Sponsored by

VGoodiez 420EDC
  • Welcome to VaporAsylum! Please take a moment to read our RULES and introduce yourself here.
  • Need help navigating the forum? Find out how to use our features here.
  • Did you know we have lots of smilies for you to use?

Law California

San Diego Cannabis Group Seeks Pot Testimonials
The San Diego educational community group CannITalk is seeking individuals willing to give short video testimonials sharing how cannabis has had a positive impact in their life. The group, in conjunction with the Association of Cannabis Professionals (ACP), will edit submissions into a program to be presented to the San Diego City Council at a public hearing on Tuesday, September 11.

At that meeting, the council will be considering proposed ordinances to regulate marijuana cultivation, manufacturing, testing and distribution in California’s second-largest city. The ACP is currently lobbying city staff to include home delivery provisions in the proposal. It is hoped that the personal experiences shared will help sway any council members reluctant to allow a robust legalized cannabis market.

Testimonials will be recorded by a videographer at the monthly CannITalk educational forum to be held Monday, August 28. Organizers Dan Shook and Chris Kammer explained that the goal of CannITalk is to create a community based on cannabis education. They believe that the public is hungry for information and that the CannITalk events can be a platform for sharing knowledge on the benefits of marijuana.

“We’re still learning,” noted Shook. “Fibromyalgia, Crohn’s disease, restless leg syndrome, chronic pain, epilepsy. There’s all these conditions that people are silently dealing with, and they don’t know, or they’re curious… Can cannabis be something that can help me out?”

The educational topic for the August CannITalk will be “Lab Testing in 2018.” Tina Urban of Urban Laboratories will discuss mandatory analytic testing of cannabis products coming to California next year.

The CannITalk event will be held at Trailer Park After Dark, 835 Fifth Ave. in San Diego at 6:30 p.m., on Monday, August 28. The cost is $10, or $5 with a donation of food or clothing for the needy. Those wishing to record a testimonial are asked to RSVP to CannITalk@gmail.com.
 
California: Cannabis issues among priorities as legislators return from break

California legislators returned to Sacramento Aug. 21 as the Legislature reconvened following a month off.

As lawmakers head back to work, there are a number of major issues left to work on. One of the bigger issues that will have a significant effect locally is working out the kinks in cannabis regulation.

The bills are among nearly 50 in front of lawmakers as the deadline to open the state’s recreational market — Jan. 1, 2018 — rapidly approaches.

Both North Coast legislators, Assemblyman Jim Wood (D-Healdsburg) and Sen. Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) have proposed legislation that would regulate cannabis.

Here’s where some of the cannabis-related bills are in the legislative process.

Marketing >> McGuire introduced SB 175, which would regulate marketing and advertising of cannabis products. The bill would prohibit using the name of a county — or one that sounds like it — for a product unless the cannabis product originated in that specific county. The bill has moved from the Senate to the Assembly and is currently in the agriculture committee.

Prop 64 >> Wood co-authored AB 64, which clarifies some of the provisions of Proposition 64. AB 64 specifies a licensed medical marijuana business or a collective can operate either for profit or as a nonprofit; specifies that a dispensary does not necessarily need to have a storefront as could be the case with a delivery service; prohibiting marijuana advertising on interstates and highways; authorizes the Secretary of State to issue trademarks for cannabis products; and loans $3 million from the General Fund to the California Highway Patrol to research marijuana DUI detection. In an appropriations hearing on Aug. 21, the bill — along with most other cannabis bills up for fiscal discussion — were sent to what is called the suspense file. That means the bills are on hold. The bills have until Sept. 1 to move out of the fiscal committee.

Law enforcement >> Wood is co-author of AB 1578, which would prevent local law enforcement from working with federal authorities to “investigate, detain, detect, report, or arrest a person for commercial or noncommercial marijuana or medical cannabis activity,” according to the bill’s text, absent a court order signed by a judge. The bill was ordered to a third reading in late June.

Tax breaks >> Introduced by Wood, AB 420, would allow cannabis businesses to deduct business expenses on state income taxes — a move that strays from the federal rules on the issue. In an appropriations hearing on Aug. 21, the bill was sent to the suspense file.

Tax collection >> AB 1410, a joint project between Wood and McGuire would allow a licensed distributor to remit taxes to the state Board of Equalization, which allows flexibility to the cultivator. The bill is supported by the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors, which wrote a letter of support for the legislation in March. Like others in Senate appropriations on Monday, the bill was sent to the suspense file.
 
Yes, that's a very good question for which no good answer has been found. We need them to bust a grower with deep enough pockets to sue the shit out them and then we will see where it goes. Hit them in the wallet (the budget), and cops will learn to respect the law....maybe.

Why Are California Cops Raiding Legal Marijuana Grows?

Marijuana legalization can be best described as a partnership. For cannabis to become a commodity that is bought and sold like alcohol, tobacco or tomatoes, everybody involved—lawmakers, law-enforcement and the people who grow, sell and consume marijuana—has to come to some kind of agreement on how things will work.

This is how everything else in our society works. If one party decides that they don’t like the rules, it can throw the whole affair into chaos.

To date, among those three players mentioned above, most of the stubborn, recalcitrant resistance has come from the police. (Shocking. Nobody could have predicted this.) And in certain northern California communities, where marijuana is the major economic driver and where local governments are offering permits for commercial marijuana activity, it’s the police who are choosing to create havoc by behaving as if legalization never happened.

According to the California Growers Association, an industry group representing small and medium cultivators in the Emerald Triangle, at least 15 “growers with county permits” or pending permit applications have been raided by law enforcement, who eradicated their crops.

In these instances, it isn’t drug task forces that are pulling up plants, but Fish and Wildlife wardens, convinced that environmental degradation is afoot—not that it matters much to the growers which badges are being flashed when a year’s work is being cut down and tossed into the back of an evidence trailer (or flung into a ravine).

Understandably, growers are livid and asking aloud, “What’s the point?”

As the Santa Rosa Press Democrat reports, “cannabis cultivators have showed up by the thousands at county offices” in Humboldt, Mendocino and Trinity counties, seeking permits—and, along with them, both legitimacy and some guarantee of legal protection.

“We have to make it attractive for people to get into the system,” Mendocino County Supervisor Dan Hamburg told the newspaper, “and things like this make people say, ‘hell no.’”

There’s some questionable logic at play here.

Yes, illegal cannabis cultivation has absolutely caused significant problems in rural areas where water quality and availability is vitally important and where toxic hazards like pesticides and rodenticides are wreaking havoc with local wildlife.

At the same time, if a cannabis cultivator has bothered to go through with the investment of time and money to obtain a permit, they’re going to be less likely to throw it all away by committing environmental fouls. Most stories of illegal logging, nasty chemicals and piles of trash come from illegal grows.

Furthermore, environmental no-no’s, like illegally diverting water, aren’t exactly criminal enterprises. Yet, Fish and Wildlife wardens are treating some private citizens as if they’re cartel capos.

Here’s one example from the Press Democrat:

In a recent case, Fish and Wildlife wardens visited a Mendocino County property unannounced Aug. 10 with a search warrant and weapons drawn. They detained the residents in handcuffs for several hours while officers eradicated more than 60 nearly mature plants, searched the home and seized their county application documents, according to the residents and their attorney.

A Fish and Wildlife spokesman said the property was raided because they suspected a well was diverting water from a nearby creek.

The marijuana cultivator in question lost a crop worth $350,000, the sale of which to several dispensaries she’d already arranged. To make the situation worse, the cultivator had already had several county inspections and was cooperating fully with inspectors before Fish and Wildlife showed up with guns out.

According to county officials, Fish and Wildlife didn’t bother to contact the permitting agency before going out on their raid.

However, it’s not just game wardens. As per the Mendocino Voice, sheriff’s deputies working on drug task forces have also paid unwelcome and hostile visits to registered marijuana farms.

Other cultivators debating whether to go legit and get a permit are now having second thoughts. And anyone who did plunk down money and welcome public workers on to their property are now wondering when they’ll be next.

