California Vape Ban: Law, Timeline, and Impact on Cannabis Industry

Executive Summary

California Governor Gavin Newsom signed legislation in September 2026 banning the sale of single-use, battery-powered vaporizers, making California the first state to comprehensively prohibit disposable vape devices across both nicotine and cannabis markets. The law, which takes effect January 1, 2027, targets the environmental impact of lithium battery waste and aims to reduce youth access to vaping products. The ban applies to all disposable vape pens containing integrated batteries, including the popular cannabis cartridge-and-battery combination units that have dominated California's legal market since 2018. Retailers face civil penalties up to $500 per violation, while manufacturers must transition to rechargeable battery systems or exit the California market entirely. The legislation exempts medical devices and allows continued sales of refillable cartridges paired with separate rechargeable batteries. Industry analysts estimate the ban will affect approximately $1.2 billion in annual cannabis vape sales and force operational restructuring across California's 1,100+ licensed dispensaries. Environmental advocates celebrated the measure as a critical step toward reducing the estimated 2 million disposable vape batteries entering California landfills monthly, while industry groups warned of increased costs for consumers and potential black market growth.

Why This Matters

The California vape ban represents the most significant regulatory intervention in cannabis product design since legalization, directly affecting manufacturers, retailers, consumers, and environmental policy nationwide. California's legal cannabis market generated $5.3 billion in sales during 2025, with vaporizer products accounting for approximately 32% of total revenue according to the California Department of Cannabis Control. Disposable vape pens have become the dominant delivery method for cannabis concentrates, particularly among occasional consumers who prefer the convenience and discretion of single-use devices. The ban forces a complete product redesign across hundreds of brands and thousands of SKUs currently on dispensary shelves. For the state's 1,100 licensed retailers, the transition requires inventory liquidation, staff retraining, and consumer education campaigns. Operators in border regions including San Diego, Tahoe, and the Central Valley face competitive pressure from neighboring states where disposable vapes remain legal. The California Cannabis Industry Association estimated compliance costs between $15,000 and $45,000 per retail location for the initial transition period. Environmental stakeholders view the ban as a watershed moment in addressing electronic waste from cannabis products. The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery reported that disposable vape batteries contain lithium, cobalt, and other heavy metals that contaminate soil and groundwater when improperly disposed. With an estimated 24 million disposable cannabis vapes sold annually in California, the environmental burden has grown exponentially since adult-use legalization in 2018. Medical cannabis patients represent a particularly affected population. Many patients with arthritis, tremors, or limited dexterity prefer disposable devices that require no charging, cartridge changes, or button operation. Patient advocacy groups including Americans for Safe Access raised concerns that the ban may reduce medication adherence among elderly and disabled populations who find rechargeable devices technically challenging. The policy also carries implications for California's illicit market dynamics. Law enforcement agencies including the Los Angeles Police Department noted that product restrictions in the legal market historically correlate with increased unlicensed sales. Disposable vapes remain available through unlicensed delivery services and pop-up retailers that operate outside regulatory oversight, creating a potential competitive advantage for illegal operators.

Background and History

California's path to banning disposable vapes began with environmental concerns about lithium battery waste, converged with youth vaping prevention efforts, and culminated in bipartisan legislative action spanning three years.

Early Cannabis Vaporizer Market (2010-2016)

Cannabis vaporizers entered California's medical market around 2010, initially as tabletop devices and portable dry herb vaporizers. The introduction of pre-filled cartridge systems in 2014 revolutionized concentrate consumption, offering precise dosing and eliminating the need for dabbing equipment. Early cartridges required separate rechargeable battery units, typically 510-threaded devices that cost $15-$30 and lasted multiple years. Disposable all-in-one vape pens emerged in California's medical market around 2015, marketed as travel-friendly and beginner-accessible alternatives to cartridge-and-battery systems. Brands including hmbldt and dosist pioneered premium disposable devices with dose-control features, retailing for $80-$100 per unit. These early disposables targeted medical patients seeking pharmaceutical-style delivery systems rather than recreational consumers.

