to increases in real property taxes. It’s best practice to address who is responsible for those improvements in a lease.
  • Going off the last point, I’ve seen quite a few cannabis tenants turn a dilapidated building in an industrial area into a highly productive, state-of-the-art facility. As you can imagine, this costs a lot of money. Savvy tenants may try to negotiate some kind of tenant improvement allowance from the landlord. Or they may use their improvements to justify lower rent or a longer lease term.
  • Form commercial real estate leases universally require tenants to comply with all laws. It’s good practice to carve out federal cannabis laws. Not only will this avoid a default trap, but it will also prevent a landlord from trying to later terminate a lease with the claim that they were unaware that cannabis was federally illegal (yes, I’ve seen things like that happen).
  • Renewal options are key! Cannabis leases tend to hover around five year initial terms. In states like California where licenses are effectively tied to a single piece of real estate forever, landlords have immense power to walk away from the lease at the end of the lease term unless a tenant has renewal options (and timely exercises them). This obviously would be devastating for an applicant who couldn’t move its license elsewhere.
  • Purchase options are also important. Cannabis lease rent tends to be much higher than market rent for similar non-cannabis uses. And it almost always increases year over year. Businesses with multi-year lease terms may want a purchase option so that they can determine whether it makes more sense to buy the property outright (if doing very well) as opposed to paying X times market rate each month.

I could keep going here for a long time. The point is that real estate deals in the cannabis space are difficult and are riddled with potential pitfalls. Using a form lease from a normal commercial transaction is almost always a bad idea, and failing to properly diligence real estate can lead to repercussions.



Source link

Cannabis News

US Court Rules Delta-8 THC Derived from Hemp is 100% Legal, Slamming the DEA in Embarrassing Court Case

Published

on

By


supreme cour ruling on delta-8 thc from hemp

In a groundbreaking decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that Delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol (Delta-8 THC) derived from legal hemp sources is not classified as a controlled substance under federal law, directly contradicting the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) position that all synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols, including Delta-8 THC, fall under Schedule I controlled substances. This landmark ruling emerged from a case brought forward by several key players in the hemp industry who challenged the DEA’s interpretation of the 2018 Farm Bill, which legalized hemp and its derivatives. The court’s decision not only rejects the DEA’s restrictive stance but also provides much-needed clarity regarding the legal status of Delta-8 THC, allowing for its continued production and sale from legally sourced hemp. This ruling is significant as it has the potential to reshape the regulatory landscape for cannabinoids, encouraging further exploration and commercialization of hemp-derived products while also highlighting the ongoing tensions between federal regulations and the rapidly evolving hemp industry.

 

 Delta-8 THC: A Naturally Occurring Cannabinoid

Delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol (Delta-8 THC) is a naturally occurring cannabinoid found in trace amounts in hemp and cannabis plants that shares a similar molecular structure to Delta-9 THC, the primary psychoactive compound in marijuana, but is known to produce significantly milder intoxicating effects; the 2018 Farm Bill’s legalization of hemp and its derivatives containing no more than 0.3% Delta-9 THC on a dry weight basis created a legal gray area for Delta-8 THC, which has proliferated in the form of various products derived from legal hemp sources and sold in a largely unregulated market, as they are not explicitly classified as controlled substances by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) despite the agency’s stance that all synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols should be treated as Schedule I drugs regardless of their origin or potency, a position that has been challenged by hemp industry players arguing that Delta-8 THC from legal hemp should be exempt from the same restrictions as Delta-9 THC.

 

 The DEA’s Stance and Industry Challenges

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has taken a firm stance that all synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols, including Delta-8 THC, are classified as Schedule I controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), regardless of their source or concentration. This position has faced considerable resistance from various stakeholders within the hemp industry, who argue that Delta-8 THC derived from legal hemp should not be subjected to the same stringent restrictions as Delta-9 THC, the primary psychoactive compound in marijuana. Proponents contend that the 2018 Farm Bill, which legalized hemp and its derivatives, should extend to include Delta-8 THC, allowing it to be treated as a legal product when sourced from hemp that contains less than 0.3% Delta-9 THC. They emphasize that while Delta-8 THC may occur naturally in small amounts in hemp, the majority of Delta-8 products on the market are produced through a chemical conversion process from CBD, which the DEA argues renders them synthetic and thus illegal. This conflict has led to ongoing legal challenges, with some courts ruling in favor of the hemp industry, asserting that Delta-8 THC should not be classified as a controlled substance when derived from legal hemp. As the debate continues, the tension between the DEA’s regulatory framework and the evolving hemp market raises critical questions about the future of cannabinoid regulation in the United States.

 

 The Court’s Ruling and Its Implications

 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Delta-8 THC derived from legal hemp sources is not controlled substance.

  • The court found the DEA’s interpretation of the law was “arbitrary and capricious” and lacked a reasoned explanation.

  • This ruling effectively removes Delta-8 THC from the DEA’s list of controlled substances, provided it is derived from hemp containing less than 0.3% Delta-9 THC.

