Clearlake City Council to continue consideration of cannabis project appeal – Lake County News

LAKE COUNTY, Calif. — The Clearlake City Council this week will continue a hearing on the appeal of a cannabis operation approved by the Clearlake Planning Commission in November.

The council will meet in closed session at 5 p.m. to hold negotiations for property at 6820, 6828 and 6885 Old Highway 53 between the city, Sutter Equities and Margetich Development Inc. before the council convenes in open session at 6 p.m. Thursday, Jan. 20, in the council chambers at Clearlake City Hall, 14050 Olympic Drive.

The meeting will be broadcast live on the city’s YouTube channel or the Lake County PEGTV YouTube Channel. Community members also can participate via Zoom or can attend in person.

The agenda can be found here.

Comments and questions can be submitted in writing for City Council consideration by sending them to City Clerk Melissa Swanson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

To give the council adequate time to review your questions and comments, please submit your written comments before 4 p.m. Thursday, Jan. 20.

Each public comment emailed to the city clerk will be read aloud by the mayor or a member of staff for up to three minutes or will be displayed on a screen. Public comment emails and town hall public comment submissions that are received after the beginning of the meeting will not be included in the record.

The meeting will feature an appearance by one of January’s adoptable dogs.

On the agenda is a public hearing, continued from Jan. 6, on the Clearlake Planning Commission’s approval of conditional use permit applications and approval of the corresponding mitigated negative declaration for commercial cannabis operations located at 2185 Ogulin Canyon Road (Ogulin Hills, LLC).

The project proposes a 15-acre outdoor cannabis grow.

The council held a lengthy hearing on the matter on Jan. 6. Staff is recommending denial of the appeal, filed by Dave Hughes.

Following that hearing, the council will consider Ordinance No. 258-2022, approving a development agreement for Ogulin Canyon Holdings LLC to allow a cannabis operation at 2185 Ogulin Canyon Road.

Under council business, council members will review and approve the submittal of the fiscal year 2022-23 recognized obligation payment schedule for the period of July 1, 2022.

Submission of six-month recognized obligation payment schedules for approval to the State Department of Finance is required under AB 1484 as part of the dissolution of redevelopment agencies and state control over the release of former property tax increment funds by the county to the successor agency, according to Finance Director Kelcey Young’s report to the council.

On the meeting’s consent agenda — items that are not considered controversial and are usually adopted on a single vote — are warrants; authorization of an amendment of agreement with ECORP Consulting Inc. for extended environmental/archaeological services for the Dam Road Roundabout Project in the amount of $17,000; continuation of authorization to implement and utilize teleconference accessibility to conduct public meetings pursuant to Assembly Bill 361; continuation of declaration of local emergency issued on Aug. 18, 2021, and ratified by council action on Aug. 19, 2021; continuation of declaration of local emergency issued on Aug. 23, 2021, and ratified by council action on Sept. 16, 2021; continuation of declaration of local emergency issued on March 14, 2020, and ratified by council action on March 19, 2020; award of contract for design services for the ATP Dam Road/South Center Improvement Project; amendment of construction contract for additional work for the 2021 Measure V Improvement Project in an amount of up to $180,000; and approval of the continuation of planning services agreement with Price Consulting Services (Gary Price) to extend the contract through Dec. 31, 2023, and increase the contract by an amount not to exceed $70,000.

Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.

OP-ED | Why Cannabis Workers Are Choosing the UFCW – CT News Junkie

Mark A. Espinosa
MARK A. ESPINOSA

When people think of union careers, they think factories, meat packing plants, and grocery stores. They think of the electrical workers, iron workers, and their path from an apprenticeship to a lifelong career. Now, there is a new wave of workers in the United States paving the way in a new industry, with its own pathway from apprenticeship program to career: cannabis.

For more than a decade, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW) has been proud to help lead the development and stabilization of the emerging cannabis industry through our innovative Cannabis Workers Rising campaign. A wave of new workers excited to have union representation and a voice in the workplace has swept the nation in states like California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. We are America’s Cannabis Union.

We have worked on legislation in several states, including Connecticut, to ensure that these workers in this new industry have a fair chance to join a union without interference from their employer through negotiated labor peace agreements.