Adult-Use Legalization and Market Explosion (2018-2020)

California's adult-use market launched January 1, 2018 under Proposition 64, passed by voters in November 2016. The legal market immediately faced competition from a vast unlicensed sector that had operated openly during the medical-only era. Licensed operators needed product differentiation and convenience to compete with untaxed illicit sales. Disposable vape pens became a key competitive tool. Manufacturers introduced lower-priced disposables retailing for $25-$40, making them cost-competitive with cartridge-and-battery combinations while offering superior convenience. By 2019, disposable vapes accounted for approximately 18% of California's legal cannabis concentrate sales according to BDS Analytics market research. The California Department of Cannabis Control implemented comprehensive testing requirements in 2019, including pesticide screening, potency verification, and heavy metal analysis for vaporizer hardware. These regulations applied equally to disposable and rechargeable devices, creating no regulatory distinction between product types based on battery design.

Environmental Awareness and Legislative Groundwork (2020-2023)

Environmental concerns about disposable vape waste gained prominence in 2020 as sales volumes surged during the COVID-19 pandemic. California's legal cannabis market grew 57% in 2020, with vaporizer products showing disproportionate growth as consumers sought discreet at-home consumption methods. The advocacy group Californians Against Waste published research in March 2021 documenting that fewer than 5% of disposable vape batteries were properly recycled. The lithium-ion batteries in disposable vapes pose fire risks in landfills and recycling facilities, leading waste management companies to classify them as hazardous materials requiring special handling. State Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson introduced SB 1045 in February 2022, the first legislative attempt to ban disposable vapes in California. The bill proposed prohibiting sales of any vaporizer device with a non-removable battery, applying to both nicotine and cannabis products. The legislation stalled in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee after industry opposition and concerns about enforcement complexity. Parallel federal developments influenced California's policy trajectory. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration intensified enforcement against flavored nicotine vapes in 2020-2021, particularly targeting products appealing to youth. While FDA jurisdiction does not extend to cannabis products, the youth access framework shaped California's legislative approach.

Renewed Legislative Push (2024-2025)

Assemblymember Marc Berman introduced AB 1690 in January 2024, taking a revised approach to disposable vape regulation. The bill focused explicitly on environmental protection rather than youth access, framing the ban as waste reduction policy. This strategic repositioning attracted support from environmental groups while reducing opposition from public health organizations that had previously prioritized nicotine products. AB 1690 passed the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee in April 2024 with bipartisan support. The committee heard testimony from the California Product Stewardship Council documenting that disposable vapes represented the fastest-growing category of lithium battery waste in the state's municipal waste stream. The cannabis industry mounted significant opposition during the Senate review process. The California Cannabis Industry Association argued that the ban would increase consumer costs, reduce product accessibility, and disadvantage legal operators competing against unlicensed sellers who would ignore the prohibition. Industry representatives proposed alternative approaches including mandatory battery recycling programs and extended producer responsibility requirements. The Senate Appropriations Committee amended AB 1690 in June 2024 to include a delayed effective date of January 1, 2027, providing manufacturers and retailers a 30-month transition period. The amendment also clarified that the ban applied only to devices with integrated non-removable batteries, explicitly allowing cartridge systems with detachable rechargeable batteries.

Final Passage and Signing (2025-2026)

AB 1690 passed the full Senate in September 2024 with a 28-11 vote and returned to the Assembly for concurrence on Senate amendments. The Assembly approved the amended version 54-24 in October 2024, sending the bill to Governor Newsom's desk. Governor Newsom initially took no public position on the legislation. His administration's Department of Cannabis Control submitted a neutral analysis noting implementation challenges but not opposing the measure. Environmental groups including the Sierra Club California and Surfrider Foundation lobbied for the Governor's signature, while industry groups requested a veto. Newsom signed AB 1690 into law on September 28, 2026, issuing a signing statement that emphasized environmental protection and noted California's leadership role in addressing electronic waste. The statement acknowledged industry concerns about implementation costs but argued that the 30-month transition period provided adequate time for business model adaptation.

Key Players

Governor Gavin Newsom

Governor Newsom signed AB 1690 into law, positioning the ban as environmental leadership rather than cannabis regulation. His administration previously supported extended producer responsibility legislation for other electronic waste categories, creating policy consistency with the vape ban. Newsom's signing statement emphasized that California generates approximately 370,000 tons of electronic waste annually, with disposable vapes representing a rapidly growing and particularly hazardous subcategory.

Assemblymember Marc Berman

Assemblymember Berman authored AB 1690 and managed its passage through the legislative process. Representing Silicon Valley districts including Palo Alto and Menlo Park, Berman has focused on environmental legislation throughout his tenure. He framed the vape ban as addressing a "design flaw" in consumer products rather than restricting cannabis access, a rhetorical strategy that broadened political support.