  • The decision provides legal protection for businesses and consumers involved in Delta-8 THC products derived from legal hemp sources.

 

 

Opportunities for the Hemp and Cannabis Industries

The recent court ruling represents a significant victory for the hemp and cannabis industries, paving the way for new possibilities in product development and research.

  • Therapeutic Potential: Delta-8 THC has been recognized for its potential therapeutic benefits, which could attract more consumers seeking alternative treatments.

  • Increased Investment: The legalization of Delta-8 THC may lead to heightened investment and innovation within the sector, encouraging the development of new products and formulations.

  • Regulatory Concerns: Despite the positive implications, the ruling also raises important concerns regarding the regulation and quality control of Delta-8 THC products, necessitating careful oversight.

  • Need for Standards: As the market for Delta-8 THC expands, there will be a pressing need for clear guidelines and standards to ensure consumer safety and product consistency, helping to build trust in these emerging products.

Broader Implications for Cannabis Legalization

The court’s ruling underscores the ongoing conflict between federal and state laws concerning the regulation of cannabis and its derivatives.

  • Increasing State Legalization: As more states advance toward the legalization of both recreational and medical marijuana, the pressure on the federal government to revise its policies and align them with shifting public opinion is likely to intensify.

  • Step Forward for Delta-8 THC: The ruling regarding Delta-8 THC may be viewed as a positive development in the broader context of cannabis legalization, yet significant challenges remain.

  • Path to Comprehensive Legalization: There is still a considerable distance to cover before achieving comprehensive federal legalization of cannabis, highlighting the complexities of navigating cannabis policy in the United States.

 

Conclusion

 

The court’s ruling underscores the ongoing conflict between federal and state laws concerning the regulation of cannabis and its derivatives. As more states advance toward the legalization of both recreational and medical marijuana, the pressure on the federal government to revise its policies and align them with shifting public opinion is likely to intensify. The ruling regarding Delta-8 THC may be viewed as a positive development in the broader context of cannabis legalization; however, significant challenges remain, and there is still a considerable distance to cover before achieving comprehensive federal legalization of cannabis, highlighting the complexities of navigating cannabis policy in the United States.

 

DELTA-8 THC IS LEGAL, READ MORE…

DELTA-8 NOW LEGAL

COURT PANEL RULES DELTA-8 THC IS LEGAL UNDER THE FARM BILL!



Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

What Is It, Why You Should Care, and How Cannabis Helps

Published

on

By


metabolic syndrome

Metabolic syndrome is an umbrella term referring to several conditions that negatively impact how the body metabolizes carbohydrates, fats, and proteins.


It occurs when there are unusual, abnormal chemical processes in the body which affect otherwise healthy metabolic functions. The primary symptoms of metabolic syndrome include abdominal fat, high blood pressure, high blood sugar, high triglycerides, and low levels of LDL (good) cholesterol. These conditions all greatly increase the risk of stroke, coronary heart disease, diabetes, and other severe health issues that are difficult or near impossible to reverse.

 

The most telling symptom, though, is a large waist circumference – and you don’t need to take any kind of medical test to tell you this because it’s completely visible.


That’s why prevention is key when it comes to metabolic syndrome. However, the choices you make on a daily basis in your lifestyle can determine your risk for metabolic syndrome of not. We know that an unhealthy diet that is high in sugar, salt, and processed food can contribute to the symptoms of metabolic syndrome. A sedentary lifestyle, obesity, poor sleep hygiene, and exposure to chronic stress can also make the risk much worse. Smoking tobacco and alcohol are even worse – don’t even think about it.


But cannabis? That can actually help!

What Studies Say

 

A recent study that was published in the American Journal of Open Medicine found that young adults with a habit of consuming cannabis had a significantly lower prevalence of metabolic syndrome. For the study, investigators from the University of Miami analyzed a cohort of almost 4,000 individuals whose ages ranged from 18 to 25. They specifically zoned in on the young adults’ cannabis use.

 

They found that current cannabis users were 42% less likely to have metabolic syndrome. They also found that Non-Hispanic Blacks, who were consuming more weed than the other subjects, were found to be the least likely of all to have metabolic syndrome. “Current cannabis users had a lower prevalence of MetS, predominantly noted among NHB (non-Hispanic Blacks], the group with the highest prevalence of current cannabis use,” said the study’s authors. “Future prospective studies are warranted to examine the role of specific cannabinoids on MetS by race/ethnicity,” they said.

 

A Smaller Waist Circumference: Why You Should Pay Attention, And How Weed Can Help

 

Having a large waist circumference or a visibly fatty belly has been associated with numerous health conditions. Of course, this includes a heightened risk of metabolic disease. It also increases the risk of inflammation, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease incidence, and cancer among others.

That is why it’s critical to pay attention to the size of your stomach. A smaller waist means you have a smaller amount of visceral fat, which is necessary for better health and an improved quality of life.