A labor peace agreement is an arrangement between an employer and a union in which one or both sides agree to waive certain rights with regard to union organizing and related activity. The essential purposed these agreements is to compel employers to grant organizing concessions. In exchange, workers promise not to strike, picket or otherwise disrupt business operations. Typical employer concessions can include allowing union organizers into the workplace, refraining from expressing negative opinions about a union and intervening in an organizing campaign, and recognizing a union based on signed cards rather than by the results of a secret ballot election.

Most importantly, labor peace agreements restore the balance of power between workers and employers. They give workers a voice in the workplace and a choice to join a union — and we know that when given the opportunity in a neutral environment, workers are far more likely to opt into union membership.

Union contracts give workers the ability to negotiate better wages, affordable healthcare, and a secure retirement, resulting in well-paid, safe, family-sustaining jobs for Connecticut. The UFCW also has a free college program for union members and their dependents, which creates the opportunity for members to advance in their field or continue a career elsewhere. A union contract comes with job protection and sense of security. They level the playing field and provide equal opportunities for women, people of color, members of the LGBTQ+ community, veterans, people with disabilities and other marginalized communities.

The newly created Social Equity Council, formed after Senate Bill 1201 passed in June, was developed to guarantee that the adult-use cannabis program is grown equitably, and ensures that funds from the adult-use cannabis program are brought back to the communities hit hardest by the “war on drugs.” The Social Equity Council has defined workforce development standards that focus on wage growth, job promotion, and advancement for workers in the industry, all of which come from a unionized workforce. We are excited and hopeful for the future of the cannabis industry in Connecticut and look forward to the skilled jobs created thanks to this new legislation.

The UFCW now represents tens of thousands of cannabis workers across the United States in dispensaries, labs, delivery, kitchens, manufacturing, processing, grow facilities and more — helping workers secure better wages, protection from unfair discipline, and great benefits safeguarded under a union contract.

Our nationwide Joint Apprenticeship Training Program (JATC) is the only one of its kind. It partners with UFCW local unions and employers across the United States and Canada. The UFCW’s JATC cannabis apprenticeship programs, from seed to sale, will train cannabis workers and set the standards nationally for the industry. These programs will also help to ensure that cannabis jobs mean living wage jobs, pathways to advancement, and equity, especially for marginalized communities.

A message to cannabis workers in Connecticut- the time is now. Come together for a voice in the workplace. Stand up for yourself, your coworkers, and your future. Cannabis jobs can become careers. You hold the power to join your coworkers across the country who are coming together to make their jobs better. Together with the UFCW and our 1.3 million members nationwide, you too will have the training, tools, voice, and dignity on the job that you deserve.

Shift Happens: Will an old cannabis conviction spell trouble for your cross-border business? – BCBusiness

cross-border business

Credit: iStock

Moving one of your people stateside? Their past or present relationship with cannabis could see those plans go to pot

Congratulations! You’ve just hired a phenomenal VP to grow your business into the U.S. market. But on their first time crossing the border, they’re refused entry—decades back, when still in their teens, they were convicted of cannabis possession. The VP has no criminal record now (you checked), and the crime no longer exists in Canada. What are your options?

Even without a pot possession skeleton rattling in their closet, your VP could be in trouble. Say they simply answer honestly—as they must—if asked by U.S. Customs and Immigration if they’ve ever danced with Mary Jane. I mean, why not come clean? It’s legal now, right? Plus, they’re heading to California, which legalized recreational cannabis in 2016. (I mean, Seth Rogen lives there.)

So all good? Um, no. While laws vary from state to state, cannabis also falls under U.S. federal jurisdiction. It’s still illegal, and it’s likely the VP will be refused entry.

If that happens, you’ll both have a problem. Your VP has an employment contract, and they’ve done nothing wrong. So if no Canadian laws have been broken by your new hire, what can you, as an employer, do?

In this case, termination with cause won’t fly. But that doesn’t mean the employer-employee relationship has to continue, says Vancouver-based lawyer Carman Overholt, who also teaches employment law at UBC Sauder School of Business. “If the job duties really require someone to be able to travel to the U.S.,” he says, “and your conviction precludes you from travelling there, then you’re not able to perform your duties, and we consider the contract to be at an end.”