California Department of Cannabis Control

The Department of Cannabis Control will implement and enforce the disposable vape ban beginning January 1, 2027. The agency must develop regulatory guidance distinguishing prohibited integrated-battery devices from permitted cartridge-and-battery systems, establish violation reporting procedures, and coordinate enforcement with local jurisdictions. Director Nicole Elliott testified before legislative committees that the department could implement the ban within existing enforcement resources.

California Cannabis Industry Association

The California Cannabis Industry Association opposed AB 1690, arguing that the ban would increase consumer costs and reduce product accessibility. The trade group represents approximately 500 licensed cannabis businesses including cultivators, manufacturers, distributors, and retailers. The association proposed alternative approaches including mandatory take-back programs and battery recycling requirements that would address environmental concerns without prohibiting product categories.

Californians Against Waste

Californians Against Waste provided research and advocacy supporting the disposable vape ban. The environmental organization documented that California's municipal waste stream includes an estimated 2 million disposable vape batteries monthly, with fewer than 5% properly recycled. The group's executive director Mark Murray testified that lithium battery fires at recycling facilities have increased 400% since 2020, with disposable vapes identified as a contributing factor.

Americans for Safe Access

Americans for Safe Access, a medical cannabis patient advocacy organization, raised concerns about the ban's impact on patients with disabilities. The group argued that disposable vapes serve patients with arthritis, tremors, and limited manual dexterity who cannot easily operate rechargeable devices requiring cartridge changes and charging. The organization requested medical exemptions that were not included in the final legislation.

Major Cannabis Vape Manufacturers

Leading vape brands including Stiiizy, Raw Garden, and Jetty Extracts must redesign product lines to comply with the ban. Stiiizy, California's top-selling vape brand with an estimated 15% market share, announced plans to transition its disposable line to rechargeable battery systems with replaceable cartridges. Raw Garden stated it would discontinue disposable products and focus exclusively on cartridge sales. Several smaller manufacturers indicated they may exit the California market rather than absorb redesign costs.

Legal and Regulatory Framework

AB 1690 amends California Health and Safety Code Section 108980 to prohibit the sale, offer for sale, or distribution of any vaporizer device containing a non-removable battery, effective January 1, 2027. The statute defines a "disposable vaporizer" as any device designed to vaporize substances for inhalation that contains an integrated power source not designed to be removed or replaced by the user. This definition encompasses both nicotine and cannabis vaporizers, creating uniform regulation across product categories. The law establishes civil penalties for violations. Retailers selling prohibited disposable vapes face fines up to $500 per violation, with each device sold constituting a separate violation. The California Department of Cannabis Control may suspend or revoke licenses for repeated violations, applying the same enforcement framework used for other regulatory infractions under the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act. Manufacturers and distributors face parallel liability. Any person or entity that manufactures, imports, or distributes disposable vaporizers for sale in California after January 1, 2027 commits a separate violation subject to civil penalties. The statute does not create criminal liability, maintaining the civil enforcement approach used throughout California's cannabis regulatory system. The law includes several explicit exemptions. Medical devices approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration are excluded from the ban, preserving access to FDA-regulated nicotine cessation products and any future FDA-approved cannabis medications delivered via vaporization. The exemption does not extend to cannabis products sold through the state's medical marijuana program, which remain subject to the ban despite their medical designation. Rechargeable vaporizer systems remain fully legal under AB 1690. Devices with removable, rechargeable batteries and replaceable cartridges face no new restrictions. The statute specifically permits sales of vaporizer cartridges, batteries sold separately from cartridges, and complete systems where the battery component can be detached and recharged independently. California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.3, enacted under Proposition 64, establishes the state's authority to regulate cannabis product packaging, labeling, and design. AB 1690 extends this authority to product hardware specifications, marking the first time California has banned a cannabis product category based on device design rather than substance content or potency. The law interacts with California's existing electronic waste regulations under the Electronic Waste Recycling Act of 2003. That statute, codified at Public Resources Code Section 42460 et seq., establishes extended producer responsibility for electronic devices but previously excluded disposable vapes due to their small size and integrated design. AB 1690 effectively removes disposable vapes from the waste stream by prohibiting their sale rather than requiring recycling infrastructure. Local jurisdictions retain authority to implement stricter regulations under California's cannabis regulatory framework. Cities and counties may ban all vaporizer sales, impose additional product restrictions, or establish local licensing requirements that exceed state standards. However, localities cannot authorize sales of disposable vapes prohibited under state law, establishing AB 1690 as a regulatory floor rather than ceiling. The statute does not address possession or use of disposable vapes, only commercial sales and distribution. Consumers who purchased disposable vapes before January 1, 2027 may continue using them without legal consequence. The law also does not prohibit interstate transport, meaning California residents could theoretically purchase disposable vapes in neighboring states, though such purchases would not support California's legal market.

