Sponsored by
PuffItUp VapeFully Dynavap Vaposhop
  1. Welcome to VaporAsylum! Please take a moment to read our RULES and introduce yourself here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Did you know we have lots of smilies for you to use?
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Did you know that you have two different customized styles/themes to view VaporAsylum in?
    Change your style here.
    Dismiss Notice

Law California Voted for Legal Cannabis in November 2016

Discussion in 'Medical Marijuana Law by Jurisdiction' started by CarolKing, Mar 23, 2017.

  1. CarolKing

    CarolKing Always in search of the perfect vaporizer

    Messages:
    565
    Likes Received:
    3,424
    Trophy Points:
    353
    Location:
    By the Enerald City along the Pacific Ocean
    71-percent of US voters (say) that the government should not interfere with states that passed legalized marijuana and during your campaign, you committed to honoring states’ rights when it comes to marijuana legalization," Newsom wrote on Feb. 24, 2017.

    This isn't meant to turn into cannabis vs The Trump Administration. Keep it civil. We don't want to cause turmoil. Some good points in this letter. The print is kinda small, sorry for that.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2017
  2. momofthegoons

    momofthegoons Vapor Accessory Addict Staff Member

    Messages:
    8,557
    Likes Received:
    40,677
    Trophy Points:
    703
    Let me reiterate. Keep any and all political 'slamming' out of this. From our rules:

    So let's keep this about steps being taken to legalize. Thanks. :smile:
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2017
    ataxian, dorkus_molorkus and BD9 like this.
  3. CarolKing

    CarolKing Always in search of the perfect vaporizer

    Messages:
    565
    Likes Received:
    3,424
    Trophy Points:
    353
    Location:
    By the Enerald City along the Pacific Ocean
    I made a mistake in the above title - CA voted for legal cannabis November 2016. I just noticed that I wrote 2017.:cool:


    Literally anyone age 21 or over can buy marijuana in Colorado and Washington, and this has been well-known for years. California, despite the passage of Prop. 64 legalizing recreational cannabis use, still weeds out most buyers by requiring they have a Medical Marijuana ID card. That requirement will remain in place for at least the rest of 2017.

    Even with the additional bureaucratic burden of requiring a medical card, California still sells a lot more legal marijuana than the far more permissive states of Washington and Colorado. According to cannabis market research firm the Arcview Group, California makes up more than one-fourth of all legal marijuana sales in the 50 U.S. states plus Canada combined.

    “California accounted for 27 percent of the 2016 legal market in North America,” Arcview Group notes in its recently released State of Legal Marijuana Markets report. “Colorado represented 20 percent and Washington represented 11 percent.”


    Keep in mind that those figures cover just 2016 — a period primarily before California had approved recreational marijuana. Colorado and Washington had been puffing the stuff with virtually no adult restrictions all year.

    The report, which also includes Canadian cannabis sales, estimates that legal cannabis is now a $6.7 billion annual industry in North America. That’s up 34 percent from the previous year’s estimate of just over $5 billion.
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2017
    ataxian and BD9 like this.
  4. CarolKing

    CarolKing Always in search of the perfect vaporizer

    Messages:
    565
    Likes Received:
    3,424
    Trophy Points:
    353
    Location:
    By the Enerald City along the Pacific Ocean
    California Marijuana Laws
    34 27.5K

    California marijuana laws changed drastically with the decriminalization of possession (under 28 grams) and legalization of medical marijuana under the Compassionate Use Act (Proposition 215) in 1996. The state's mairjuana laws were drastically relaxed once again in 2016 after voters approved the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, which was on the ballot as Proposition 64. Under the new law, adults 21 and over may purchase, possess, and consume up to 1 oz. of marijuana in their private residence or in an establishment licensed for marijuana consumption. Adults also will be allowed to grow up to six marijuana plants and keep the herb that is produced, as long as it is done in a secure space not visible to the public.

    While most criminal sanctions for marijuana were lifted immediately after the general election, the regulation of businesses, production facilities, and marijuana consumption establishments will be phased in over time. Licenses are scheduled to be granted in Janurary 2018.

    Medical Marijuana Protections

    In order to qualify for the protections afforded by California's medical cannabis laws, a person must be either a qualified patient or a primary caregiver. A person is considered to be a qualified patient if a physician recommends or approves of their medical use of marijuana. Typically, this means that the doctor will give a written recommendation to the patient as proof of the patient's status that entitles them to use, possess, and cultivate cannabis.

    The legalization of recreational marijuana leaves the medical marijuana laws and regulations intact, while patients with a doctor's recommendation are exempt from sales tax.

    The basics of California marijuana laws are highlighted in the table below. See Drug Manufacturing and Cultivation and Medical Marijuana Laws by State to learn more.

    Code Sections
    Health & Safety §11000, et seq.; 11357, et seq.; §11362.5 medical use of marijuana

    *Check back for statutory changes reflecting the new Adult Use of Marijuana Act, including regulations for business licenses that will phase in at a later time.

    Possession
    • Up to 28.5 grams of herb or up to 8 grams of concentrate (hashish, etc.): Legal for those 21 and over, an infraction for those 18 and under (mandatory drug education course and community service)
    • Over 28.5 grams: misdemeanor ($500 fine and/or jail sentence of up to 6 months)
    Sale
    • Sale without a license: misdemeanor (up to 6 months in jail and/or a $500 fine)
    *Regulations for legal producers, retailers, and other associated marijuana businesses will be phased in beginning in 2018.

    Additional Limitations
    • May not consume marijuana in public
    • May not consume marijuana while driving or as a passenger in a car, plane, or boat
    • Employers may still enforce "drug-free" policies that include marijuana screening
    • Landlords may prohibit the possession of marijuana on their premises
    Note: State laws are always subject to change through the passage of new legislation, rulings in the higher courts (including federal decisions), ballot initiatives, and other means. While we strive to provide the most current information available, please consult an attorney or conduct your own legal research to verify the state law(s) you are researching.