“People are saying, ‘I knew I shouldn’t have applied,’” said Casey O’Neill, vice-chair of the California Growers’ Association.

Let’s try to draw some parallels.

If a restaurant is violating city health codes, do police in kevlar vests respond with weapons out and destroy the restaurant in order to save the neighborhood from a bowl of fishy potato salad, without calling the health inspector? As usual, cannabis is held to an impossible double standard, and legal marijuana operators are subjected to treatment befitting members of the Zetas.

County officials are at least siding with marijuana growers. Elected officials in Trinity County sent an official letter to state authorities in charge of the Fish and Wildlife Department, asking why “a number of our current licensees and applicants are being specifically targeted.”

Applying Occam’s razor, it’s because targeting people registered with a county office is easy. Inspectors know exactly where they’re located. They have their addresses and telephone numbers. Busting a property like that is way easier than tramping around in the woods, looking for scary and dangerous fellows who are really breaking the law.

But if this keeps up, these illegal growers be the only ones willing to take the risk of cultivating cannabis. And legalization will have been successfully disrupted.
 
California’s Capital City to Send SWAT Teams after Noncompliant Pot Grows
Sometime before the Labor Day holiday, heavily armed and highly trained law-enforcement officers will fan out across Sacramento, California’s capital city and the main center of commerce and culture in the state’s vast Central Valley.

Following elite cops from the Sacramento Police Department’s SWAT team will be an army of rulebook and paperwork wonks: building inspectors and code-enforcement officers.

As the Sacramento Bee is reporting, this is the dream team that city leaders are sending out into the world to suss out illegal marijuana grows—a one-size-raids-all approach that will snare both cartel-connected trafficking rings, as well as homegrows a few plants or a few square feet too big and ergo out of code compliance.

Marijuana legalization has meant that, since Election Night last year, it’s perfectly legal for all Californians aged 21 and over to possess up to an ounce of cannabis and to cultivate up to six plants in their homes. Medical marijuana patients are allowed more—more plants and more cannabis in their personal possession—and commercial cannabis activity, involving many, many more plants and pounds and pounds of pot, is also legal, provided the operators acquire permits and pay fees.

But in the almost 10 months since, authorities in law enforcement and government have set rules so strict or set fees so high as to render legalization irrelevant or unworkable—or, in Sacramento’s case, taken an approach skewed so heavily towards the carceral that it sends a clear message: Marijuana legalization is a right you use at your own risk.

Some communities have passed laws requiring fees or permit inspections before six-plant homegrows can be planted. Others have suggested charging would-be homegrowers for commercial-grade water hookups costing tens of thousands of dollars.

Sacramento’s plan presents a different conundrum—someone growing a few big plants runs the risk of having the SWAT team called in on them by a neighbor—but the chilling effect will be the same. People will buy their cannabis at a dispensary, thank you very much, and avoid the unwelcome visit.

According to Joe Devlin, head of the city’s new Office of Cannabis Policy, there are as many as 1,000 illegal growing operations in Sacramento. Whether those are grows slightly out of compliance, medical grows with expired paperwork or outright ongoing criminal enterprises is unclear—and, ultimately, irrelevant. For the grows, at least. All are lumped into the same smartpot, with the end goal clear: Eradication.

This approach mirrors others taken across the state, which, some growers and cannabis advocates are warning, is an existential threat to legalization.

The whole point of going legit and exiting the black market was to have authorities on your side. You know—to end the War on Drugs and to bring once-renegade growers “out of the shadows.” Regulate and tax. That whole thing.

Try to think of an analogy here. Code enforcement goes out to make sure your bathroom follows zoning laws, if the kitchen in the restaurant is clean or to verify if the mod on your car is street legal. If it isn’t, then a fine is assessed and corrective action is prescribed. The car isn’t seized, the bathroom isn’t removed, and the restaurant isn’t demolished. Yet, it appears that’s the plan of attack for wayward marijuana grows.

Choosing SWAT teams to handle this pencil-neck’s job is a display of particularly delicious but surely unintentional irony.

SWAT teams were pioneered in 1960s Los Angeles, when future police Chief Daryl F. Gates gave military veterans on his force military-style weapons and tactics, and deployed them to quell riots. These are the kinds of cops you’re glad to have on your side when the job is apprehending El Chapo Guzman. That’s not the job that these teams are now being called to do. Instead, they go on no-knock drug raids of civilian homes, where the greatest threat on the premises is the SWAT team itself.

Or it would be ironic, if the underlying message—it is far too brutal and clumsy to be called subliminal—wasn’t clear. You may live in a time of legalization, but think twice before you act like it.
 
San Diego Sets Sights on Illegal Delivery Services

After a year and a half of going after unlicensed cannabis dispensaries, San Diego authorities are stepping up enforcement against illegal delivery services, which local officials say have proliferated in response to the city’s continued crackdown on retail stores.

“Now that we’ve shutdown illegal storefronts, we’re seeing a barrage of illegal delivery services come online,” Chris Cate, a San Diego City Council member, told local KUSI news. “Now the attention has shifted from those illegal storefronts to illegal delivery services.”


RELATED STORY
Why Did San Diego Declare War on Med-West?

Earlier this month, authorities marked the shift with a splashy raid on a business operating out of the city’s Midway District. Police raided the facility on Aug. 2 and arrested 12 employees. They also confiscated more than 41 pounds of cannabis, 8,000 edibles and concentrate products, more than 100 cannabis plants, cocaine, $5,600 cash, and business records.

“This is our first delivery service case,” San Diego police Lt. Matt Novak told the San Diego Union-Tribune following the raid. Novak’s team in the police narcotics unit previously spent 18 months chasing unlicensed storefront dispensaries around the city, closing more than 60 so far. Delivery services, Novak said, “will receive the same enforcement we have been giving the dispensaries.”

Only a handful of dispensaries are currently licensed to operate in the city, KUSI reports. Local retail licenses allow these businesses—and only these businesses—to offer delivery services. But a quick online search shows dozens of other, unlicensed operators willing to drop off cannabis at a customer’s door. Some estimates put the number of illegal delivery services at 100 or more.


RELATED STORY
San Diego DA Files Felony Charges Over Cannabis Extraction

Elizabeth Wilhelm, the founder of the nonprofit San Diego Cannabis Delivery Alliance, is one such delivery operator. While her group doesn’t have a local license to deliver, she told KUSI that she nevertheless aims to run an above-board business.

“We’re incorporated. We’re paying our state taxes, our federal taxes. We’re paying our sales taxes. We’re paying our personal income taxes. We’re doing everything,” she said. “We’re not denying that there’s some bad actors in the bunch, and we as much as anyone support getting rid of them. It’s not what we want. It’s not what we’re about. We’re about taxation, regulation, and safe access. Period.”

Meanwhile, some of the already-licensed businesses say they’re just fine with the crackdown.

“We support the City Council’s decision to regulate the delivery system,” Will Senn, owner of Urbn Leaf dispensary, told KUSI. “We appreciate what they’ve done so far for the industry.”


RELATED STORY
San Diego DA’s Exit is a Celebration for All, Especially Cannabis Advocates

San Diego’s frustration isn’t unusual. Metro areas across California have struggled to eradicate illegal cannabis operations and limit cannabis activity to licensed businesses. But after nearly 20 years of scant regulation from the state, local authorities have been overwhelmed by the scope of the task.

In Los Angeles, for example, the city attorney’s office has spent the better part of two years targeting delivery services after working to eradicate illegal storefront dispensaries (only 135 operate legally in the city). Just as in San Diego, LA operators whose shops were shut down often simply reopened as delivery services, which proved harder for authorities to track down.


RELATED STORY
Special Report: Can L.A.’s Outlaw Delivery Services Survive Long Enough to Become Legal?

San Jose, too, banned deliveries as part of its effort to winnow down the number of illegal cannabis businesses. It took local officials years of enforcement efforts to shutter the bulk of illegal operators.