Market and Business Implications

The disposable vape ban will force operational restructuring across California's cannabis supply chain, affecting an estimated $1.2 billion in annual sales and requiring product redesign investments exceeding $200 million industry-wide. California's legal cannabis vape market generated approximately $1.7 billion in sales during 2025 according to the California Department of Cannabis Control. Disposable devices accounted for roughly 35% of vape sales by mid-2026, representing approximately $600 million in retail revenue. When wholesale and distribution margins are included, the total economic activity associated with disposable vapes approaches $1.2 billion annually. Manufacturers face the most immediate financial impact. Redesigning products from integrated disposable units to cartridge-and-battery systems requires new hardware sourcing, packaging modifications, and regulatory testing. Industry consultants estimate per-SKU redesign costs between $50,000 and $150,000 depending on product complexity and testing requirements. A mid-sized manufacturer with 20 disposable SKUs would face $1-3 million in transition costs. Several business models become nonviable under the ban. Ultra-low-cost disposable vapes retailing for $15-25 achieved profitability through integrated manufacturing that combined battery, cartridge, and oil in a single production process. Separating these components into cartridge-and-battery systems increases per-unit costs by an estimated 40-60%, making budget price points economically unsustainable. Brands serving price-sensitive consumers may exit the market entirely. Retailers must manage inventory liquidation during the transition period. Dispensaries typically maintain 60-90 days of vape inventory, representing significant capital investment. The January 1, 2027 effective date creates a hard deadline for selling existing disposable stock, likely triggering price competition and margin compression in late 2026. Retailers in competitive markets may absorb losses on unsold inventory rather than risk compliance violations. The ban creates competitive advantages for vertically integrated operators. Multi-state operators including Curaleaf, Cresco Labs, and Green Thumb Industries that manufacture their own vape products can absorb redesign costs across larger sales volumes and multiple state markets. California-only operators and small manufacturers lack this scale advantage, potentially accelerating industry consolidation. Consumer behavior patterns will shift significantly. Disposable vapes attracted occasional consumers and cannabis tourists who valued convenience over cost efficiency. These consumers may reduce purchase frequency when confronted with rechargeable systems requiring device maintenance and charging. Market research firm Headset estimated that 25-30% of disposable vape consumers will not transition to cartridge-and-battery systems, instead switching to other product categories including edibles, pre-rolls, or flower. Border market dynamics create competitive distortions. Nevada, Arizona, and Oregon do not currently restrict disposable vapes, allowing their legal markets to offer products unavailable in California. Consumers in San Diego, South Lake Tahoe, and other border regions may cross state lines for purchases, diverting tax revenue and sales from California's legal market. This effect mirrors alcohol and cigarette tax avoidance patterns documented in border regions. The illicit market gains a structural advantage. Unlicensed operators face no enforcement of the disposable vape ban, allowing them to continue offering prohibited products to consumers who prefer disposable devices. California's illicit cannabis market already exceeds the legal market in total sales volume according to cannabis analytics firm BDSA. Product restrictions in the legal market historically correlate with illicit market growth, as documented following California's 2019 vape testing requirements. Wholesale pricing will adjust throughout the supply chain. Rechargeable battery units currently wholesale for $3-8 depending on quality and features, representing a new cost component for consumers previously purchasing disposables. Cartridge wholesale prices may decline due to increased competition as former disposable manufacturers enter the cartridge market, but overall consumer costs will likely increase 15-25% for equivalent product volumes. Employment impacts remain uncertain. Manufacturing job losses from disposable product line eliminations may be offset by increased demand for cartridge production and battery assembly. Retail employment should remain stable as dispensaries continue selling vaporizer products in different formats. Distribution and testing sectors may see modest employment growth as product variety increases with separate battery and cartridge SKUs. Investment capital is already responding to the regulatory change. Venture capital firms and private equity investors have reduced funding for California-focused vape brands, instead directing capital toward multi-state operators and product categories unaffected by the ban. Several California vape manufacturers sought acquisition by larger operators during 2026, viewing exit as preferable to independent compliance with AB 1690.