    California Medical Marijuana Law
    Status

    Operational

    Law Signed:
    1996
    QUALIFYING CONDITIONS
    • Anorexia
    • Arthritis
    • Cachexia
    • Cancer
    • Chronic Pain
    • HIV or AIDS
    • Glaucoma
    • Migraine
    • Persistent Muscle Spasms
    • Severe Nausea
    • Seizures
    • Any debilitating illness where the medical use of marijuana has been "deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician"
    PATIENT POSSESSION LIMITS
    No possession limits specified

    HOME CULTIVATION
    Yes, but no cultivation limits are specified.

    STATE-LICENSED DISPENSARIES ALLOWED
    Democrat Gov. Jerry Brown on Friday, October 9, 2015 signed into law a legislative package of bills that seeks to provide regulations for California's medical cannabis industry. The Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act creates a new state agency within the Department of Consumer Affairs to develop rules and licensing procedures for authorized medical cannabis dispensaries. Dispensaries must be compliant with local guidelines prior to receiving a state license. State-licensed dispensaries will be permitted to operate on a 'for profit' basis. However, the new regulations will not override municipal moratoriums, nor will they prohibit the collection of local sales taxes on marijuana purchases in communities that presently impose them.

    The new law takes effect on January 1, 2016. However, regulations under the new law are not expected until early 2017 and licensing is not anticipated to begin until early 2018.

    MEDICAL MARIJUANA STATUTES
    • Cal. Health & Saf. Code, §11362.7 (2003)
    • Cal. Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11362.7 - 11362.83 (2003)
    • California Compassionate Use Act 1996, Cal. Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.5 (1996)
    CAREGIVERS
    Yes, primary caregiver is the individual, designated by a qualified patient or by a person with an identification card, who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that patient or person. The caregiver must be 18 years of age or older (unless the primary caregiver is the parent of a minor child who is a qualified patient or a person with an identification card).

    ESTIMATED NUMBER OF REGISTERED PATIENTS
    RECIPROCITY
    No

    CONTACT INFORMATION
    For more information on California's medical marijuana law, please contact:

    California NORML
    2261 Market Street #278A
    San Francisco, CA 94144
    (415) 563-5858
    http://www.canorml.org/

    For detailed information on county or municipal medical marijuana guidelines, please visit:
    http://www.canorml.org/medical-marijuana/local-growing-limits-in-California

    For a list of California doctors who recommend medical cannabis, please visit:
    http://listings.canorml.org/medical-marijuana-doctors-in-California/list.lasso


    For a list of California medical cannabis providers, please visit:
    http://canorml.org/medical-marijuana/California-collectives-and-dispensaries-guide

     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2017
    ataxian, BD9 and turk like this.
  5. Baron23

    Baron23 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,285
    Likes Received:
    11,896
    Trophy Points:
    683
    Location:
    Maryland
    Bill Could Make California a Sanctuary State — For Marijuana
    The measure would bar local police from cooperating with federal crackdowns on pot operations allowed under state laws.
    California legislators have taken a page from laws establishing sanctuary cities for immigrants to create a measure aimed at protecting marijuana from a federal crackdown.

    Similar to laws shielding undocumented immigrants, the recently introduced Assembly Bill 1578 would bar cooperation by police in the state with federal authorities seeking to bust marijuana growers and sellers operating legally under California law.

    The proposed legislation would prohibit state and local agencies — unless served with a court order — from using local money, facilities or personnel to assist a federal agency to “investigate, detain, report, or arrest” any person for commercial or noncommercial marijuana or medical cannabis activity that is authorized by law in the State of California — and transferring an individual to federal law enforcement authorities for purposes of marijuana enforcement.”

    California authorities would also be barred from responding to requests by federal authorities for the personal information of anyone issued state licenses for a marijuana operation.

    The lead sponsor of the bill, Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer (D), said the measure would protect “one of the greatest businesses” in California amid fears of a crackdown by the Trump administration.

    Marijuana advocates are, predictably, thrilled with the bill.

    “This is the equivalent of noncooperation on deportation and environmental laws — part of the larger California resistance to federal intrusion,” Dale Gieringer, state coordinator of California NORML, told L.A. Weekly.

    Not everyone is happy about the bill, including police officials who see it as tying their hands.

    “It really is quite offensive,” Kern County Sheriff Donny Youngblood, president of the California State Sheriffs’ Association, told The Los Angeles Times. Legislators want to “direct law enforcement how they want us to work,” he complained. (cont)
     
    grokit, momofthegoons and ataxian like this.
  6. CarolKing

    CarolKing Always in search of the perfect vaporizer

    Messages:
    565
    Likes Received:
    3,424
    Trophy Points:
    353
    Location:
    By the Enerald City along the Pacific Ocean
    I would worry that the Federal Government would refuse to give states money that's owed to them for social services, school and universities. I would hope that it wouldn't happen. All the states need to stick together on the cannabis issues.
     
    grokit, Baron23 and ataxian like this.
  7. Baron23

    Baron23 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,285
    Likes Received:
    11,896
    Trophy Points:
    683
    Location:
    Maryland
    Proposed California Rules Have the Teamsters Hoppin’ Mad

    Gov. Jerry Brown’s plan to unify California’s medical and adult use regulations, unveiled last week, has the state’s powerful Teamsters union mightily displeased.


    Since the state’s voters passed adult-use legalization last November, California lawmakers have been struggling to reconcile the rules in Proposition 64 with the slightly conflicting regulations in the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA), which was adopted by lawmakers in Sacramento in 2015.

    One of the main differences between the two regulatory schemes: Who gets to distribute cannabis in California.

    MMRSA includes a requirement that all cannabis and cannabis products must be handled by a third-party distributor. The Teamsters like the third-party rule because that’s how alcohol is distributed in California, and their union members drive a lot of beer trucks. Under similar rules, their members would, presumably, also drive a lot of cannabis delivery trucks.

