California’s attorney general argued in a recent court filing that none of the state’s cannabis businesses operating on provisional licenses are entitled to due process under state law.
The due-process situation arose when Hayward-based Harrens Lab filed suit against the California Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC) after the agency revoked the lab’s business that is provisional final month.
The lab argued it had been eligible for an appeals hearing to dispute the fees that resulted in the revocation.
In a reply compared to that suit, Ca Attorney General Xavier Becerra argued with respect to the BCC that none for the businesses operating on provisional licenses have actually any right to process that is due those same permits were designed to be temporary while businesses awaited a decision about their annual license applications.
The provisional licenses stem from a stopgap program, established in 2018, that was designed to give California marijuana businesses and regulators more time to streamline the licensing process while keeping the industry functioning.
Roughly 83% of the legal California market – 8,280 of the 9,950 business that is total – are nevertheless running on provisional licenses, based on information from state regulators. Hawaii has thus far granted just 1,670 licenses that are annual
In his filing, Becerra wrote that Harrens Lab claims “that their right to a hearing prior to revocation of their provisional cannabis license finds support under the process that is due for the Ca Constitution.
“They are mistaken.”
Rather, Becerra noted, provisional licenses vanish as soon as any dedication – whether approval or rejection – is created in regards to the fate for the license that is annual, which means any provisional licensee is not entitled to the same rights as a business with a full annual permit.
“It is not reasonable to expect that a provisional license confers any permanent entitlement,” Becerra wrote.
“Any subjective unilateral belief Petitioners had about the nature of their rights under a provisional license is not supported in statute and ”( that is unreasonable*)– John Schroyer