The bill not only tightens ad regulations but also imposes more severe penalties for those profiting from illicit cannabis activities. If a person managing a property is found to be knowingly renting it for the purpose of unlawful cannabis activities and earns 'excessive profits', they may face imprisonment ranging from 2 to 4 years. This aligns with the state's intention to regulate the cannabis market under the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA). Furthermore, it emphasizes the financial repercussions for non-compliance, where seized profits will fund cannabis control initiatives at the municipal level.
AB2866 is a legislative amendment aimed at enhancing the regulation of cannabis in California. It seeks to enforce stricter compliance for advertisements and marketing related to cannabis by mandating that businesses accurately display their license number. A violation of this requirement can lead to civil penalties of up to $10,000 per incident, promoting adherence to state laws on cannabis advertisement. Additionally, businesses that violate these regulations are given a grace period of 48 hours to correct their first offense before penalties are applied.
The sentiment surrounding AB2866 appears to be generally supportive from regulatory bodies and municipalities that seek to establish clear standards for cannabis businesses. Proponents of the bill argue that it safeguards consumers by ensuring transparency in advertising and holds cannabis businesses accountable for their actions. However, there is concern from some business owners regarding the potential burden of civil penalties and changes to existing operational practices, which may create apprehension about the financial viability of their enterprises.
While the intention is to improve regulation, there are points of contention regarding the definitions of 'excessive profits' and how penalties will be enforced. Critics express worries that the bill could disproportionately affect small cannabis businesses unable to absorb the high fines, thereby limiting their competitiveness against larger, well-funded operators. Overall, the balance between necessary regulation and the economic implications for small businesses is a significant aspect of the ongoing debate surrounding this legislation.