    Several distribution companies, including one set up by an alcohol-industry veteran, have already opened for business in California, in anticipation of millions of dollars of marijuana business steered their way by the MMRSA requirements.

    But that distributor requirement was absent from Prop. 64. It’s believed that the Teamsters made a $25,000 contribution to the anti-legalization campaign last spring for this reason. The union was officially “neutral” on the measure.

    Gov. Brown offers a single set of rules
    On Tuesday, Gov. Brown resolved the conflict and eliminated any chance of a dual-tiered state marijuana industry with a detailed 79-page outline, a “rider bill” attached to his 2017-2018 budget proposal. That outline proposes a single set of rules.

    Gone is the mandated independent distributor. Gone is a requirement that a marijuana business must have a local as well as a state permit. If no local permit is available, a state permit will do.

    Gone as well is a previous restriction on vertical integration. A single cannabis company can now own all links in the supply chain, from seed to sale—with the exception of testing labs, which must remain independent.

    “Allowing for a business to hold multiple licenses including a distribution license will make it easier for businesses to enter the market, encourage innovation, and strengthen compliance with state law,” the governor’s office wrote. “To ensure the integrity of the testing is maintained, all distributors must arrange for an independent licensed testing laboratory to select a random sample, transport it to a laboratory, and test the product.”

    Brown’s proposal must be approved by both houses of the state legislature before it can become law. The deadline for that adoption is approaching. Regulated medical and recreational cannabis sales are scheduled to begin on Jan. 1, 2018.

    “It’s far from a done deal,” Nate Bradley, policy director at the California Cannabis Industry Association, told Leafly. “But all in all, it’s a huge win for small business—it ensures small startups can go straight to market, without having to fight with other people to get into a distribution company in order to get to market. It allows them to do direct-to-market sales.”

    Barry Broad, the Teamsters’ main lobbyist in Sacramento, did not return a message seeking comment from Leafly before this story was published. But in comments to the Sacramento Bee, Broad vowed to fight the removal of third-party distribution “really hard.”

    Marijuana industry figures who had long opposed the alcohol-industry model for cannabis were predictably thrilled.

    “I’m delighted that after many months of discussion and struggle, the Governor has come down on the side of a free market,” Stephen DeAngelo, founder and CEO of Oakland, Calif.-based dispensary Harborside, told Leafly.

    Harborside, with a second location in San Jose, is by repute the largest dispensary in California, with a reported $44 million in annual sales. DeAngelo has long opposed the requirement for its product to go through a distributor.

    Gov. Brown created the Teamster clause
    The removal of the mandatory distributor is a bit of a flip-flop for Gov. Brown. It was Brown’s office that inserted the distributor requirement into the MMRSA language at the eleventh hour in 2015—at the behest of the Teamsters, observers of the process say.

    But in the end, the will of the voters won out. Since MMRSA was created by the legislature, the legislature could amend it. But since Prop. 64 was voter approved, it would require another election—possibly a costly special election—to change it in order to require independent distributors

    The state’s independent Legislative Counsel, which advises the governor and lawmakers on the legality and feasibility of changes to state law, received multiple requests asking how to force the distributor model onto recreational marijuana, multiple sources said. Each time, the Counsel said it would require a vote.

    Brown also appears to resolve a conflict between the Teamsters and another major California labor union, the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW). Both unions would like to represent workers in the legal marijuana industry. UFCW, which has organized several marijuana dispensaries around the state, also opposed the mandatory third-party distributor, favoring a free market model.

    Grown your own, distribute your own
    If adopted, Brown’s proposed rules will allow some major California marijuana manufacturers to distribute their own product. It’s unclear how Brown’s proposal will affect the distributors already in business—including RVR, a West Sacramento-based distributor that’s already shipping cannabis flower, oil cartridges, edibles, and other products across the state.

    One of RVR’s founders is Ted Simpkins, a septuagenarian former liquor executive. Last year, as Politico reported, RVR lobbied state lawmakers heavily, and appeared to wield heavy influence with existing marijuana lobbying groups, including the California Growers Association. A former board member of CGA, Lauren Fraser, became co-founder with Simpkins of RVR.

    Critics like DeAngelo called the odd conglomerate of liquor-industry insiders and marijuana-grower advocates an “unholy alliance.”

    Fraser did not respond to a request for comment by press deadline.

    Fear of mega stores
    In a statement released to CGA’s website, founder and executive director Hezekiah Allen praised Brown’s “solid understanding of several key issues” but did not address at length the removal of the distributor requirement. In a statement to the AP, Allen said Brown’s proposal could lead to “mega-manufacturers and mega-chain stores.”

    In addition to the Teamsters, other powerful, more-conservative lobbies like the California Police Chiefs Association have promised to fight Brown’s proposal because they believe it favors “big marijuana,” as the Associated Press reported. The police chiefs also opposed Prop. 64.

    But the Governor wields significant power. In the past, when Brown has involved himself in cannabis—as with MMRSA—his proposals have largely remained intact. And the depth and breadth of his outline released last week demonstrates how serious Brown is about regulating marijuana in this way—which includes removing the distributor requirement.

    “It is very seldom that a governor puts out an 80-page fact sheet,” one lobbyist close to the process said. “This is tighter than when he introduced his cap-and-trade program.”
     
    ataxian and momofthegoons like this.
  8. Baron23

    Baron23 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,285
    Likes Received:
    11,896
    Trophy Points:
    683
    Location:
    Maryland
    Marijuana vs. Auto Dealerships: Car Salesmen Not Feeling Cannabis

    Cathedral City, California is one of a brace of forlorn, all-but-forgotten towns scattered across the wide expanse of desert stretching west from Los Angeles attempting to reinvent—or, rescue—themselves as marijuana boomtowns.