In San Diego, officials didn’t officially ban delivery services until April. Prior to that, the city kept them in a gray area, allowing the services to operate but refusing to grant them business licenses. Officials announced in June that the city would begin to shift enforcement from illegal storefront businesses to deliveries, which left many operators exasperated.

Observers have been forecasting a clash between San Diego officals and unlicensed delivery services—the Voice of San Diego called it a “collision course—since at least January, when officials began considering an official ban on deliveries.
 
tisk, tisk, tisk...can't trust nobody no mo'. MD dispensaries will not be able to sell anything but tested cannabis and I briefly looked over the testing requirements and it seemed to me, a layman on this subject, to be fairly comprehensive.

80 Percent Of Medical Marijuana Tested At Recent NorCal Conference Is Tainted With Mold, Bacteria or Pesticides

Cannabis sold at Bay Area dispensaries is regularly referred to as "medicine," however a lack of regulation and testing around the product has led to significant supply of marijuana on dispensary shelves being tainted and/or toxic to the people who consume it.

Following the recent HempCon at the Cow Palace in August, an array of medical marijuana products underwent testing by Hunters Point-based Anresco Laboratories. As San Francisco Magazine reports, some 80 percent of those tested from California-based growers and dispensaries, were tainted with mold, fungus, bacteria, pesticides, or harmful solvents — and the popular concentrates and oils used in vape pens and dabs can, because they're concentrated, contain much higher amounts of these toxins.

Risk of infection from smoking mold-, fungus- or bacteria-laden marijuana buds has not been widely discussed or understood until recently. There was a report out of UC Davis earlier this year about a spate of rare fungal infections in cancer patients' lungs that doctors traced to the patients' use of medical marijuana. In one of those cases where the patient's immune system was compromised by chemotherapy, the patient died from the infection.

"We sometimes see 20 or 30 percent of our samples coming through the lab significantly contaminated with molds," said Dr. Donald Land of Steep Hill Laboratories in Berkeley. But after sampling from 20 dispensaries across California and analyzing the cannabis down to its DNA, Land told CBS 5 at the time that he was shocked to find "ninety percent of those samples had something on them. Some DNA of some pathogen."

SF Mag goes further into Anresco's results, finding that pesticides and fungicides can appear in cannabis extracts at 1,000 times the level of concentration typically found in foods. These chemicals include things like myclobutanil, which sold under the brand name Eagle 20, and which can cause cancer and has reportedly sickened cannabis consumers in Canada.

Also present in some dispensary products are residual solvents like butane, which is used in making dabs to separate out the cannabinoids and terpenes from the plant material. Large amounts of butene are rare, and in states where recreational marijuana has been legalized, butane has been limited in consumer products to 50 parts per million. About 10 percent of the samples looked at by Anresco failed the butane test.

Hopefully, as California prepares for legal retail marijuana sales in 2018, more attention is going to be paid to testing and regulating what's being sold — but as SF Mag points out, this means that growers need to hurry up and start using fewer pesticides, and keeping molds and other toxins out of what they sell.
 
Legal Marijuana Is Almost Here. If Only Pot Farmers Were on Board.

LAYTONVILLE, Calif. — From the sky they look like citrus groves, neat rows of lush emerald-colored plants set amid the hills of Northern California.

But as a police reconnaissance helicopter banked for a closer look on a recent afternoon, the pungent smell of marijuana plants filled the cabin, wafting up from 800 feet below.

“That’s all weed,” squawked a deputy with the Mendocino County Sheriff’s office over the helicopter intercom. “They’re not in the program.”

More than nine months after California voted to legalize recreational marijuana, only a small share of the tens of thousands of cannabis farmers in Northern California have joined the system, according to law enforcement officers and cannabis growers.

Despite the promise of a legal marketplace, many growers are staying in the shadows, casting doubt on the promise of a billion-dollar tax windfall for the state and a smooth switch to a regulated market.

Continue reading the main story


At the same time, environmental damage and crime associated with illegal cannabis businesses remain entrenched in the state despite legalization, law enforcement officials say.

“I know that the numbers don’t look great; there are a lot of folks that aren’t coming in,” said Hezekiah Allen, the executive director of the California Growers Association, a marijuana advocacy group. “People are losing faith in this process.”

California, which by one estimate produces seven times more marijuana than it consumes, will probably continue to be a major exporter — illegally — to other states. In part, that is because of the huge incentive to stay in the black market: marijuana on the East Coast sells for several times more than in California.

“There are very few areas you can go in the county and not find marijuana — it’s everywhere,” said Bruce Smith, a lieutenant with the Mendocino County Sheriff’s Office who leads the county’s efforts to shut down illegal marijuana farms. “The vast majority aren’t permitted.”

Mendocino County has received 700 applications for permits to grow marijuana, according to the Mendocino Department of Agriculture. That is a fraction of the thousands of growers in the area.

“You have folks who have been operating for two decades with maybe some local oversight and some with no oversight at all,” said Lori Ajax, the chief of the state’s Bureau of Cannabis Control. “You want to first give people a chance to get into that regulated market. And then it’s going to take some strong enforcement.”

November’s legalization measure, Proposition 64, decriminalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana, allowed individuals to grow six plants at home and set rules for the sale and cultivation of regulated plants, seeking to end what had been two decades of a freewheeling and largely unregulated medical cannabis system. The punishment for growing or possessing large amounts of unregulated marijuana was downgraded to a misdemeanor from a felony.

Photo
00pot-2-master675.jpg


Illegal marijuana plants are removed by the Mendocino County Sheriff’s Department. The plants are then shredded. Credit Jim Wilson/The New York Times
Based on data from various state and county agencies, Mr. Allen, of the growers association, estimates that about 11 percent of growers — about 3,500 of 32,000 farmers in the Emerald Triangle, which covers Mendocino, Humboldt and Trinity counties — have applied for permits. Most have been deterred by the voluminous paperwork to obtain a permit, the fees and the taxes, he said.

Critics said the framers of the law might have also miscalculated because many growers say there is little upside from getting a permit. If they stay out of the system, they face lighter punishments and avoid paying taxes, fees and the cost of meeting environmental standards.

“You could have 1,000 pounds in your hotel room right now and you might be charged with just a misdemeanor,” Thomas D. Allman, the sheriff of Mendocino County, said. In a small number of cases, traffickers can be charged with conspiracy, which is a felony.

David Eyster, the Mendocino district attorney, said the surge in the marijuana business had brought with it violent crime, which did not appear to be going away anytime soon.

Among the cases he is handling are a robbery and slashing death of a grower; the murder of a man at a marijuana farm by a co-worker wielding a baseball bat; an armed heist in a remote area by men who posed as law enforcement officers; and a robbery by two men and a juvenile who were invited to a barbecue and then drew guns on their hosts and fled with nine pounds of marijuana.

“The folks in the big cities, they don’t realize that out in the rural areas where the marijuana is being grown, there are people being robbed, kidnapped and in some cases murdered,” Mr. Eyster said.

California took a different path from Colorado, the first state to legalize marijuana, where possession of large amounts of unregulated cannabis remains a felony and where the black market is significantly smaller, according to Sean McAllister, a lawyer who specializes in cannabis cases in both states.

“As someone who has lived through the transition in Colorado, when I go to California I am definitely shocked to see that people in the industry seem very ill-prepared for the transition,” Mr. McAllister said.

California Today
The news and stories that matter to Californians (and anyone else interested in the state), delivered weekday mornings.


Police officers in Mendocino County said their priority was to go after people who cause environmental damage or who grow on public lands. So far this year they have raided 74 sites and eradicated more than 90,000 plants. Illegal plots are identified by helicopter and then destroyed by a convoy of well-armed police officers and a plant shredder towed by a pickup.

“I think we can all agree that your average pot smoker shouldn’t be in prison,” said Shannon Barney, a lieutenant in the Mendocino sheriff’s office who helped lead a raid in August that ended in the destruction of more than 800 plants. “But I think everybody can also agree that punishment for a major trafficker needs to be more severe.”