READ MORE: Shift Happens: Making employees get their COVID shot is a prickly proposition

In legal terms, the employment contract would be considered “frustrated.” Huh? “‘Frustration’ really means the parties are not able to perform the bargain that they entered into,” Overholt explains. But when invoking frustration, an inability to do the gig isn’t the gist. “The legal test is that frustration of contract applies where something unforeseen occurs that renders it radically different from what the parties bargained,” Overholt notes. “The threshold for establishing frustration is quite high.”

This scenario opens an ethical and legal can of worms. Aside from pot, there are other reasons why people can be denied entry to the U.S. From holding unacceptable political views to simply being born in the wrong part of the world, certain grounds for inadmissibility to the U.S. would be considered flagrant human rights violations if they presented a bar to employment or housing in Canada.

For example, during the Trump administration, citizens from several Muslim-majority countries were prevented from entering America. If our fictional VP had recently immigrated from Syria, and had been singled out for discriminatory treatment at the border solely because of national origin—a clear violation of Canadian and B.C. human rights codes—would the employer still be able to use “frustration” as a defence?

“It’s a very interesting question,” says Overholt, who concedes that the issue is complex. However, regardless of Canadian law, the fact that, for unanticipated reasons, the employee can’t fulfil the contract remains salient. “The reason why they cannot is really beside the point,” he adds. So the Canadian-made contract could be considered frustrated—even if discrimination based on similar criteria would be a human rights code violation here.

For the scenario at hand, though, there’s a rather dispiriting takeaway. With the sincerest of apologies to Woody Guthrie, when it comes to crossing into the U.S., their land is their land.

Fictional scenario. Not intended as legal advice.

Behind the green curtain: Cannabis committee decisions under appeal – The Union

 

Now that the work of Grass Valley’s Commercial Cannabis Selection Committee is largely completed, there’s doubt whether the entity will continue its existence.

The committee, established July 13, determined which applicants received commercial cannabis permits to operate a cannabis business in the city. The committee was comprised of three people — Jonathan Collier, Marty Lombardi and Lisa Swarthout. It initially included a fourth, Amy Wolfson, who later asked to be removed from consideration.

City Manager Tim Kiser recommended their appointment, and the Grass Valley City Council approved, City Attorney Michale Coulantuono said.



“I can’t comment further, given that administrative appeals are pending and litigation is possible,” he said.

One of those appealing the committee’s decision is Max Del Real, director of government relations for NUG Inc., which on Nov. 22 was denied a permit to open a retail storefront cannabis dispensary. Del Real said he’s going forward with the appeal.



“I’m pushing this really hard,” he said. “I’m looking for a win/win solution — permit two retail cannabis (locations).”

Grass Valley is allowing only one dispensary.

The other applicant with an appeal is Sierra Flower, run by Alana Haley. Her business negotiated a lease agreement to occupy a part of the former Foothills Event Center last summer with an eye on opening a retail store front dispensary. Although turned down for a dispensary, Sierra Flower did obtain a distribution permit.

APPEALS

Although the city’s cannabis panel was called a committee, it was not truly a committee, Colantuono said.

”It never met,” he said. “The three reviewers did their work independently, and city staff tallied their scores.”

NUG and Sierra Flower’s appeals are similar to those made when someone appeals a Planning Commission decision to the City Council, Colantuono said.

“Yes, there’’s the two appeals by Sierra Flower and NUG, but the 15-day limit for appeals has run, so we don’t expect more from the decision to select Provisions as the qualified application for the one dispensary license.”

Retired Nevada County Superior Court Judge Albert Dover will hear the appeals and recommend a decision to the City Council. The council can adopt Dover’s recommendation, amend it, or send the appeals back to Dover for more work, Colantuono said.

“The council adopted rules to govern the appeals,” he added. “When the council makes a final decision, if the appellants remain unhappy, they can sue the city.”

Litigation over the award of limited cannabis dispensaries is common, said Colantuono.

“So, the city is trying to proceed carefully and trying to respect the rights of everyone.”

Colantuono said the group wasn’t subject to the Brown Act, the state law that requires certain governmental bodies to do their work openly.

“Because they are not really a ‘committee’ in the sense that they did not have meetings or dialogue,” he said. “They were three independent reviewers.”