    Nearly everywhere, marijuana is welcomed, or at least coolly embraced, as a badly needed raison d’etre, bringing businesses (and tax revenue) to places where the recession was only the latest in a series of reversals, and one that’s never quite turned back the other way.

    In Desert Hot Springs, all the available real estate has been bought up by out-of-town investors, looking to cash in on the city-blessed right to run a million-square-foot marijuana operation (though where they’ll find all the water demanded by thousands and thousands of cannabis plants is an open question); in Coalinga, further up Interstate 5, even the local reactionaries are happy that an abandoned prison—once the local economic driver—has been leased by an outfit on whose board sits Bob Marley’s youngest son.

    But in Cathedral City, the marijuana industry is running into well-established, entrenched and persuasive opposition. Not from lawmen or religious types, but from the owners of the local car dealerships.

    Taxes from auto sales produce one of the few existing sources of municipal revenue, and—irate over marijuana’s new footprint in their town, and self-enamored enough to refer to themselves as the local “golden goose”—salesmen are now threatening to leave if cannabis takes over town.

    Take Wes Hinkle. Hinkle owns a Volvo dealership in Cathedral City. Adjacent to his car lot are swaths of vacant land, real estate he says he once considered buying, if he were to expand. But as the Desert Sun reports, not only was the land not available, but an out-of-town marijuana outfit is planning to build two growhouses there.

    In most places in America, warehouse space coexists just fine next to car dealerships. But not in Cathedral City. “I just about fainted when I heard this,” Hinkle told the paper.

    Hinkle and other car dealership owners have been lobbying the local city council in an effort to keep marijuana away from their lots, arguing that the presence of cannabis will harm their business. Not that they’re opposed to medical marijuana per se, no sir!

    From the paper:

    The dealers all said they weren’t opposed to medical marijuana cultivation, but they didn’t want it in their backyard. They proposed a marijuana district on the annexed city land north of Interstate-10, further away from established city business districts.

    (cont)
     
    ataxian and momofthegoons like this.
  9. Baron23

    Baron23 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,285
    Likes Received:
    11,896
    Trophy Points:
    683
    Location:
    Maryland
    California Seeks Control of Unruly Medical Pot Industry

    BY MICHAEL R. BLOOD
    ASSOCIATED PRESS

    LOS ANGELES (AP) — California is trying to get control of its unruly medical marijuana industry.

    State regulators released draft regulations Friday intended to impose order on the loosely organized marketplace created over two decades ago.

    The proposal would establish the first comprehensive rules for growing, testing, transporting and selling medical pot in the state that is home to 1 in 8 Americans.

    Voters last year agreed to legalize recreational marijuana use for adults in 2018. The state is faced with the challenging task of trying to govern a vast, emerging cannabis industry with a projected value of $7 billion.

    Similar rules are being created for the recreational industry. There are differences, and a bill in the Legislature backed by Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown seeks to square the recreational pot law with the rules for medical marijuana.

    Hezekiah Allen, president of the California Growers Association, an industry group, called the draft rules “a major step toward a well-regulated cannabis industry.”

    However, he added in a statement that “there is still a lot of uncertainty as the Legislature works to better balance” the various proposals.

    For medical marijuana users in California, the proposed rules will have no immediate impact. The draft regulations are expected to take months to review and refine.

    They do not go into effect until Jan. 1, when recreational marijuana use also becomes legal.

    The Bureau of Marijuana Control said in a statement that it’s attempting to establish a “coherent regulatory framework for an established industry that has not been comprehensively regulated by the state.”
     
    ataxian and momofthegoons like this.
  10. Baron23

    Baron23 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,285
    Likes Received:
    11,896
    Trophy Points:
    683
    Location:
    Maryland
    California Medical Cannabis Cultivation Program Seeks Input

    Released last Thursday for public scrutiny and in search of helpful suggestions, the California Department of Food and Agriculture have finally published their proposed regulations for the state’s medicinal cannabis cultivation and licensing program.

    The official start of the 45-day state-mandated public comment period, which is open to California’s cultivators as well as the general public, began on April 28.

    Individuals with suggestions, comments, or proposals are encouraged to submit their thoughts in writing through email, or at one of the four public hearings currently scheduled throughout the Golden State.

    Public CalCannabis Comments:
    Tuesday, May 16, 2017, 1-3 p.m.
    Delhi Center, Ballroom
    505 East Central Avenue, Santa Ana, CA

    Thursday, May 18, 2017, 1-3 p.m.
    Visalia Convention Center, Sequoia Room
    303 East Acequia Avenue, Visalia, CA

    Thursday, May 25, 2017, 1-3 p.m.
    Ukiah Convention Center, Cabernet Room
    200 South School Street, Ukiah, CA 95482

    Wednesday, June 14, 2017, 1-3 p.m.
    California Department of Food and Agriculture Auditorium
    1220 N Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
    Note: Anyone unable to attend one of the four scheduled meetings can submit their suggestions via the U.S. Postal Service or through email.

    Mail CalCannabis Comments:
    California Department of Food and Agriculture CalCannabis:
    Proposed Medical Regulations Comments Attn: Rachelle Kennedy
    1220 N Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814

    Email CalCannabis Comments:
    Write in the email subject line:
    Comments on Medical Cannabis Cultivation Regulations
    Address the email to: CalCannabisRegs@cdfa.ca.gov

    “This is an opportunity to help us make sure we develop the best and most effective regulatory framework for our state,” explained Sec. Karen Ross of the California Department of Food and Agriculture. Propagating the future of California’s newest industry, on January 1, 2018, CalCannabis will begin accepting applications for state-sanctioned cultivation licenses.

    For those interested in providing input on California’s cultivation program, all comments, suggestions, and proposals for CalCannabis must be received by 5 p.m. on Monday, June 12, 2017.
     
    ataxian and momofthegoons like this.
  11. Baron23

    Baron23 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,285
    Likes Received:
    11,896
    Trophy Points:
    683
    Location:
    Maryland
    North Coast marijuana producers react to California’s draft medical marijuana rules

    The first draft of rules for California’s medical marijuana industry would establish a highly regulated business environment, with strict limits on the hours of operation and the amount of THC infused into oils, and in turn set standards for cleaner, more consistent products for pot consumers.