Small-scale growers have planted marijuana in the backwoods of the Emerald Triangle for decades. But in recent years Northern California has seen what has been called a “green rush” of entrepreneurs with a more laser-focused profit motive and often little regard for forests famous for their giant redwood trees.

The cannabis business has attracted investors and growers from across the world, including Bulgarians, Russians, Chinese, Hmong, Jamaicans and Mexicans.

The state’s licensing system does not start until January and most counties are still accepting applications so it is possible that more growers will choose to enter the legal market.

Photo
00pot-3-master675.jpg


So far this year, law enforcement officials in Mendocino County have raided 74 sites and eradicated more than 90,000 plants. Credit Jim Wilson/The New York Times
But Mr. Allen of the growers association said there was already ample reason to be concerned. At the current levels of participation, he said, there may not be enough regulated marijuana to serve the legalized market, a highly paradoxical situation in a state that is by far the largest cannabis producer.

Growers in California complain that the legalization process has been opaque and confusing. For the last two decades growers operated under a lightly regulated system of medical cannabis collectives. Legalization now brings a deluge of rules passed by towns, counties and the state.

As his eight-foot-tall plants were being hauled to the shredder, a grower who gave his name as Chris, who declined to give his last name, said he had not made an effort to obtain a permit because he thought he could grow 25 plants and still be legal.

“This has been such a peaceful experience until today,” he said. “They just ripped out my whole garden I’ve been working on since February.”

In a number of crime categories — violent crime, robbery, aggravated assault and murder, among them — the Emerald Triangle is near the top of the list of California most crime-ridden counties.

The violent crime rate in Mendocino County is seven times higher than in Los Angeles County, according to F.B.I. data from 2015, the latest year available. To be sure, crimes are more statistically prominent in Mendocino County because of its small population of about 87,000.

The sustained black market is also a concern for environmentalists, who say marijuana grown illegally in public forests cuts into hillsides, siphons water from creeks and is treated with pesticides that foul the water. At the end of the season, growers often leave behind tons of trash.

“It’s a shame to see the degradation of the land that my industry created,” Eli Scislowicz, the manager of a Nevada cannabis business who worked for many years in California. Environmentally conscious marijuana growers exist, he said. “But there’s a lot of irresponsible actors too, that have poisoned the ground.”

In environmentally conscious California, police officers said they were much more likely to get a jury conviction for pollution or damage to the land than for possession.

“There’s romance with marijuana. People think it’s a harmless herb,” Sheriff Allman said. “But environmental crimes make people angry.”

The potent odor of the plants, which can waft for dozens of yards, is also a major irritant among some residents; complaints about smell are the most common marijuana-related calls received by the police in Mendocino, Lieutenant Smith said.

Growing marijuana is so well entrenched in the Emerald Triangle that police officers here see an uphill battle in the state’s effort to regulate the industry.

“I’ve arrested grandparents, parents and grandchildren in different years for growing marijuana on the same piece of property,” Sheriff Allman said. “You get into a generational thing that’s almost like moonshine. People think, ‘Why do I have to get permits? My parents didn’t have to and my grandparents certainly didn’t have to.’”
 
In a number of crime categories — violent crime, robbery, aggravated assault and murder, among them — the Emerald Triangle is near the top of the list of California most crime-ridden counties.

The violent crime rate in Mendocino County is seven times higher than in Los Angeles County, according to F.B.I. data from 2015, the latest year available. To be sure, crimes are more statistically prominent in Mendocino County because of its small population of about 87,000.
This must be where Sessions is getting his statistics from.

Critics said the framers of the law might have also miscalculated because many growers say there is little upside from getting a permit. If they stay out of the system, they face lighter punishments and avoid paying taxes, fees and the cost of meeting environmental standards.
Sigh... sounds to me like these growers have almost been set up. If the fees to grow are higher than the fees for illegal possession why would they even think about getting permits?
 
So, this guy Hill's reasoning is flawed...i.e. "cited a 2012 study by the California Office of Traffic Safety that found more weekend nighttime drivers in California tested positive for marijuana than alcohol." but we all know that cannibinoid metabolites are persistent for quite some time and testing people (at night or otherwise) is not indicative of when they smoked/vaped/eat it.

But, although I have many, many times used MJ while driving when younger, I have to ask myself, is this something I would want my 23 y.o. son doing and the answer is no. So, while I find Hill's reasoning to be flawed, on the face of it this seems like a reasonable prohibition.


Smoking pot while driving or riding in a car in California will soon be punishable with a fine
With state-licensed marijuana sales months away, Gov. Jerry Brown on Monday signed a bill that prohibits smoking or consuming cannabis while driving or riding in a vehicle in California.

The measure was written by Sen. Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo) in anticipation of the state's Jan. 1 start of marijuana sales for recreational use. The new law makes a violation punishable with a $70 fine.

It is already illegal to drive while intoxicated with marijuana and to have an open bag of cannabis in a motor vehicle. The new law bans actually smoking marijuana or consuming cannabis edibles while driving or riding in a vehicle. It is similar to open container laws that prohibit drinking while driving.

In proposing the law, Hill cited a 2012 study by the California Office of Traffic Safety that found more weekend nighttime drivers in California tested positive for marijuana than alcohol.

The governor vetoed another marijuana bill that would have barred marijuana packaging that could appeal to children, such as wrappers that make edibles look like candy. Brown said his administration is already drafting rules to keep children away from marijuana.
 
San Diego legalizes marijuana cultivation, manufacturing
San Diego will have a fully legal and regulated marijuana industry including pot farms, factories making edibles and retail storefronts selling the drug to both medical and recreational customers.

The City Council voted 6-3 on Monday to legalize local cultivation, manufacturing and testing of marijuana when new state laws take effect in January.

The council also agreed earlier this year to allow legally approved medical marijuana dispensaries to expand their sales to recreational customers. The city has approved 17 such businesses and 11 have begun operating.

The approval came despite strong objections from Police Chief Shelley Zimmerman, who warned of significant threats to public safety that she said couldn’t be outweighed by new tax revenue from the highly profitable industry.

The council majority said, however, that creating a local supply chain for the city’s dispensaries would boost the economy, create jobs and improve the quality and safety of local marijuana by eliminating the need to truck it in from elsewhere.

They also said it would prevent a local “black market” of unregulated cultivators and manufacturers that would emerge if the city outlawed those activities.

The council also took the less controversial step of allowing marijuana testing facilities in the city. Testing of for-sale marijuana will be required under new state laws prompted by California voters approving Proposition 64 last November.

The only other cities in the county that allow dispensaries are La Mesa and Lemon Grove, where voters forced the hands of city leaders by approving ballot measures last November. And only La Mesa has indicated it may allow cultivation.

The council also eliminated a proposed cap of two cultivating, manufacturing and testing businesses per council district, which would have allowed a maximum of 18 in the city. Instead, the council set a citywide cap of 40 such businesses.

Another proposal from staff that the marijuana industry opposed was a rule prohibiting such businesses from opening within 100 feet of each other or dispensaries. The council also eliminated that rule.

Councilman Chris Ward said the decision was obvious to him.

"Having sound policy and regulations in place will allow the city to enforce its rules and assist the cannabis industry in regulating itself," he said. "Would we tell Stone Brewery that we wanted them to manufacture everything in Riverside County and truck it down? Would we tell Ballast Point they can only grow their hops up in Humboldt?"

Councilwoman Barbara Bry said creating a legalized local supply chain was crucial.

"If we don't allow all parts of the supply chain in San Diego we are merely enabling a large black market," she said. "San Diego consumers are counting on us to provide them a safe product."

Councilwoman Lorie Zapf, who joined with colleagues Scott Sherman and Chris Cate to cast the “no” votes, said she shared the concerns expressed by Chief Zimmerman.

“I think we should listen to our police chief,” said Zapf. “We were elected if nothing else to oversee public safety and we’re just absolutely going down the wrong road.”

San Diego voters approved a local tax on recreational marijuana last November that would start at 5 percent and rise to 8 percent in July 2019.