William Roller is a staff writer with The Union. He can be reached at wroller@theunion.com

Online panel to discuss cannabis – Medford News, Weather, Sports, Breaking News – Mail Tribune

Panelists will talk about cannabis and the community during an online forum Wednesday evening. File photo

A group of community members, including the Jackson County sheriff and the owner of a legal marijuana business, will take part in an online panel discussion about cannabis.

The panel discussion will be from 6-7 p.m. Wednesday, following by a question-and-answer period from 7-7:15 p.m. The talk will be held online via the Zoom videoconference service.

To watch, visit zoom.us/j/94953136930?pwd=R2ZiM04weHJ1dmJkVXlGSGlhZVp4QT09. The event passcode is Grownrogue.

The panelists will be Grown Rogue marijuana business Chief Executive Officer Obie Strickler, Jackson County Sheriff Nathan Sickler, Oregon Water Resources Field Services Division Deputy Administrator Jake Johnstone, Jackson County Development Services Director Ted Zuk, Michael Odenthal from the Oregon Department of Agriculture and Jackson County Commissioner Dave Dotterrer.

Cannabis and Psychosis: New Research – Psychology Today

A recent issue of the American Journal of Psychiatry (January 1, 2022) contained new research data and an incisive editorial that advances our understanding of whether cannabis can cause, or is merely associated with, psychosis.

The association of cannabis with psychosis was first noted by the Scottish psychiatrist Thomas Clouston after visiting the Cairo asylum in 1896, where 40 out of the 253 patients had insanity attributed to hashish. Studies since then have conclusively documented cannabis’s association with schizophrenia-like psychosis.

For example, in 1987, 45,750 Swedish army conscripts were asked about their drug use. Those who had used cannabis more than 50 times were six times more likely to develop schizophrenia over the next 15 years than those who had never used it. (1) Analysis of multiple research studies shows an average two-fold increase in psychotic outcomes for typical cannabis users and an almost four-fold increase for the heaviest users compared to non-users, though this remains only an association between cannabis and schizophrenia and not proof of causation. (2)

Those who use very high potency marijuana (e.g., “skunk”) on a daily basis have been found to be five times more likely than non-users to suffer from psychotic disorders. (3) On the other hand, a Dutch survey found that those who prefer cannabis with the highest CBD content do not experience as great an increase in psychotic experiences, which appears to demonstrate the protective nature of CBD. (4)

The question remains whether cannabis causes schizophrenia, schizophrenics are more likely to use cannabis, or does some more fundamental genetic condition increase the risk of both cannabis use and schizophrenia? Recent data from Canada may have begun to tease apart the chicken-and-egg problem of causality by supporting the idea that all young cannabis users are put at increased risk of psychosis.

An annual survey of 3,720 adolescents obtained self-reports of past-year cannabis use and psychotic symptoms over four years, from age 13 to 16. The findings demonstrated a clear association of cannabis use frequency with increased psychotic symptoms, and not vice versa. Cannabis use in any given year was found to predict an increase in psychotic symptoms a year later, and not the other way around. (5) What’s more, another new study of nearly 80,000 members of the general American population shows that those with cannabis use disorder during the previous year have a 2.5-fold increase in the rate of formally diagnosed schizophrenia-like psychotic disorder. (6)

The excellent editorial by Ganesh and D’Souza explores the current state of scientific research into the causality of schizophrenia by cannabis. They conclude that applying complex genetic, consequentialist, and counterfactualist models to the emerging data is beginning to demonstrate that cannabis use has more influence over eventually developing schizophrenia than the reverse. (7)

While scientists argue about the fine details of causality and association, many parents with children who developed schizophrenia after regular cannabis use are thoroughly and loudly convinced that cannabis caused their child’s psychosis. Perhaps the emotions of devastating loss and pain are causing them to jump to this conclusion before the more cautious scientists. But the gap between assuming and scientifically proving cannabis causes schizophrenia-like psychosis is narrowing. It does not take much abundance of caution to warn youth, frequent cannabis users, and users of high THC produces containing minimal CBD of the risks they are taking with their mental health.

Cannabis can be used safely by most adults (see „Five Signs Cannabis is Being Used Too Frequently”). But being in denial of the real risks is not safe use.

Boston Hemp Inc.: CBD and the NFL – PRNewswire

Specifically, CBD is now legal within the NFLPA’s new players agreement act. This is huge news for professional football players and the CBD industry. Companies like Boston Hemp Inc. are seeing professional athletes order CBD products on a regular basis. They even sponsor a professional arena football team, the Massachusetts Pirates, and have numerous marketing agreements with professional athletes in various sports.