    State regulators from three departments released a trove of proposed rules Friday for marijuana cultivation, processing, distribution and sales in a highly anticipated step for those poised to take part in the state’s first attempt at taking charge of what’s been, for two decades, an unregulated medical cannabis sector. The public has 45 days to give input.

    North Coast cannabis industry players said they are preparing to push the state to fine-tune the rules, which do not address recreational marijuana. The detailed regulations will undergo a series of revisions and are set to take effect in 2018.

    “Honestly our feedback is so positive at this point,” said Hezekiah Allen, executive director of the California Growers Association. “We do have a long list of technical concerns — what does this mean? how does that work? — but the bottom line is they are a very quality set of regulations.”

    The cost of doing business will rise with greater requirements for security, delivery, testing and other aspects of the business. A financial analysis done for the state estimated the total increase in costs at $524 per pound. Marijuana sells wholesale for between $800 and $2,500 per pound, depending on a variety of factors like growing methods and processing.

    Individual plants would be tracked from seeds and flowers to processing facilities. Dispensaries wouldn’t be able to package products or give out free samples, but they would be able to deliver products following certain rules covering everything from the volume of deliveries to types of delivery vehicles.

    Mara Gordon, founder of Aunt Zelda’s, a manufacturer of three cannabis-based medical oils based in Bodega Bay, said the state is setting out to drastically limit the amount of THC in products aimed to treat health conditions, which “shows a lack of understanding of a medical patient’s need.”

    Amounts of THC, the main psychoactive compound in marijuana, would be limited to 10 milligrams per serving and 100 milligrams per package. Gordon said those amounts are appropriate for recreational cannabis products but create an unfair burden for people treating serious health conditions.

    A patient with cancer or epilepsy could easily take 200 milligrams of THC per day, which under the proposed rules would require consuming greater volumes of oils or foods, Gordon said.

    “Our products, we call them bio-pharmaceutical products and we think of them as serious medicines for serious diseases,” Gordon said. “It’s all getting lumped together with the self-medicating person who is using a gummy bear.”

    The state is pushing to greatly restrict the types of foods with cannabis, and would ban the infusion of marijuana with alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, dairy and juice. It would also ban perishable or canned cannabis-infused products.

    The rules appear aimed at limiting the industry’s ability to create products that might appeal to children. Additionally, the state issued guidelines for packaging to be opaque, contain a state-designated THC warning symbol and avoid any cartoonish design. (cont)
     
    ataxian and momofthegoons like this.
  12. Baron23

    Baron23 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,285
    Likes Received:
    11,896
    Trophy Points:
    683
    Location:
    Maryland
    Eastside Pot Shops Got an Unwelcome Visit From the Cops

    The county of Los Angeles, like many other local and regional governments across the state, has seen the light: Recreational marijuana legalization and new state regulations that could finally legitimize medical pot shops could amount to a green rush for both cannabis entrepreneurs and local tax coffers.

    But the strategy for the L.A. County Board of Supervisors has been made perfectly clear: The existing community of marijuana retailers in areas under its jurisdiction needs to be wiped out before new stores can be legitimized next year with county licenses and regulations. It appears the plan was being carried out Wednesday as sheriff's deputies visited pot shops in East L.A., according to Jonatan Cvetko, co-founder of Angeles Emeralds, a group that formed in order to represent the interests of county collectives.

    "We did not 'raid,'" sheriff's spokeswoman Nicole Nishida said via email. "We are checking and reviewing permits at various medical marijuana dispensaries in the unincorporated Los Angeles County area. There were a few arrests for various charges unrelated to the medical marijuana dispensary investigations."

    Dispensaries were banned in unincorporated communities in 2011. There are no permits specifically for selling cannabis in these areas, which are governed directly by the county. East L.A., one of those communities without city status, has 16 open pot shops — the most of any of the five supervisoral districts in the county — according to a recent report from county counsel Mary C. Wickham. The report lays out a county "surge strategy" to shutter 26 dispensaries in the county unfazed by far away raids and essentially unmoved by court actions.

    On April 18, when the board failed to vote on funding the surge strategy — one idea was to use some of the money from a $25 million county settlement with Wells Fargo over its alleged creation of fake customer accounts — some cannabis advocates took as a strategic reprieve for targeted shops in the days leading to the unofficial marijuana holiday, 4/20. But the sheriff's department doesn't necessarily need special funding to enforce the law, and it can do so pretty much whenever it pleases.

    At the time Supervisor Hilda Solis, whose district includes East L.A., said via email that "my number one concern lies in the safety and well-being of my communities."

    "I have heard from many of my constituents that unregulated dispensaries keep popping up in their own backyards and near schools," she said. "I understand that the voters have spoken when it comes to legalizing marijuana, but what is happening right now in East Los Angeles is out of control. My constituents are concerned and that’s why I called for today’s report back on enforcement. The reality is, marijuana is legal and I support regulation and a regulatory structure. Come January 2018, we need to make sure dispensaries are up to code and do not pose a public health threat to both consumers and communities.”

    The board earlier this year voted to explore licensing, regulating and taxing pot businesses, including retailers, producers and cultivators, in the areas it controls. But it looks like county leaders want to start off with a clean sheet of paper.

    Advocates like Angeles Emeralds say wiping out a community of knowledgeable business owners — who would be legal if given the opportunity — is a mistake that deprives neighborhood patients of well-rooted collectives. "If they wipe out this community, where's the chance for good operators to come back in to a regulated market," Cvetko said earlier this spring.


    Well, I have a couple of thoughts about this. One, they are doing this in east LA. If they tried it in the wealthy west LA areas there would be howls. But in east LA, well I guess they just think they can screw these people many of which are latino or black.