That tax, which could rise as high as 15 percent with council approval, would apply to pot farms and factories as well as dispensaries.

Zimmerman said she doubted that revenue would be worth it.

"The negative consequences and secondary effects of the legal marijuana industry being allowed to operate on a larger scale in our city of San Diego are enormous," she warned the council before their vote. "I urge you not to allow any further marijuana facilities within our city."

She said the city’s legal marijuana dispensaries, which began operating less than three years ago, have generated 272 calls for service from police for burglaries, robberies, thefts, assaults and shootings.

"Officials throughout Colorado flat out told our team the revenue was just not worth these costs," said Zimmerman, who is retiring in March.

Dallin Young, executive director of the Association of Cannabis Professionals, said 30 businesses already engaged in cultivation, manufacturing and testing with tacit city approval have generated no complaints.

He said that’s primarily because such businesses have little or no contact with the public.

"It's clear there has not been a negative impact on the city by allowing these uses," Young said. "They’re supposed to have no public access. They are strictly for people to go in there, do their job and leave."

Young also stressed the importance of a local supply chain.

"We will know who the operators are and we won't have to import any of the products from our lovely neighbors to the north and we'll be creating jobs here," he said. "We'll be keeping all of the money here in San Diego where it belongs."

The 30 businesses already engaged in such activities without formal city approval will be allowed to continue operating for two years, but they won’t get a leg up on obtaining permits that would give them the right to legally operate long term.

Many of them, city officials said, are located in areas where the zoning makes it impossible for them to comply with the regulations the council adopted on Monday.

The council also agreed to address three additional issues at some point in the future: loosening rules on deliveries, compliance by marijuana businesses with labor laws and regulating odor at marijuana businesses.

Assistant City Attorney Mary Nuesca said it’s possible the council could act on its desire to regulate odor, but said that might not be legal because the state has chosen not to regulate that issue.

During a four-hour public hearing before the council’s vote, many marijuana legalization supporters thanked the council for being one of the few cities in the state to consider allowing a full supply and sales chain.

Many opponents also warned of the dangers of legalizing a drug that has become more potent in recent years and that is popular among teens.

Councilwoman Zapf said it was a major concern that high school students are frequently “high” in class.

“I know what’s going on with teenagers,” Zapf said.

Councilwoman Bry had a different take, contending that marijuana is not a new phenomenon on high school campuses.

“That’s a whole separate issue of educating our youth about the dangers of trying things like this,” she said.

Finalized state rules governing recreational marijuana are scheduled to be unveiled in January.
 
The new law bans actually smoking marijuana or consuming cannabis edibles while driving or riding in a vehicle. It is similar to open container laws that prohibit drinking while driving.
My issue with this is twofold. While I don't condone smoking and driving per se, I also don't feel you are as impaired when smoking or using cannabis as alcohol. So it's an apples to oranges sort of comparison.

The other part that bothers me is that a rider cannot consume. There are long car rides that my husband and I take where I need to medicate. He does not indulge at all (not even when he isn't driving lol). I'm not blazing but I am sipping a wax pen occasionally. How is this a problem?

Considering that you could still buy cocktails to go not that many years ago.... and that there are drive thru liquor stores, this seems like the same old reefer madness prejudice.
 
California Unveils Temporary Licenses to Allow Early 2018 Retail Sales

ANAHEIM—With the launch of California’s adult-use cannabis market just 101 days away, regulators will introduce a temporary licensing program aimed at ensuring a smooth start to regulated sales, the state’s top cannabis official announced on Thursday.

Lori Ajax, chief of the California Bureau of Cannabis Control, unveiled the temporary licensing program in a keynote address at the California Cannabis Business Conference, an industry event being held this week in Anaheim. State Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones also spoke about the ongoing effort to expand insurance coverage for cannabis businesses, specifically among major commercial providers.

With state-regulated sales set to begin on Jan. 1, there’s still considerable work to be done to implement new state laws around both medical and adult-use cannabis. The temporary licensing program is meant to bridge a gap until other rules and regulations are made final.

“It’s of course a huge challenge, it’s intense,” Ajax said at a Q&A with reporters, “but we will be issuing licenses on Jan. 1, 2018.”


RELATED STORY
California Lawmakers Pass Changes to Cannabis Rules

Bumper Crop of Applications Expected
Under the temporary licensing plan, businesses would need to provide some “pretty basic information,” Ajax told the keynote crowd, including a diagram of the premises and information about the owners. “This shouldn’t take you a long time to get out,” she said.

Applications are expected to be available in early December, Ajax said, after emergency regulations are adopted. “We don’t have time to do regular rulemaking,” she noted. That step comes next year.

Meanwhile, the Bureau of Cannabis Control is staffing up to accommodate what’s expected to be a bumper crop of applications.

While no licenses, temporary or otherwise, will be granted before Jan. 1, Ajax pledged that the office will work to issue the licenses as quickly as possible. Approvals will be sent via email, with the appropriate documentation attached, she said. “You’re just going to print out your license.”

Temporary licenses will be valid for four months from the issue date, Ajax said, although they can be extended for 90 days. And if the Bureau of Cannabis Control somehow lags on issuing permanent licenses, the temporary ones can be extended further. “If it’s on us,” Ajax pledged, “we will continue to give extensions so you can keep operating.”


RELATED STORY
California Lawmakers Pass Bill to Restrict Edibles

Key: Local Approval
The single most important qualification for would-be operators interested in obtaining a temporary license, Ajax stressed, is obtaining local approval. “The biggest thing is that they will have to have local approval for conducting commercial cannabis activity,” she said. “They will need that before the state can issue a temporary license.”

But while state law requires the approval of locals, it doesn’t clearly specify what that means. Could it be a letter from a neighborhood council? A resolution out of City Hall?

With nearly 500 cities in California, Ajax explained, her office isn’t adopting a one-size-fits-all definition. “We’re really relying on the locals to specify what that local authorization is,” she said, adding that the ultimate goal is simply to “confirm with the locals that that applicant is authorized by the locals to conduct commercial cannabis activity for that specified jurisdiction.”

Ajax confirmed that the two other state agencies with a hand in cannabis regulation, the state Department of Food and Agriculture and Department of Public Health, will also be issuing temporary licenses for entities they oversee. Licensing workshops will be held with all three agencies in “key areas around the state” beginning in October, Ajax said, so applicants “have a good idea of what they need.”

While Ajax acknowledged that the rollout might be bumpy at times, she emphasized that her office is doing everything it can—and that it’s always open to feedback. “I can’t promise everything’s going to be smooth on day one,” she said, but “we’ll do whatever we can to make things right.
 
Have these guys been taking schedule development lessons from Michigan....sigh. Let's close the industry while sitting on our bureaucratic asses and slowly processing license applications. Fucking politicians, yet again.

City council considers cutting off LA’s cannabis supply chain

Cannabis industry groups, business owners and advocates filled the pew-like seats and lined the back wall at the Los Angeles City Council Chambers on Monday to contest the latest version of L.A.’s cannabis regulations.

That draft was just released last Friday, and it didn’t take long for many in the industry—particularly the growers, manufacturers and distributors—to realize they were getting the short end of the stick. Some groups didn’t even wait until today’s hearing to air their grievances.

“Currently, the city’s draft cannabis regulations includes language gravely concerning to the city’s patients, businesses, and employees and has the potential of shutting down the entire cannabis industry in LA—the city that has been named the world’s largest cannabis industry market,” the Southern California Coalition said in a statement sent over the weekend.

The rest of the cannabis industry, from growers to manufacturers, distributors and testing facilities, would be forced to shutter—or retreat to the black market—until their licensing process is complete. That process could take anywhere from four to nine months. That long a waiting period would be difficult for many small businesses to weather.While the bulk of the proposed guidelines were fairly predictable, one clause came as a very unwelcome surprise. Under the new regulations, only the 135 existing Proposition D dispensaries will be able to apply for a provisional permit that allows them to operate while awaiting permanent licensing.