There are many steps you can take to reduce your visceral fat. These include:

 

  • Sticking to a low carbohydrate and low sugar diet

  • Having a diet high in good protein sources

  • Reduce consumption of trans fat and saturated fats

  • Engage in strength training and cardiovascular exercises

  • Manage stress effectively

 

Last but not the least: did you know that consuming cannabis has been shown to be associated with smaller waistlines and a reduced risk for obesity?

In 2020, a study out of Quebec in Canada revealed that cannabis consumption was linked to a smaller waist and reduced triglyceride levels. For this study, the investigator in Canada analyzed subjects who either never consumed marijuana in the past, used it sometime in the past but had no recent use, had some infrequent use, or consume it infrequently. They specifically measured the participants’ waist circumference and triglycerides.

 

They found out that the subjects who consumed certain marijuana strains for metabolic syndrome for at least 4 days per week were found to have smaller waistlines as well as less triglycerides compared to the other participants in the study.

 

Another study from 2015, also out of Quebec, was conducted by researchers from the Conference of Quebec University Health Centers. They analyzed cannabis consumption patterns of 786 Arctic aboriginal adults, the Inuits. The investigators also analyzed their body mass index to search for any links between cannabis use and BMI.

They found that study participants who consumed marijuana within the last year were more likely to have a lower body mass index, as well as reduced fasting insulin and better insulin resistance (using the HOMA-IR indicator) compared to those who did not.

“In this large cross-sectional adult survey with high prevalence of both substance use and obesity, cannabis use in the past year was associated with lower BMI, lower percentage fat mass, lower fasting insulin, and HOMA-IR,” said the researchers. In other words, they observed a relationship between cannabis use and BMI that led them to conclude that cannabis and cannabinoid use can help consumers reduce the likelihood of obesity and diabetes.

 

Meanwhile, an older study from 2013 also had similar results. Research data from The American Journal of Medicine taken from more than 4,600 patients yielded interesting findings. Almost 45% of patients never consumed marijuana in their lives, while 43% of them smoked in the past though no longer do currently. And 12% of them were regular cannabis users.

Researchers discovered that cannabis users who consumed marijuana within the past month had 16% less fasting insulin levels compared to those who never consumed weed. In addition, they even add reduced HOMA-IR levels and higher high-density lipoprotein. Furthermore, the investigators found that regular cannabis users who usually consume more calories, they also had lower BMI’s.

 

Conclusion

 

Staying fit and healthy is much more than vanity: science and medical research makes it clear that there is a strong link between obesity and body mass index, to overall health and wellness. Metabolic syndrome further emphasizes the importance of keeping one’s BMI normal, and based on these studies, that’s something cannabis can help with. Integrating responsible cannabis use into your lifestyle is one tool out of many that can help you stay healthy and reduce the risks of developing metabolic syndrome.

 

MORE ON METABOLIC SYNDROME AND WEED, READ ON…

MARIJAUNA HELPS WITH METABOLIC SYNDROME

WHY CANNABIS HELPS METABOLIC SYNDROME NUMBERS!



Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

More Bad News for Intoxicating Hemp (California, Missouri, New Jersey)

Published

on

By


Last week, I wrote a post entitled “Loper Comes For the DEA. Will it Matter Though?” In that post, I discussed a brand new federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals case that concluded that hemp derivatives like THC-O are not controlled substances. The hemp community has largely celebrated this as a win, even though as I wrote in that post and back in July, none of this really matters if Congress bans intoxicating hemp products – which looks like it will happen.

On the heels of the Fourth Circuit case, a few things happened that don’t make life easier for people who want intoxicating hemp products.

Probably the most significant of the bad news, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) issued emergency regulations to ban a series of intoxicating hemp products. A lot has been written about these regulations, but it’s worth pointing out that California’s hemp law (AB-45) was already not very favorable to smokable hemp products.

For example, AB-45 already prohibits smokable hemp products. And more notably, it defines THC to include THCA and “any tetrahydrocannabinol, including, but not limited to, Delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol, Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, and Delta-10-tetrahydrocannabinol, however derived”. In other words, all of the various things that are defined as THC – and there are many – must already not exceed 0.3% in the aggregate. This means that a host of products were already de facto banned in the state.

While, to be sure, the new emergency regulations take things farther, I think it would be inaccurate to describe this as a “sea change” in how hemp products are regulated in the state. What remains to be seen is whether CDPH or other agencies ramp up enforcement in any meaningful way. It’s California, so my guess is no.

California’s not the only state taking aim at intoxicating hemp products. Just the other day, Missouri’s Attorney General created a new task force to crack down on intoxicating hemp products. New Jersey’s Governor also signed a bill cracking down on intoxicating hemp products.

All this just adds to the long list of states and municipalities that had been going after unregulated intoxicating hemp products prior to the Fourth Circuit’s decision – often for violations of state or local law which are unlikely to be impacted by the federal case. And of course, if Congress gets around to banning intoxicating hemp products, that will likely be the last straw for many of these products.



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2021 The Art of MaryJane Media