    Two, this type of action seems to certainly be the prelude to big business winning licenses and dominating the market. This is inevitable, I believe, but they certainly should make room for small, boutique/specialty/local owned, type operations.
     
    momofthegoons and ataxian like this.
  13. ataxian

    ataxian Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,617
    Likes Received:
    7,586
    Trophy Points:
    473
    Location:
    PALE BLUE DOT
    So SAD!
    I live in the GOLDEN TRIANGLE of CALIFORNIA in a BEACH TOWN.
    When a TROPHY wife drives a $300,000.00 car to a DISPENSARY to pick-up 4 oz'z the police check her out.
    Arrest is not done at all. EAST LA? Not Fair just because you have $ you have law's to protect you!
    On the street for well grown CANNABIS is cheaper than a dispensary go to the EAST!

    MESSY LAWS?
    UNCIVILIZED
     
    momofthegoons and Baron23 like this.
  14. Baron23

    Baron23 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,285
    Likes Received:
    11,896
    Trophy Points:
    683
    Location:
    Maryland
    Adelanto wants to be the 'Silicon Valley of medical marijuana'

    In a plot of desert surrounded by Joshua trees and aging factories, developer James Previti — in a suit coat and Louis Vuitton shades — watches as construction workers build the roof of a concrete building that from afar looks like a future Costco.

    Previti has spent years developing homes around the Inland Empire. But this is something new for him: a 30-acre industrial park in Adelanto divided into 21 units that will be sold to marijuana cultivators for $7.5 million each.

    “We’ve always tried to be opportunistic, and we saw a place where we could fill a need,” Previti said. (cont)
     
    ataxian and momofthegoons like this.
  15. elykpeace

    elykpeace exVASted

    Messages:
    232
    Likes Received:
    1,136
    Trophy Points:
    353
    https://cannasense.com/education/

    How authentic is this? They say they deliver to all 50 states... You get a recommendation from a Cali doctor online... And when your a member/patient you have access to an online apothecary and they ship to your home. For those still waiting on their states laws on mmj to become official this could be a work around.. anyone use this collective for their meds?
     
    ataxian and momofthegoons like this.
  16. momofthegoons

    momofthegoons Vapor Accessory Addict Staff Member

    Messages:
    8,557
    Likes Received:
    40,677
    Trophy Points:
    703
    It may be authentic... but the prices are a bit high; even at the member level. And the concentrates they offer are all CBD products.

    Plus... although they say it's a legal process, MMJ is still Federally illegal. Which means any form of transportation across state lines via plane or post is illegal. So..... I wouldn't risk it personally. Not something that is this documented. :twocents:
     
    Baron23 and ataxian like this.
  17. ataxian

    ataxian Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,617
    Likes Received:
    7,586
    Trophy Points:
    473
    Location:
    PALE BLUE DOT
    I can be a doubter at times?
    Prices are very high?
    Not worth it!
     
    momofthegoons likes this.
  18. Baron23

    Baron23 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,285
    Likes Received:
    11,896
    Trophy Points:
    683
    Location:
    Maryland
    California could be a 'sanctuary state' from federal pot laws, thanks to razor-thin vote
    California moved a step closer Thursday to becoming a “sanctuary state” where local and state police would not assist federal enforcement of marijuana laws.

    The state Assembly approved a bill Thursday barring state and local law enforcement officers, absent a court order, from helping federal drug agents in arresting people who are complying with state laws allowing the use and sale of marijuana.

    With a Friday deadline for action, the measure by Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer (D-Los Angeles) was sent to the state Senate for consideration.

    The lawmaker argued his legislation was needed because the Trump administration had threatened to resume enforcement of federal law that considered marijuana an illegal drug.

    Proposition 64, two decades after medical use was approved by state voters. The state plans to begin issuing licenses to grow, transport and sell marijuana in January.

    “AB 1578 ensures that our limited local and state resources are not spent on federal marijuana enforcement against individuals and entities that are in compliance with our laws,” Jones-Sawyer said during the floor debate.

    With law enforcement opposed to the bill, the measure faced long odds and only achieved the bare majority 41-32 vote late Thursday night.

    Also against the idea were Republican lawmakers, who said it would hamper the working relationship between California police officers and federal drug agents who might discover illegal activity involving marijuana sales even in a legal market.

    “It would interfere with local and state agencies’ ability to cooperate with the federal government,” said Assemblyman James Gallagher (R-Yuba City). “This is bad policy.”

    Assemblyman Travis Allen (R-Huntington Beach) said the Jones-Sawyer bill was similar to sanctuary-state legislation that would prohibit local law enforcement agencies from helping federal immigration agents arrest and detain people in the country illegally.

    “This is insanity,” Allen told his colleagues. “This is a complete violation of federal law. The hubris of California Democrats believing they can flout federal law on immigration and drug policy is beyond words.”

    He said local law enforcement would be put in “harm’s way” if there was no cooperation with federal drug enforcement officers.

    Jones-Sawyer said he was open to revising the bill language to make it clear he wanted to allow cooperation between locals and federal agents in cases where state and federal marijuana laws were being violated. He said there were about 1,400 illegal marijuana businesses operating in Los Angeles that he wanted shut down.

    Assemblyman Rob Bonta (D-Alameda), who co-wrote the bill, said the measure would reassure those who complied with California’s cannabis laws that they would not get in trouble.

    “People who are compliant with California law and operate within the legal cannabis market should not have to fear that a state or local agency will participate in efforts to punish or incarcerate them for activity that the state and its voters have deemed legal,” Bonta said.

    The Assembly on Thursday also approved a separate bill that merges rules from the medical marijuana laws with those from Proposition 64.