What Experts Say

Industry analysts, environmental scientists, and policy experts offer divergent assessments of the disposable vape ban's likely impacts, with consensus emerging only on the certainty of significant market disruption. Environmental policy researchers at the University of California, Berkeley's Center for Environmental Public Policy Studies characterized the ban as a necessary intervention in product design. According to their analysis published in August 2026, disposable vapes represent a category of planned obsolescence that creates unnecessary waste when alternative designs achieve identical functionality. The researchers noted that rechargeable battery technology has improved substantially since disposable vapes entered the market, with modern lithium-ion batteries supporting 500+ charge cycles before degradation. Cannabis industry economist Beau Whitney of Whitney Economics projected that the ban would reduce California's legal cannabis market by 3-5% in 2027 as some consumers exit the legal market or reduce consumption frequency. Whitney's analysis emphasized that convenience-oriented consumers who preferred disposables would face higher effective costs with rechargeable systems when device purchase prices are amortized across multiple cartridge purchases. This cost increase functions as a consumption tax that disproportionately affects occasional users. Public health researchers at the University of California, San Francisco's Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education supported the ban's youth access benefits despite its environmental framing. Their research documented that disposable vapes' low initial cost and lack of maintenance requirements make them particularly appealing to underage users. While the ban applies equally to adult consumers, the researchers argued that reducing overall disposable vape availability would decrease youth access through reduced product normalization and fewer opportunities for diversion from legal purchasers. Waste management experts at the California Product Stewardship Council emphasized that the ban addresses a growing crisis in recycling infrastructure. According to the council's data, lithium battery fires at California recycling facilities increased from 8 incidents in 2019 to 65 incidents in 2025, with disposable vapes identified as ignition sources in approximately 40% of cases. The council's executive director noted that proper battery recycling requires specialized facilities that few municipalities operate, making source reduction through product bans more effective than post-consumer recycling programs. Cannabis retail consultants at Marijuana Business Daily warned that the ban would accelerate consolidation in California's retail sector. Their analysis noted that small independent dispensaries lack the capital reserves to absorb inventory losses and consumer education costs associated with the transition. Larger retail chains with multiple locations can spread these costs across higher sales volumes and leverage bulk purchasing power for new rechargeable battery inventory. Legal scholars specializing in cannabis policy at the Drug Policy Alliance questioned whether the ban would withstand legal challenge under California's Proposition 64, which established adult-use legalization. While Proposition 64 explicitly authorizes product regulation, the scholars noted that courts have not yet addressed whether the state can ban entire product categories that pose no direct health risk. However, no legal challenges had been filed as of September 2026, and the scholars acknowledged that environmental rationale might distinguish the vape ban from hypothetical bans based solely on consumption method preferences. Medical cannabis researchers at the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies expressed concern about patient access impacts. Their patient surveys indicated that approximately 15% of medical cannabis patients use disposable vapes as their primary delivery method, with higher rates among elderly patients and those with disabilities. The researchers recommended that California's medical cannabis program develop patient education resources about rechargeable device options and consider subsidies for low-income patients who face financial barriers to purchasing rechargeable batteries. Market analysts at Headset, a cannabis data analytics firm, predicted that the ban would drive innovation in battery technology and cartridge design. Their analysis suggested that manufacturers would develop more user-friendly rechargeable systems with features including magnetic cartridge attachment, simplified charging interfaces, and longer battery life to appeal to consumers accustomed to disposable convenience. This innovation cycle could ultimately benefit consumers through improved product quality, though at higher price points than disposables.