“It’s horrifying for business owners here and for their employees,” Ariel Clark, founder of the Los Angeles Cannabis Task Force, told Leafly. “It really just continues this attitude of criminalizing the industry.”

Los Angeles is expected to open the application process on December 1, with the Proposition D retailers receiving highest priority. It will be impossible for general applicants to file and receive approval before state laws take effect on Jan. 1 or 2. (The State Bureau of Cannabis Control keeps toggling between the two dates.) This means that come January, L.A.’s supply chain will be virtually shut down.

Cutting off the product source would force dispensaries to turn elsewhere to stock their shelves, and drive out a significant portion of the tax revenue anticipated for the City. Dispensaries would be forced to sever longstanding ties with local businesses, which could result in the diminishing of quality product available to medical marijuana patients. The only benefit might run to surrounding municipalities like Desert Hot Springs, which hosts a number of cannabis companies that would be counted on to supply—or attempt to supply—a much larger portion of the Los Angeles market.

If Los Angeles-based suppliers were forced to shutter, they’d have to lay off employees, many of whom rely on the industry for their livelihood. These are people like THC Design’s Zac Williams, who spoke about how L.A.’s policy would take jobs away from veterans like himself. Williams’s co-worker Steven Passmore agreed, and said his job at THC Design gave him purpose. One L.A. resident and cannabis company employee said the “generous wages” from his job allowed him to support his son and pay off his student loans.

City Council President Herb Wesson acknowledged that the public’s concerns had not fallen “on deaf ears.”The regulatory clause that separates retailers from all others came as a big slap in the face to the industry groups that helped get Measure M approved in March, 2017. As multiple attorneys pointed out during the hearing, this voter-passed proposition was specifically designed to usher in comprehensive legalization of all aspects of the cannabis industry, not just pre-existing retailers.

“I recognize that that’s a flaw. I’m going to address it,” Wesson said at the meeting. “We’re just trying to figure out what route we’re going to take to address that.”

Wesson hinted at possibly introducing a type of grace period for non-retail cannabis businesses that would allow them to stay open while navigating the licensing process. Wesson also solicited input from the crowd, and Clark plans to take him up on his offer. She’s in the process of developing a set of criteria that would allow non-retail businesses to secure a temporary license by fulfilling certain requirements, like proving that they’re operating in a legal zone and that they’ve been complying with the nonprofit collective model required by medical marijuana laws.

At the end of the meeting, Wesson assured the packed room that he had heard their concerns and would address the issue moving forward. In the interest of avoiding future delays however, he intended to move the draft regulations on to the final stages of development.

“At this point it makes sense to me that we at least instruct the city attorney’s office to begin the process of drafting,” said Wesson. “I’m not going to wait and then be panicked for time when we attempt to make this deadline.”

The regulations are expected to appear for a vote before the full Los Angeles City Council next week.
 
"The idea was to help entrepreneurs of color without explicitly saying so, since California’s constitution bars cities from discriminating by race."

Race based policies are, by definition, racist as are those who advocate for race based policies.



Recreational marijuana sales won’t start in January in SF after all

People eager to start buying recreational marijuana from shops in San Francisco when sales become legal throughout the state in January are going to have to wait a little longer.

The city won’t issue permits to sell recreational marijuana until it passes new laws to regulate the industry and creates an equity program to help low-income entrepreneurs, people of color, and former drug offenders break into the market.

According to Supervisor Jeff Sheehy, who introduced an ordinance with proposed regulations at Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting, city officials still have no idea what that program will look like or how it will operate.

“Out of a 70-page ordinance, less than a page talks about how to make (the industry) equitable,” said Sheehy, who co-sponsored the cannabis ordinance with Mayor Ed Lee. Sheehy said the laws are “far from perfect, and further from final,” and will require a lot more work.

In July, the board asked the city controller and the Office of Cannabis to put together a report on equity in the cannabis industry and submit it by Nov. 1. Although the supervisors all want to help people who suffered disproportionately from tough drug laws of the past, that won’t be easy.

Oakland passed the state’s first cannabis equity program in March — it took more than a year to craft and prompted numerous fights among city officials. The final version sets aside half the city’s cannabis permits for low-income residents who either have a past cannabis conviction or live in a neighborhood with a high number of marijuana arrests. The idea was to help entrepreneurs of color without explicitly saying so, since California’s constitution bars cities from discriminating by race.

Earlier this month, the supervisors approved a 45-day moratorium on new dispensary permits, saying the city needs time to create its equity program. At the same time, the board raised other concerns for the Office of Cannabis to consider, such as how to keep marijuana away from minors and how to prevent dispensaries from clustering in low-income neighborhoods.

The laws that Sheehy and Lee introduced Tuesday have some provisions to address those issues, including a 600-foot buffer between a cannabis shop and the nearest school, and a 300-foot distance between cannabis businesses. Those laws won’t apply to the city’s 48 existing cannabis businesses — 34 of which are brick-and-mortar shops — which will be grandfathered in.

San Francisco will require all dispensaries to keep selling medicinal marijuana, even if they obtain licenses to sell the recreational product as well. New recreational sales outlets will also be required to sell medical marijuana. Medicinal marijuana requires a prescription and includes some products, such as tinctures and creams, that do not produce a euphoric effect.

Sheehy admitted to concern about an excess of new planning and zoning regulations in his and Lee’s ordinances.

“Does too much regulation drive people into the black market?” he asked

In addition to contemplating social equity issues, the city will have to devise a new licensing system for its medical cannabis dispensaries to bring them in line with current state laws that require all parts of the supply chain to be regulated. Under the new system, nurseries and manufacturers that previously operated underground will have to be licensed by the city.

The city will allow its existing medical cannabis dispensaries to apply for temporary 120-day permits on Jan. 1 so that they can stay open while officials design the new structure.

Also on Tuesday, Supervisors Jane Kim and Norman Yee asked the controller’s office to produce a report on the costs and benefits of providing free or subsidized child care to low-income residents in San Francisco.

Kim has asked the city attorney to draft a ballot measure for universal affordable child care to coincide with a similar measure in Alameda County that will also raise the pay of child care workers to $15 an hour.
 
San Francisco won't allow legal marijuana sales at the same time as the rest of California

On January 1st, California will officially legalize recreational marijuana and people from around the state will be able to purchase cannabis products freely. Unless you live in San Francisco, in which case you might have to wait a little longer, writes Joseph Misulonas.

City officials in San Francisco say they won't allow recreational marijuana sales in the city until regulations are passed. They also want to create an equity program that allows low-income entrepreneurs, people of color and former drug offenders to take part in the industry. According to a city supervisor, San Francisco officials "still have no idea what that program will look like or how it will operate."

Creating an equity program the way San Francisco wants is incredibly difficult. The city of Oakland passed California's first cannabis equity program in March, but it took over a year and several fights amongst city officials to hammer out the details. In July, San Francisco officials asked the city controller and the Office of Cannabis to submit a proposed equity program by November 1st. The city also passed a 45 day moratorium on dispensary permits earlier this month, saying they needed to hold off until the equity program is instituted.

City officials have also proposed new regulations for starting dispensaries, such as keeping a distance of at least 600 feet from any schools and 300 feet from another marijuana business. Those regulations will only apply to new dispensaries, not existing ones. The city is also going to require all dispensaries to continue selling medical marijuana as well as recreational.

Officials seem pessimistic about the chances for all these regulations to be hammered out by the new year. Existing medical marijuana dispensaries will be allowed to apply for a temporary license for 120 days on January 1st to stay in business while they figure all of it out.

On the bright side, people from San Francisco can pretty much go to any other city in the entire state and purchase marijuana recreationally on January 1st, so it may not be that big of deal. Just a bit of a nuisance.
 
More on this bizarre story out of San Diego started by their former fascist district attorney who is no longer in office...but the circus goes on and on.