    That bill, which also now goes to the Senate for consideration, allows medical cannabis facilities that are for-profit, bans pot billboards on interstate and state highways, requires state licenses after officials determine recreational-use businesses comply with local ordinances, and provides $3 million to the California Highway Patrol for developing drugged-driving enforcement plans.
     
    momofthegoons likes this.
  19. Baron23

    Baron23 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,285
    Likes Received:
    11,896
    Trophy Points:
    683
    Location:
    Maryland
    ACLU, Drug Policy Alliance sue California city over marijuana home grow restrictions

    Under Prop. 64, adults have the right to cultivate up to six marijuana plants. But the law also says cities or counties can ban outdoor gardens and “reasonably regulate” indoor grows

    Published: Jun 7, 2017, 9:14 am • Updated: about 3 hours ago

    By Brooke Edwards Staggs, The Cannifornian

    The ACLU of California and the Drug Policy Alliance are suing Fontana, claiming that the city’s marijuana ordinance conflicts with rights granted to all Californians under Proposition 64.

    The suit may be the first legal test of how far California cities can go in restricting residents’ newfound freedom to grow cannabis at home.

    Under Prop. 64, every Californian 21 or older has a right to cultivate up to six marijuana plants for personal use. But the law also says cities or counties can ban outdoor gardens and “reasonably regulate” indoor grows.

    In the seven months since the voter-approved law took affect, a growing number of cities have instituted rules for in-home cultivation that test the limits of what’s considered “reasonable.” But Joy Haviland, staff attorney at the Drug Policy Alliance, said Fontana’s policy was the “most egregious.”

    Fontana — a city of 200,000 people that sits 50 miles east of Los Angeles — passed an ordinance in January that requires residents who want to cultivate up to six plants inside their home to first get a $411 permit from the city.

    To get a permit, residents have to pay for a background check to prove that they don’t have any drug convictions within the past five years. They can’t have overdue city fees or pending code enforcement violations. Renters have to get a notarized OK from their landlord.

    The city ordinance also puts limits on where residents can grow those plants, stating the grow area has to be used exclusively for cultivation, can only be accessed by one locking door, can’t be visible to the public and more. And they have to agree to allow city officials to inspect their homes.

    Haviland said these rules make it “unreasonably difficult and expensive” for residents to grow cannabis at home as allowed under Prop. 64, resulting in a “de facto ban” for some people.

    “This ordinance is at odds with state law enacted by a majority of the voters in California, in San Bernardino County and the city of Fontana,” she said. “Local officials cannot limit or undo what is now legally allowed in California. Prop. 64 allows adults to cultivate for their own personal use in their private homes without unnecessary intrusion from the state.”

    The lawsuit was filed Monday in San Bernardino County Superior Court on behalf of 61-year-old Mike Harris. He’s a retired iron worker and registered nurse who wants to cultivate marijuana in the Fontana home he’s owned since 1987 to ease his arthritis and pain from old injuries.

    Fontana City Attorney Jeff Ballinger said as of Tuesday morning, the city hadn’t yet been served with the lawsuit.

    “We can’t really comment until the City Council and city attorneys’ office have had a chance to review the complaint,” he said.

    When the City Council passed the ordinance in January, Mayor Acquanetta Warren acknowledged her city’s permitting process isn’t easy — and intentionally so. But she said it’s aimed at protecting all residents.

    “This town has been a town of safety. And we’re trying with this initiative to make sure that we keep our residents safe – particularly our young people,” she said.

    Haviland said those comments from council members, which made it clear that they wanted to pass as restrictive a measure as possible, helped spur the lawsuit against the city.

    Another portion of the policy that the Drug Policy Alliance and ACLU object to is that if Fontana residents grow six plants at home without a permit, that’s considered a misdemeanor crime even though it’s legal under state law.

    “The ACLU of California supported Prop. 64, in large part because of our longstanding policy that possessing or cultivating marijuana for personal use should not be a crime,” said Jess Farris, director of Criminal Justice at the ACLU of Southern California. “The Fontana ordinance – and other similar ordinances around the state – would criminalize the very conduct Prop. 64 legalized, particularly for people who are ineligible to obtain a permit because of their criminal convictions or their lack of funds to obtain a permit or to dedicate an entire room in their home to cultivation.”


    A number of other cities have passed similarly restrictive ordinances on home grows, including Aliso Viejo, Indian Wells, Montebello, Elk Grove, Galt, San Juan Capistrano and San Jacinto.

    Some language in several of those policies is identical to what’s found in Fontana’s ordinance. Ballinger confirmed that his law firm, Best Best & Krieger, provided a sample ordinance for cities its attorneys represent — which includes Indian Wells and San Jacinto, among others — to use or tweak as they’d like.

    Both Haviland and an ACLU of California spokesman said the suit against Fontana is the first they’re aware of that’s been filed over marijuana rights since Prop. 64 passed on Nov. 8.

    Fontana stood out for having the priciest permit, Haviland said. Plus she noted that it’s a much bigger city than, say, Indian Wells, and her organization wants to be smart about pursuing litigation where it stands to have the biggest impact.

    “We hope that this lawsuit serves as an example for other cities that have passed or are considering similar ordinances,” she said.

    Prop. 64 states that cities have full authority to ban all marijuana-related businesses within their borders — both for medical marijuana businesses now and for recreational cannabis ventures once the state starts handing out licenses for those on Jan. 1.

    Fontana and many other cities have enacted full bans on businesses, and Haviland said her organization isn’t challenging that authority. But since many cities are choosing to ban dispensaries and delivery services, she said protecting residents’ right to grow at home becomes even more crucial so they have the access to legal cannabis that’s afforded under state law.

    A conference on the Fontana lawsuit is set for Dec. 4., according to San Bernardino County court records.

    So, the majority of citizens in this town voted for Prop 64 but once again elected and self-entitle politicians go through the regulatory backdoor to effectively thwart the will of the people. To add insult to injury, this Mayor Warren is wrapping herself and these decisions in the flag of "oh, we are doing it to protect the children" when we all know that the only thing they are doing is expressing their own personal bias and prejudices. I hate the hypocrisy and mendacity of that kind of thing. Fonatana....send these politicians packing and make them honestly work for a living for once in their miserable lives.
     
    momofthegoons likes this.
  20. Baron23

    Baron23 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,285
    Likes Received:
    11,896
    Trophy Points:
    683
    Location:
    Maryland
    Los Angeles releases draft cannabis business regulations
    After more than a year of community meetings, bureaucratic review, and sometimes bitter industry infighting, the Los Angeles City Council released its draft cannabis regulations Thursday. While still subject to public comment and revision, the proposed rules give a glimpse of what the industry might look like in California’s largest cannabis market.

    Much of the document is unsurprising. As lawyer Hilary Bricken of the cannabis-focused Harris Bricken law firm points out, “most of these initial regulations identically track initial state regulations” under the state’s medical cannabis law. (If you’re not familiar with those, you might want to start by reading our quick explainer.) But Los Angeles has long been something of an odd duck when it comes to cannabis regulation, and there are some provisions that will continue to set the city apart.

    Newcomers, Don’t Get Your Hopes Up
    Existing dispensaries that operate with the city’s blessing (thanks to a complicated regulatory scheme, 135 dispensaries are allowed to operate despite a blanket ban on retail cannabis) will have first crack at city-issued “compliance certificates.” Applications from the general public won’t be accepted until after existing dispensaries are considered. In an effort to promote equity in ownership, the number of certificates granted to the general public may not exceed the number granted to applicants through a diversity-focused social equity program. That process could take months or years.

    No Explicit Limit on Number of Retail Stores
    The draft regulations don’t put a hard cap on the number of dispensaries in LA. That said, because certificates will be granted under a multi-phase process that ties the number of general public certificates to the number of social equity program certificates awarded—under a program yet to be established—the expansion of LA’s cannabis market is will be limited to some degree.

    Bye Bye, BHO Production
    Cannabis manufacturing that makes use of volatile chemicals won’t be allowed in Los Angeles. This is primarily aimed at cannabis concentrate producers, who sometimes use volatile solvents like butane or ethanol to produce extracts used in dabbing, vaporization, edibles, and other manufactured products.

    The city’s not joking around. Anyone convicted of manufacturing with volatile compounds will be prohibited from commercial cannabis activity for 10 years.

    (Legal) Delivery Is Coming!
    If you’ve been unaware of the contentious fight around Los Angeles cannabis deliveries, consider yourself lucky. Once the target of enforcement actions by City Attorney Mike Feuer, delivery services will now be permitted in LA under regulations that mirror the state’s. One slight qualifier: Deliveries may not occur outside the city without express permission from LA city officials. That could cause headaches in a city that contains multiple municipalities within its own boundaries.

    Diversity Will Be a Priority—Eventually
    “Criteria for applicants under the Social Equity Program will be developed based on a social equity analysis aimed at promoting equitable ownership and employment opportunities in the cannabis industry in order to decrease disparities in life outcomes for marginalized communities and to address the disproportionate impacts of the war on drugs in those communities,” according to the draft regulations. After that, the program will need the City Council’s sign-off.

    Distributing the fruits of legalization equitably has become a big issue, especially as other states struggle to welcome people of color into the regulated market. It’s especially important to the cannabis community in multiethnic Los Angeles, where the public urged officials to take diversity into consideration when granting certificates. For now, however, the city’s description of the equity program reads like a very wordy IOU.

    Dispensaries Can Stay Open While Awaiting Certification
    To minimize interruption of the city’s existing cannabis market, compliant dispensaries will be allowed to continue operating while certificate applications are pending. But if and when an application is rejected, it’s game over. At that point both the applicant and the owner of the property where the activity is taking place could face enforcement actions.

    Growers and processors, you can carry on so long as you’ve been in operation since before Jan. 1, 2016, and submit a certificate application within 30 days of said applications becoming available.

    Existing Dispensaries Must Act Soon
    Applicants with priority—existing dispensaries that have been in compliance with LA’s complicated regulations—have just 60 days to submit applications after they become available. If that’s you, read that again: You’ll have just 60 days. Priority applicants who miss that window will be treated as new retail applicants.

    If city officials deem an application incomplete, the applicant has three months to correct all deficiencies, so it may be worth submitting an application on time even if it’s not complete.

    LA Growers Do It Indoors
    Warehouse cannabis cultivation is the norm in Los Angeles, and it looks like it will stay that way. The draft regulations bar outdoor and mixed-light grows.

    Cultivation Facilities May Have to Move—by 2024
    If an existing dispensary’s on-site cultivation facility falls in a zone not designated for indoor growing, the business will have to stop growing there—but not immediately. They’ll have until the end of 2024 to end operations.

    Public Employees May Not Apply
    No business may be held by individuals in public office or employed by any state agency or subdivision, including the city of LA. That means no ownership interest whatsoever, direct or indirect, in any city-certified business.

    Protection for Unionization
    Applicants with 10 or more employees will need to show that they’ve entered into a labor peace agreement and provide a copy of the agreement. It’s a move meant to ensure that union representatives have access to the property during business hours, a state rule.

    Get a Certificate? Don’t Try to Sell Your Business
    “Businesses are not transferable once a Certificate of Compliance is issued, including a Provisional Certificate of Compliance,” the draft regulations say. Any changes to a business’s ownership or organizational structure “requires a new application, the initial application fees” and approval from officials. Out-of-state investment or ownership is also prohibited.


    Love It? Hate It? Weigh In Soon
    Written comments should can be submitted via email (richard.williams@lacity.org) or mailed to to the city clerk’s office:

    Los Angeles City Clerk’s Office
    Richard Williams, Legislative Assistant
    200 N Spring St., Room 360
    Los Angeles, CA 90012

    richard.williams@lacity.org

    To make sure your comments are seen, submissions should reference “Council File No. 14-0366-S5”
     
    grokit and momofthegoons like this.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice