Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed off on a law allowing cannabis dispensaries to serve food and drink.
But implementing Assembly Bill 1775, introduced by Assemblyman Matt Haney, D-San Francisco, will require the approval of local jurisdictions.
If local entities allow for the retail services, dispensaries will be able to set up their operations as social spaces and places to “foster engagement,” much the same way people “gather at bars, breweries or cafes,” noted Angelica Sanchez. She is senior director of government affairs and compliance for Perfect Union, which operates a dispensary in Napa.
Sacramento-based Perfect Union plans to set up its flagship store with a cannabis cafe. “We’re hopeful and excited to offer food and beverage services in Sacramento,” Sanchez said.
“One shortcoming of the bill is that it only applies to cannabis businesses with on-site consumption areas. It doesn’t extend the ability to sell food and beverages to all licensed retailers,” Sanchez said. “Expanding this provision could have further helped businesses diversify and integrate cannabis more seamlessly into the mainstream market.”
The cannabis retail chain’s location in Napa does not lend itself to the added services, unless the retailer expands to a nearby suite.
A second bill, Assembly Bill 1111, was vetoed by the governor. Authored by Assemblywoman Gail Pellerin, D-Santa Cruz, it would have allowed cannabis farmers to get a license allowing them to sell their products at licensed cannabis events.
“Farmers pour their hearts into cultivating these plants, and they should have the chance to connect with their customers directly,” Sanchez added.
The Origins Council expressed “profound disappointment” Oct. 1 about the governor’s veto.
“This was a huge blow,” said Genine Coleman, executive director and founder.
Wholesale prices for cannabis are below the cost of production and some cultivators have surrendered their licenses.
Coleman, of Penngrove, said the organization that represents legacy growers supported a version that many could have capitalized on. She estimated that only 10% of licensed cultivators would qualify under the legislative framework the state had intended.
“We tried our very best to meet their concerns,” she said.
The governor balked at the “bill’s broad eligibility” for what “would undermine the existing retail licensing framework and place a significant strain on the Department of Cannabis Control’s ability to regulate and enforce compliance,” Newsom’s letter to the Assembly stated.
“AB 1111 was a mixed bag,” said Sam Rodriguez, policy director for Good Farmers, Great Neighbors.
Rodriguez shared optimism the governor didn’t “close the door completely” on the idea of growers selling direct to consumers.
“He wanted to make sure it stayed within the regulatory framework. That’s my impression,” he said.