CBD is used for an abundance of reasons, but athletes are most commonly using it as a natural alternative for pain relief due to its theorized anti-inflammatory properties. Last week, we were all stunned to find out Antonio Brown was injected with a pain reliever in his ankle in order to take the field for his Sunday football game. Actions like this from a professional medical staff leave us all wondering, could there be a better natural solution to avoid such drastic measures?

When President Donald Trump signed the Farm Bill Act in 2018, it led to the legalization of not only hemp, but all its natural derivatives. Companies like Boston Hemp are offering an array of hemp derived natural alternatives for their customer base. Delta 8 THC, CBD, CBG, THC-O, and HHC are just a few of cannabinoids they offer that are legally extracted from the hemp plant. Are these cannabinoids next to be accepted in United States by professional sports leagues like the NFL? 

You can find the entire selection of hemp flower and other CBD products on Boston Hemp’s website.

SOURCE Boston Hemp Inc.

State of New Mexico doubles plant limits for cannabis growers – KVIA El Paso

SANTA FE, New Mexico – With fewer than three months until all adult New Mexicans can legally buy cannabis, the state has raised the limit on the number of plants producers can grow.

“We have been listening to producers, consumers and patients who are as committed as the Cannabis Control Division is to supporting a thriving cannabis-industry in New Mexico,” wrote Kristen Thomson, the director of the Cannabis Control Division, in a news release. “Doubling the plant count for licensed producers makes sense to ensure that everyone can maximize the benefits of a thriving cannabis industry.”

The new plant-count numbers for producers are:

  • Level 1: 401 – 2,000 mature cannabis plants;
  • Level 2: 2,001 – 6,000 mature cannabis plants;
  • Level 3: 6,001 – 12,000 mature cannabis plants; or
  • Level 4: 12,001 – 16,000 mature cannabis plants.

As ABC-7 reported last year, multimillion dollar company Ultra Health was one of the biggest critics of the state’s limit on the number of plants producers could grow.

„Unfortunately, this increase may be too little, too late,” wrote a spokeswoman for Ultra Health on Monday. „Sales to adults will commence in 74 days, and it takes twice as long, 5 months, for cannabis to be fully prepared from seed to sale. We are running on a deficit to support 130,000 patients today, so to think this new rule would somehow alter the biological processes required to grow cannabis is naive, at best.”

“The state is capping the potential of the program,” said Armando Rascón, the company’s director of cultivation, in October. “Unfortunately, there will be a shortage.”

The New Mexico Regulation & Licensing Department oversees the Cannabis Control Division. The RLD Secretary told ABC-7 that New Mexico lawmakers set plant count limits to prevent a surplus of cannabis.

“What happens when you have an overflow is the market declines, the cost of cannabis drops,” said Superintendent Linda Trujillo in October. „People lose out. Their businesses suffer.”

However, micro producers in the state are still limited to 200 or fewer plants. According to the state, the micro producer limit was set by state law, so lawmakers must increase the limit.

„Having the smaller craft cannabis producers is really key in a market like this,” said Chad Lozano, a contract grower and host of a podcast, NMCannacast.

He said the increase in plant counts will make it more difficult for smaller growers to catch up or compete with the larger, multimillion dollar corporations.

„We’re going to have this corporate cannabis,” Lozano explained. „It’s probably going to be very cheap.”

NM cannabis regulators temporarily increase production limits in an attempt to avoid shortages – New Mexico Political Report

With a little more than two months before recreational-use cannabis sales are expected to start, the New Mexico Cannabis Control Division issued an emergency rule change that doubles plant limits for cultivators. 

The emergency rule change, which went into effect last Thursday, increases the maximum amount of mature cannabis plants for producers from 10,000 to 20,000. 

In documents filed with the state’s Commission of Public Records, division director Kristen Thomson justified the emergency rule change. 

“The Division has considered demand estimates provided by applicants and licensees in the cannabis industry,” Thomson wrote. “Projected market demand shows that the demand for regulated cannabis will increase year-to-year as more cannabis consumers move from the illicit market to the regulated market. The supply of medical cannabis will become increasingly threatened without an adequate supply of plants.” 

