Pot Shot Clock

Justin Silva • September 24, 2019

Local governments are racing to decide how to regulate cannabis businesses...if they allow them at all.

The dust has settled following the whirlwind adoption of the Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act (the “Act”), which takes effect January 1, 2020. Now nearly 1,300 municipalities in Illinois are trying to determine whether they want to allow cannabis businesses and, if so, how best to regulate them.

The Act’s preamble declares that the regulation of recreational cannabis sales and consumption is a matter of statewide concern, effectively preempting local municipalities, including home-rule units, from imposing regulations that conflict with, or are more stringent than, the Act. Nonetheless, it grants local municipalities the authority to prohibit or significantly limit a cannabis business establishment's location within its jurisdiction. Additionally, municipalities can also adopt “reasonable” zoning restrictions pertaining to licensed cultivation centers, craft growers, processing organizations and dispensaries in order to protect the health, safety and well-being of their residents.

Municipalities Zoning Ordinances

Although the legislature spent countless hours drafting, revising, and amending the Act which was ultimately passed and adopted by the State, many municipalities are just now considering the issues relative to cannabis sales, cultivation and consumption. Most municipalities in favor of the Act have not yet had the time to draft and approve the language required to amend their existing zoning codes to allow such permitted and/or conditional cannabis business uses. As such, municipalities are hard-pressed to have their zoning codes amended in time to meet the January 1, 2020 enactment date. In fact, many municipalities are just beginning to have initial public hearings on whether it should or should not be prohibited. If cannabis businesses are to be allowed, what types of licenses, how many and what restrictions should be placed upon them by the municipality. These types of discussions usually occur over numerous public hearings involving input from residents, village staff, village attorneys, plan commissioners, and village trustees. With a little less than four months until recreational cannabis is to be open for business, it is unlikely that most local municipalities will be ready for them to open their doors.

Un certainty Among Municipalities

In addition to the time crunch, there appears to a consensus among municipalities, that the Act lacks guidance on three aspects: (1) how law enforcement will know and/or regulate which persons may or may not be allowed to grow cannabis in their homes, as prescribed under the medial marijuana law; (2) to what extent municipalities can regulate recreational marijuana, and (3) compliance with the Act’s regulations dictating how tax revenue is distributed and may be spent by municipalities. While there has been some talk of a bi-partisan trailer bill to follow, uncertainties within the Act are still abound.

So, what are applicants and existing medical dispensary license holders supposed to do if the necessary local zoning ordinances have not yet been approved or are not even in the works come January 1st? The answer is that they will likely have to seek text amendment(s) within their local municipality through a proposed ordinance allowing for their own cannabis business to operate in the municipality.

How SAL Can Help

Shapiro & Associates Law (“SAL”) has in depth experience working with local governments on drafting text amendments for new and existing land uses. SAL is committed to helping its clients strike the right balance based on the community’s goals and needs, while still providing cannabis businesses with the opportunities to thrive within their local municipality.

By Dan Shapiro September 4, 2024
69 Acre Land Acquisition
By Dan Shapiro June 20, 2024
Introduction Last summer, an attorney filed a legal brief he had written with the help of the generative AI platform, ChatGPT. The document included citations to a series of legal cases that seemingly offered precedents that supported his client’s position. There was only one problem. As the judge in the case discovered, six of those cases did not exist. Instead, they were dreamed up by the online tool. This was only one of several high-profile incidents in which new technology has sometimes embarrassed the lawyers using it. Yet many legal experts believe generative AI will also change the legal profession in ways that will aid lawyers and their clients. Lawyers must be accountable for how they use AI. Not only must they carefully assess any bias inherent in algorithms before using it, but they must also consider ethical and fairness issues. AI holds tremendous promise to free legal professionals from the most time-consuming tasks, work more efficiently than ever, and empower them to focus on strategic projects that truly matter. Still, there are many ethical considerations of AI to keep in mind. Ethical Issues Depending on your jurisdiction, there may be formal ethical opinions addressing the use of AI. Be sure to confirm the existence of these ethics’ opinions or guidelines and how they apply to the use of AI. Bias And Fairness AI uses trained algorithms to analyze vast amounts of data. These algorithms can collect biased historical information, which means that the AI system may also inadvertently produce biased results, leading to questionable outcomes. Algorithms can be difficult to interpret, and it can be challenging to understand how they arrive at their decisions or source information. Privacy AI systems often rely on sizable amounts of data, including highly sensitive and confidential information, and may store personal and conversation data. When using the technology, lawyers need to ensure that AI systems adhere to strict data privacy regulations. For example, lawyers using ChatGPT must familiarize themselves with its Privacy Policy and Terms of Use before using the service. Additionally, they must make sure that the data is only used for the specific purposes for which it was collected. Lawyers must also consider professional obligations relating to privacy and information-sharing when providing any information with AI systems to ensure they are not running afoul of confidentiality obligations (to clients or other parties) or otherwise disclosing information improperly. Responsibility And Accountability As a rule of thumb, AI should be used as a complement to work, and not a replacement. While AI can streamline time-consuming and mundane tasks, strategic decision-making, complex legal analysis, and legal counsel are all examples of responsibilities that it simply cannot take over. As a result, lawyers must be proactive in establishing clear lines of responsibility and accountability when implementing AI in their firm. Summary As the use of AI in law firms becomes increasingly widespread, it is important that legal professionals address the ethical considerations surrounding it and ensure the technology is being used responsibly. By doing so, lawyers will be able to enjoy AI’s benefits while maintaining an ethical practice at the same time. In the end, AI has its benefits but it should not be relied upon to accurately apply the law to a fact pattern in the context of giving sound legal advice. Accurate legal advice includes understanding the context in which the law exists, experience and human thoughtfulness.
By Dan Shapiro May 30, 2024
Public Hearings: Keys to Successful Presentations
By Dan Shapiro April 18, 2024
HB 3306, HB 2099 and The Corporate Transparency Act
By Dan Shapiro March 21, 2024
Client Success
By Dan Shapiro January 11, 2024
A Glimpse into the 2024 Commercial Real Estate
By Dan Shapiro November 9, 2023
Planning for your Property's Financial Future, by Jamie Baer
By Dan Shapiro August 17, 2023
Commercial Real Estate Conversion Options
By Dan Shapiro March 28, 2023
Tax Increment Financing Updates
Show More
Share by: