The enactment of AB133 is intended to optimize the cannabis regulatory framework in California, making it more efficient for businesses to operate and comply with state laws. By allowing flexibility in the manner in which taxes are displayed and modifying the conditions under which delivery requests must be retained, the intent is to reduce administrative burdens on businesses. This bill affirms the state's commitment to regulating cannabis responsibly while also enabling the continued growth of the legal cannabis market.
Assembly Bill 133 (AB133) is legislation that amends various sections of the Business and Professions Code, the Revenue and Taxation Code, and other statutes related to the regulation of cannabis in California. It seeks to streamline the regulation of adult-use cannabis activities following the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act of 2016 (AUMA) and the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA). The bill includes provisions for the display of cannabis excise taxes on invoices, the responsibilities of licensees for transporting cannabis, and alterations to the penalties applicable for late tax payments among other modifications to existing cannabis law.
The sentiment surrounding AB133 appears to be largely supportive among legislators and stakeholders in the cannabis industry, as it facilitates compliance while protecting public health standards. However, there are concerns among some advocates regarding the potential implications of the relaxed regulations on enforcement and consumer protection. Critics argue that modifications to tax visibility and the penalties may undermine the integrity of the cannabis taxation system.
Notably, one point of contention arises from the decision to remove specific requirements regarding the display of cannabis taxes on invoices, which could lead to confusion among consumers about the true cost of cannabis products. Additionally, by allowing for the removal of cultivation tax requirements based on 'reasonable cause', there is a concern that this may incentivize non-compliance among certain operators, thereby complicating the enforcement landscape for cannabis regulations.