DA Must Reveal Confidential Informant in Med-West Case



Judge Laura W. Halgren ruled last week that the identity of a confidential informant (CI) must be released to the defense team of cannabis attorney Jessica McElfresh for the case against her to proceed. McElfresh is charged with several felonies in connection with her legal representation of San Diego medical cannabis company Med-West.

San Diego County Assistant District Attorney Jorge Del Portillo had asked Judge Halgren to keep the identity of the CI sealed, but she decided the person’s identity was material to the defense and must be shared.

After the hearing in San Diego County Superior Court, McElfresh said the prosecution now has several options, including sharing the information openly, or dropping the charges to preserve the anonymity of the CI. The DA could also request a gag order, to limit knowledge of the CI’s identity to the attorneys in the case.

McElfresh noted it was essential for her attorney to know the identity of the CI to properly defend the case. The credibility of the informant, she said, could be questionable, or it could be revealed that the person had a motive to lie.

The search warrants served in the Med-West case in 2016, and on the home and office of McElfresh earlier this year, all relied on information from the same CI. Judge Halgren, who has reviewed the various warrants, has said she has identified inconsistencies in the informant’s statements.

Other rulings by Judge Halgren at the hearing were also viewed positively by McElfresh.

The judge reaffirmed her decision that searches of seized physical and electronic files cannot include those of McElfresh’s other clients, and must be limited to individuals and entities specified in the warrant.

Prosecutor Del Portillo had requested for a second time that the search include any file or document that contained McElfresh’s name, despite the judge previously ruling against such a move. That broad a search would effectively hand over numerous privileged communications between the attorney and all her clients, whether or not they were included in the warrant.

McElfresh was grateful for that ruling from the judge, saying, “That issue kept coming back from the grave like a zombie.”

The case against McElfresh has received national attention because of its potential impact on the concept of attorney-client privilege. Lawyers for the National Cannabis Bar Association filed an amicus brief urging the court to uphold attorney-client privilege for other clients represented by McElfresh.

Judge Halgren acknowledged and accepted the brief, pleasing McElfresh. She believes that the District Attorney’s office has ulterior motive in prosecuting her, wishing to deny representation to legal marijuana businesses.

“This case was designed to discourage attorneys from entering into (the cannabis) space,” she said.

McElfresh’s next court appearance is set for October 27, where the prosecution is expected to report to Judge Halgren how they wish to proceed with the issue surrounding the identity of the confidential informant. The date for a preliminary hearing is also expected to be set at that hearing.
 

San Diego legalizes local supply chain for marijuana

San Diego finalized its legalization of marijuana cultivation and manufacturing on Tuesday, becoming one of the few cities in the state to have a fully regulated supply chain for the drug.

Making indoor pot farms and manufacturing sites for edible products legal will boost the economy, create jobs and improve the quality and safety of local marijuana, City Council members said before approving the legislation in a 6-3 vote.

They also said a local supply chain will eliminate the need to truck marijuana in from elsewhere, and prevent a local “black market” of unregulated cultivators and manufacturers that would emerge if the city outlawed those activities.

"I believe it's our obligation as the City Council to have responsible regulation of all parts of the supply chain,” said Councilwoman Barbara Bry, stressing that state voters easily approved legalizing recreational marijuana last November.

Opponents said allowing local cultivation and manufacturing will increase organized crime in San Diego and place a heavy burden on local police, emphasizing that Police Chief Shelley Zimmerman strongly opposed the legislation.

“We have to listen to our police officers and not people who want to make a profit off of this," said Councilwoman Lorie Zapf, who joined with fellow Republican Councilmembers Chris Cate and Scott Sherman as the “no” votes.

RELATED: San Diego's legalization of pot farms sparking debate about consequences

Opponents also said city officials didn’t solicit enough public input when crafting the new legislation, contending the local marijuana industry was allowed to have too much influence.

Councilman Mark Kersey, a Republican who joined the council’s five Democrats in support of the legislation, said it’s important to regulate the drug properly now that it’s been legalized by state voters, including 61.6 percent approval in San Diego.

"My focus now is on implementing the will of the voters in the absolute safest way possible, while minimizing impacts to our communities," said Kersey, noting that some pot farms and factories have been operating locally in quasi-legal fashion without being magnets for crime. “The ordinance before us is a logical and responsible addition so that we can regulate these facilities."

RELATED: Analysis shows widespread local support for marijuana ballot measure

The council, which gave the city legislation the first of two necessary approvals on Sept. 11, tweaked the regulations on Tuesday to require that marijuana production businesses have “odor-absorbing ventilation and exhaust systems.”

The goal is preventing people passing by indoor pot farms or manufacturing operations from being overwhelmed by the sometimes pungent odor of marijuana, especially when many pounds of it are together in the same place.

The council also took the less controversial step of allowing marijuana testing facilities in the city.

The approvals complete a local supply chain, because San Diego legalized sales of medical marijuana at city-approved and tightly regulated dispensaries in 2014, and agreed earlier this year to allow those dispensaries to expand their sales to recreational customers when new state laws take effect in in January.

The city has approved 17 such businesses, and 11 have begun operating.

Zapf said she was frustrated that the new legislation was crafted without much public input.

"There was no community outreach, no community groups involved," said Zapf. "The public was left out of this."

Jeff Murphy, the city’s planning director, said an enormous amount of community input was gathered at public hearings a few years ago when the city legalized dispensaries.

Phil Rath, executive director of the United Medical Marijuana Coalition, stressed that the community will get a chance to weigh in on every proposed marijuana production facility at multiple public hearings required before each gets approved.

"I think people feel this is going to happen in some secret way, and that's not true," Rath said.

The hearing also included some more general assertions that marijuana is a “gateway” drug to opioids, contributes to mental illness and is marketed to teens.

"Everywhere you go where ordinances like this have been placed, more teens are using," said Scott Chipman, leader of an anti-marijuana group called San Diegans for Safe Neighborhoods.

Federal data shows that teen marijuana use in Colorado fell in 2014 and 2015 after the state legalized recreational marijuana. Conversely, use among adults increased during the same time period.

Opponents also complained that if allowing cultivation and manufacturing was truly about creating a local supply chain, the city should have prohibited the new production facilities from exporting their products outside the city or region.

They also criticized the council for loosening a cap on the number of production facilities that will be allowed to open in the city.

Planning staff had proposed a maximum of two in each of the city’s nine council districts, but lobbying from local industry leaders prompted the council to opt instead for a citywide cap of 40.

The new odor restrictions, which Councilman David Alvarez supported aggressively, were carefully written to avoid conflict with state marijuana laws, which don’t regulate odor.

So instead of adopting citywide “public nuisance” legislation governing odors, the council will include in each operating permit for marijuana production facilities an odor requirement that says:

“The facility shall provide a sufficient odor absorbing ventilation and exhaust system capable of eliminating excessive or offensive odors causing discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitivities standing outside of the structural envelope of the permitted facility.”

Supporters say legalizing a recreational marijuana supply chain will boost city revenue because San Diego voters approved a local tax last November that would start at 5 percent and rise to 8 percent in July 2019.

That tax, which could rise as high as 15 percent with council approval, would apply to pot farms and factories as well as dispensaries. But it wouldn’t apply to sales of medical marijuana.

Mayor Kevin Faulconer, a Republican, could veto the new legislation. But the six votes necessary to override his veto appear to be firmly in place, with the legislation being approved the council 6-3 on Sept. 11 and on Tuesday.

The only other cities in the county that allow dispensaries are La Mesa and Lemon Grove, where voters forced the hands of city leaders by approving ballot measures last November. And only La Mesa has indicated it may allow cultivation.
 
California Insurance Commissioner Announces Major Cannabis Commercial Carrier

California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones takes his job very seriously. Purportedly, he is one of only two persons at the state capitol building in Sacramento who is allowed to carry a gun.

I’m not exactly sure why the insurance commissioner needs a gun, so let’s just go with “he takes his job very seriously.”

In any case, Jones has been in the role since 2011, watching the cannabis industry accelerate into a growing behemoth. In that time, business owners and entrepreneurs have been kicked around in every imaginable way – and the inability to access quality insurance coverage has most definitely done some of the kicking. While niche insurance firms have come forward to fill in the role, no major carrier has been willing to step out and take their own risks.