What's Next

The disposable vape ban's January 1, 2027 effective date triggers a series of implementation milestones throughout late 2026 and early 2027, with long-term implications extending into the next decade. The California Department of Cannabis Control must publish final regulatory guidance by October 2026 clarifying the distinction between prohibited integrated-battery devices and permitted cartridge-and-battery systems. This guidance will address edge cases including devices with removable but non-rechargeable batteries, vaporizers with replaceable battery cells that require tools for removal, and hybrid devices that function as both disposables and rechargeable units. Industry stakeholders have requested clear visual examples and technical specifications to ensure compliance. Manufacturers face a November 2026 deadline to finalize product redesigns if they intend to maintain California market presence in early 2027. This timeline accounts for the 6-8 week testing and compliance period required before new products can enter distribution. Several major brands including Stiiizy and Plug Play announced they would launch redesigned rechargeable systems in November 2026, allowing retailers to stock compliant products before the January 1 prohibition takes effect. Retailers will conduct inventory liquidation sales throughout December 2026, creating a final opportunity for consumers to purchase disposable vapes at discounted prices. Industry observers expect heavy price competition as dispensaries race to clear inventory before the prohibition date. Some retailers may donate unsold disposable inventory to other states where the products remain legal, though interstate cannabis commerce remains federally prohibited, limiting this option to licensed operators with multi-state presence. January 1, 2027 marks the enforcement start date. The Department of Cannabis Control will begin compliance inspections, prioritizing high-volume retailers and manufacturers with histories of regulatory violations. The agency indicated it would apply a 30-day grace period for minor violations, focusing initial enforcement on egregious non-compliance rather than technical infractions. Local jurisdictions including Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego have announced they will conduct parallel enforcement through their municipal cannabis licensing programs. Consumer education campaigns will intensify in early 2027 as retailers explain the product transition to customers. Dispensaries must train staff on rechargeable battery operation, charging procedures, and cartridge compatibility to assist consumers unfamiliar with multi-component vape systems. The California Cannabis Industry Association announced it would develop standardized educational materials for member retailers, including instructional videos and point-of-sale displays. Legal challenges remain possible though none had been filed by September 2026. Industry groups could argue that the ban violates Proposition 64's intent to establish a legal adult-use market, or that it constitutes an unconstitutional taking of property without compensation for manufacturers who invested in disposable product development. However, legal experts noted that California courts generally defer to legislative judgments on environmental and public health regulations, making successful challenges unlikely. Other states are monitoring California's implementation. Oregon legislators introduced similar disposable vape ban legislation in early 2026 but delayed action pending California's experience. New York, Massachusetts, and Illinois have active environmental advocacy campaigns targeting disposable vapes, with potential legislation expected in 2027-2028. If California's ban succeeds without major market disruptions, a multi-state regulatory wave could follow. The illicit market response will become apparent throughout 2027. Law enforcement agencies will track whether unlicensed sellers increase disposable vape offerings to serve consumers unwilling to transition to rechargeable systems. If illicit market growth accelerates, policymakers may reconsider the ban or implement enhanced enforcement measures. Conversely, if consumers readily adopt rechargeable systems, the ban may be viewed as a successful intervention. Federal regulatory developments could affect California's policy. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration's ongoing review of cannabis scheduling under the Controlled Substances Act may eventually subject cannabis vapes to FDA jurisdiction similar to nicotine products. If cannabis is rescheduled to Schedule III or removed from scheduling entirely, federal product standards could preempt state-level device regulations, though this scenario remains years away. Long-term market evolution will depend on consumer acceptance of rechargeable systems. If rechargeable vapes achieve similar market share to current disposable levels, the ban will be considered successful. If vape sales decline permanently, manufacturers may shift investment toward other product categories including edibles, beverages, and topicals. The cannabis industry's remarkable adaptability suggests that innovation will fill any market gaps created by the disposable ban. Environmental outcomes will be measured through waste stream monitoring. The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery will track lithium battery volumes in municipal waste to assess whether the ban achieves its intended waste reduction. Success would be defined as a measurable decrease in vape battery waste coupled with stable or growing overall cannabis vaporizer sales through rechargeable systems.

Further Reading

• Full text of AB 1690 (California Legislative Information): https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1690
• California Department of Cannabis Control official website and regulatory guidance: https://cannabis.ca.gov/
• California Health and Safety Code Section 108980 (disposable vape prohibition): https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=108980&lawCode=HSC
• Proposition 64 full text (Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act): https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0103%20%28Marijuana%29_1.pdf
• California Electronic Waste Recycling Act (Public Resources Code Section 42460): https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=42460&lawCode=PRC
• California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery battery waste data: https://calrecycle.ca.gov/
• Californians Against Waste research on vape battery disposal: https://www.cawrecycles.org/
• California Cannabis Industry Association policy positions: https://cacannabisindustry.org/
• Americans for Safe Access patient advocacy resources: https://www.safeaccessnow.org/
• Governor Newsom's signing statement for AB 1690: https://www.gov.ca.gov/
• UC Berkeley Center for Environmental Public Policy Studies vape waste research: https://gspp.berkeley.edu/
• BDSA cannabis market analytics and California sales data: https://bdsa.com/
• Headset cannabis market research: https://www.headset.io/