Cannabis production limits have been an issue in New Mexico since nearly the inception of the state’s Medical Cannabis Program. One of the state’s more prominent cannabis producers, Ultra Health, has battled with the state in court for years over plant limits. In 2015 the New Mexico Department of Health, which oversees the Medical Cannabis Program, increased production limits from 150 to 450 mature plants, per producer. Soon after that, Ultra Health took the Department of Health to court, arguing that 450 plants per producer was not enough to serve the tens of thousands of medical cannabis patients in the state at that time. A state district judge ultimately ruled that the Department of Health did not base production limits on definitive data and ordered the department to do so. In 2019 the Department of Health increased plant limits to 1,750 and after the Cannabis Regulation Act went into effect in 2021, the state’s Regulation and Licensing Department further increased production limits, allowing producers a maximum of 10,000 mature plants. Later in 2021, Ultra Health again challenged the plant limits among other rules promulgated by the Regulation and Licensing Department. The latest court challenge is still pending and state regulators have until Jan. 24 to file a response. 

Ultra Health’s president and CEO Duke Rodriguez told NM Political Report that while he expects increased production to result in lower prices, the issue could have been addressed months, if not years, ago. 

“Imagine all the plant count litigation we could have avoided, all the false claims by alarmists about overproduction from within the industry, the Legislature, and the regulators,” Rodriguez said. “The big fear now is the late timing of this decision and whether this is a long-term decision to encourage producers to immediately commit capital to buildings, upgrades, land and people.”

The general consensus among cannabis producers in New Mexico is that it takes at least four months to fully grow a cannabis crop, although that does not necessarily account for the time it takes to dry, cure, package and test products. It could take longer if the cannabis goes through a manufacturing or extraction process. 

Rodriguez ultimately praised the decision to increase production limits, but also criticized the Department of Health, which oversaw all cannabis production until June 2021. 

“The biggest shame in this emergency rule dates back to the complete mismanagement of the medical program by NMDOH,” Rodriguez said. “Credit to RLD for having the courage to set aside the stupidity and callousness of the past.”

The emergency rule change is only effective until July, but Thomson said in a statement on Monday that the temporary change is designed to help kick-start the new industry.

“We have been listening to producers, consumers and patients who are as committed as the Cannabis Control Division is to supporting a thriving cannabis-industry in New Mexico,” Thomson said. “Doubling the plant count for licensed producers makes sense to ensure that everyone can maximize the benefits of a thriving cannabis industry.”

Since production limits for microbusiness licenses are written into law and not rules, the emergency rule change will not impact those microbusiness license holders. Thomson, in her statement, said her division will work with legislators and Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham to increase production limits for microbusiness licensees by amending the Cannabis Control Act. 

“Equity and fairness are foundational principles of New Mexico’s vision for the state’s cannabis industry,” Thomson said. “We will work with legislators and the governor to

ensure those values are upheld and that micro-producers see increased plant count

limits as soon as possible.”

But not everyone in the cannabis industry agrees that increasing plant limits two months before sales are set to begin is a good idea. Ben Lewinger, the executive director of the New Mexico Cannabis Chamber of Commerce, praised the Cannabis Control Division for considering possible cannabis shortages that would impact the more than 100,000 current medical cannabis patients.  

“Protecting patients and patient supply is absolutely critical and has been a first-order priority through recent legislative and rulemaking processes, and we’re grateful that the Cannabis Control Division is working to ensure that medical cannabis patients aren’t neglected as the state shifts to legalized cannabis for adults,” Lewinger said. 

But, Lewinger added, doubling plant limits through rules now “undermines the work of

legislators and advocates” who pushed for production limits in the name of creating a fair playing field of industry newcomers. 

“Building the infrastructure to double plant count could take months to years for most operators, and plants put in the ground today won’t be ready in April,” Lewinger said. “Increasing the plant count now will only help the very biggest and well-resourced producers – it won’t help medical cannabis patients and it won’t help new businesses trying to break into the industry.”

Many states that have legalized recreational-use cannabis faced product shortages of some kind during the early days of legal sales. As of Monday, there were 15 active cannabis production licenses and 17 active microbusiness licenses. Two businesses have been issued a cannabis manufacturing license and five businesses have been licensed for retail sales.