That’s about to change. Then the dominoes start to fall.

From Leafly:

“While a number of niche, so-called surplus-lines insurers currently do offer insurance products to the cannabis industry, the plans tend to be expensive and available only to certain elements of the cannabis industry. ‘It means that there is some coverage available, but it’s not as competitive as it could be if the major commercial carriers come in, too,’ Jones said, naming Farmers, State Farm, Nationwide, AIG, and others as examples.

“To that end, Jones’ office has been soliciting filings from more mainstream insurers. ‘We’re very aggressively sitting down with senior executives of these companies and educating them about the cannabis industry,’ he said. ‘I’m calling the CEOs of major commercial insurance companies personally as the regulator of the largest market in the United States.’”

His efforts seemed to have paid off, and Jones has something to smile about. (It’s quite the smile.) Jones informed an auditorium full of cannabis industry players at the National Cannabis Industry Association‘s Cannabis Business Conference in Anaheim last week that “we actually have one admitted commercial carrier that has filed a commercial product in California.” While he wasn’t yet ready to announce which carrier has made the agreement, the formal announcement will be coming in a few weeks, and more are sure to follow.

“We’re also hopeful you’ll stayed tuned, because we think others are going to file as well,” he added. “Once one does it, oftentimes the others will then say, “Gee, we can do the same thing.’”

Hopefully we will soon all be smiling like Dave Jones.

Seriously, though, check out that smile. It’s a smile that says, “I just made a deal with a major national carrier of insurance. And also, I’m running for California Attorney General in 2018.” Bully for him!
 
Ah, government at work...day late and a dollar short as always.
California’s Legal Weed Market Is 6 to 18 Months Behind Schedule


There’s less than 90 days until California’s January 1, 2018 deadline to make adult-use cannabis sales legal, but don’t expect long lines and green fireworks like we saw in Nevada on July 1, 2017. Many cannabis regulators and city officials are saying they won’t be ready in time, and it could be six to 18 months before recreational weed is available for purchase.

Neither San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles nor San Diego predict their cities will be ready on New Year’s Day.

“Cities and counties all seem to be in various states of readiness,” saidAlex Traverso, the spokesperson for the Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC).

Dispensaries, or any stores, can’t sell adult use cannabis without permits from both the state and their local city or county. And neither the state of California nor cities and counties have finished writing their regulations for permits.

“Emergency” state regulations are expected from the BCC by mid-November, and many cities are waiting for these before drafting their local regulations.

“California is such a big state that we [BCC] feel it’s more important to make sure we get things right instead of rushing to get things done,” said Traverso.

On top of that, California never finished writing state regulations for its medical cannabis program that was passed back in 1996. That means regulators have twice as much work to do.

“To produce a whole body of regulations for an entirely new legal industry in slightly more than a year is quite fast. The process is slightly delayed because of the recent SB 94 which combined and somewhat simplified the two different regulatory systems for the medical and recreational markets,” said cannabis attorney Robert A. Raich.

In June, California Governor Brown passed SB 94 which combined the state’s medical and recreational cannabis programs into one regulatory system with the Medical and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA).

“So since that time, we’ve been working on these regulations and hope to have them finished by mid-November,” said Traverso.

Plus, because big cities like San Francisco already have extensive medical marijuana programs with hundreds of unregulated medical cannabusinesses; they will take longer to regulate than cities with relatively small medical pot markets.

Unlike Nevada, which had some of the strictest medicinal pot regulations in the country prior to introducing adult-use sales, California has to essentially start from scratch.

Online applications for state licenses should be available by mid-December, but cannabusinesses will first need local licenses to be approved by the state, which could take more than a year to write, depending on the city.

Issuing temporary city approvals is also an option to speed this process along, as proposed in the city of Oakland.

“Although Oakland is in the process of issuing licenses, it is planning to issue temporary approvals to applicants waiting for licenses so that people can apply for state licenses as soon as they are available,” said Raich.

Beyond temporary “approvals,” some cities with smaller medical cannabis programs are considering temporary licenses for their existing medical dispensaries to sell adult-use cannabis. These cities, like Sacramento, could become “hot spots” for recreational cannabis sales this winter

“We are proposing to the City Council that our 30 existing dispensaries be given the option to sell adult use through a temporary permit. The item is going before [the] Council on November 21, and if it is approved, we might just be able to issue the temporary permits before the end of the year in time for January 1, 2018,” said Zarah Cruz, spokesperson for the City of Sacramento’s Office of Cannabis.

In addition to Sacramento, Santa Cruz County is also trying to make recreational cannabis available at their existing 12 medical dispensaries in time for the deadline.

“We are planning to amend our existing dispensary licensing ordinance to allow for sales of both medical and adult-use cannabis. The Board of Supervisors must approve the revised ordinance, but we expect to have something before the Board as soon as possible, so that we are ready come January 1,” said Robin Bolster-Grant, cannabis licensing manager for Santa Cruz County.

For now, it is legal for adults 21 and older to possess, transport and gift up to one ounce of cannabis flower and seven grams of extract. Plus, of-age California residents can also grow up to six “personal use” cannabis plants indoors.

But as for purchasing cannabis in big cities, it’s definitely advisable to renew your medical card if it’s set to expire soon. And out-of-towners should hold off on booking plane tickets to California in early 2018 for a legal ganga getaway. High Times will keep you posted as this situation develops.
 
Ah, there seem to still be some libertarians left in political office.

California Governor Shoots Down Three Anti-Weed Bills

“There must be some limit to the coercive power of government,” said California Governor Jerry Brown in response to one of three cannabis-related bills he vetoed late last week.

Specifically, Gov. Brown was referring to Senate Bill 386, which aimed to ban smoking at all California parks and beaches as well as post signage alerting patrons to those new restrictions.

Brown stated this bill, like another similar one he vetoed last year (SB1333), was “too broad” and posed too large a fine for the criminal action. The bill called for up to $485 in fees for individuals caught smoking tobacco or any other plant matter. SB386 also called for a ban on vaping in the same areas.

While proponents of the measure argued the bill would benefit the state environmentally and financially, Gov. Brown retorted, “If people can’t smoke even on a deserted beach, where can they?”

The most common piece of garbage collected on California beaches is cigarette butts by a long shot, but stronger legislation aimed at littering, rather than smoking, may be more impactful on that specific issue.

Another bill Gov. Brown refused to sign was for a ban on edibles manufactured in shapes that could be enticing to children, such as people, animals, and fruit. Similar bans have been successful in other states like Oregon, but won’t see the light of day in California, at least for now. Gov. Brown stated in his official veto that he would refrain from signing Assembly Bill 350 because the upcoming regulatory guidelines of recreational marijuana legalization in the state already spell out provisions that cover this topic.

The last bill the California Governor vetoed was Assembly Bill 1120, which would have amended section 11107 of the state’s health and safety code to add butane as a controlled substance. This proposed change was meant to restrict the sales of butane and generate a database of purchasers maintained by the state’s department of justice. Like the edibles bill Brown also vetoed, the governor believes cannabis regulation in the state will solve this problem and did not believe the bill was necessary. In his statement on the veto, Gov. Brown said:

I empathize with the author’s intent to address the tragic explosions that can occur at illegal butane hash-oil production sites. Unfortunately, I believe this bill takes a very expensive approach that may not ultimately solve the problem. The Department of Public Health is currently working on regulations that will be finalized at the end of this year that move this type of production out of the shadows and into a safe and regulated environment. I believe any additional legislation aimed at curbing illegal butane use should be more narrowly tailored, and not place a uniform limit on an industry that has many other legitimate uses.

At a time when more marijuana laws are being passed than ever, for better or worse, it is comforting to know that some of our most powerful lawmakers are at least taking the time to carefully consider which ones will actually be effective and which ones are just reactionary.
 

Sponsored by

VGoodiez 420EDC
Back
Top