Law California

[CarolKing]

Largest California wildfire threatens marijuana growing area

California’s largest wildfire is threatening a marijuana growing enclave, and authorities said many of the locals have refused to evacuate and abandon their maturing crops even as weather forecasters predict more hot, dry and windy conditions that could fan flames.

www.foxbusiness.com

Associated Press

Fire suppression is bigger cause for wildfires than global warming: Environmentalist
Copenhagen Consensus Center Director Bjorn Lomborg provides insight into what’s causing wildfires in California.
SAN FRANCISCO — California’s largest wildfire is threatening a marijuana growing enclave, and authorities said many of the locals have refused to evacuate and abandon their maturing crops even as weather forecasters predict more hot, dry and windy conditions that could fan flames.
The wildfire called the August Complex is nearing the small communities of Post Mountain and Trinity Pines, about 200 miles northwest of Sacramento, the Los Angeles Times reported.
Law enforcement officers went door to door warning of the encroaching fire danger but could not force residents to evacuate, Trinity County Sheriff’s Department Deputy Nate Trujillo said.

“It’s mainly growers,” Trujillo said. “And a lot of them, they don’t want to leave because that is their livelihood.”
As many as 1,000 people remained in Post Mountain and Trinity Pines, authorities and local residents estimated Thursday.
WILDFIRES TAINT WEST COAST VINEYARDS WITH TASTE OF SMOKE

Numerous studies in recent years have linked bigger U.S. wildfires to global warming from the burning of coal, oil and gas, especially because climate change has made California much drier. A drier California means plants are more flammable.
The threatened marijuana growing area is in the Emerald Triangle, a three-county corner of Northern California that by some estimates is the nation’s largest cannabis-producing region.

People familiar with Trinity Pines said the community has up to 40 legal farms, with more than 10 times that number in hidden, illegal growing areas.
Growers are wary of leaving the plants vulnerable to flames or thieves. Each farm has crops worth half a million dollars or more and many are within days or weeks of harvest.
One estimate put the value of the area’s legal marijuana crop at about $20 million.

WHY TECH HAS BEEN SLOW TO FIGHT WILDFIRES, EXTREME WEATHER

“There (are) millions of dollars, millions and millions of dollars of marijuana out there,” Trujillo said. “Some of those plants are 16 feet (5 meters) tall, and they are all in the budding stages of growth right now.”
Gunfire in the region is common. A recent night brought what locals dubbed the “roll call” of cannabis cultivators shooting rounds from pistols and automatic weapons as warnings to outsiders, said Post Mountain volunteer Fire Chief Astrid Dobo, who also manages legal cannabis farms.
Mike McMillan, spokesman for the federal incident command team managing the northern section of the August Complex, said fire officials plan to deliver a clear message that ”we are not going to die to save people. That is not our job.”

 

[Baron23]

California’s New Cannabis Terroir Laws Protects Its Best Outdoor Strains​

Outdoor growers in California’s most iconic cannabis cultivation zones received major support when Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 67 into law on September 29, 2020.
Considered a major win for family farms and legacy operators, SB67, grants the right to claim, market, and protect regionally made cannabis products, all while paving industry standards by “seeking to establish the world’s first cannabis appellations of origin.”

Northern California Is Ideal For Growing Quality Cannabis​

Craft cannabis, particularly cultivars grown in the coveted Emerald Triangle, continues to become a niche sector and profitable commodity in the marketplace.
SB67 will allow consumers to differentiate the unique quality of their products from those of commodity producers.



Much like the vineyards of Napa Valley, the rich soil and ideal terrain of Northern California produce some of the best quality cannabis in the world.
It is also estimated that more cannabis is produced in the Emerald Triangle and surrounding areas, “than anywhere else in the country” and it is considered an important production area worldwide.
Now consumers will be able to distinguish which products genuinely meet the standard of origin appellations.

How Will The Terroir Program Impact Cannabis Business?​

According to California’s SB67, that means that cannabis must be produced in the geographic region it claims, and also be “grown in the sun and soil of that region, with no artificial light or shelter (i.e., no greenhouses, hoop houses, or other forms of climate and temperature control)”.
And “because the terroir standards of the law require eligible cannabis to have been grown directly in the sun and soil of the region its cultivators are claiming, the program creates a strong incentive for the most environmentally friendly, low-carbon-footprint methods of production- sun-grown, soil-grown, and without the need for energy-hogging artificial light and climate control”.
Of course, the comparisons to California’s lucrative wine market continue, “with the parallels in full view and legislation further connecting the two industries, SB 67 appears to be one step closer to market legitimacy for marijuana”.
There is even hope that the terroir program will encourage underground legacy farmers to participate in the state’s legal cannabis economy, which has been seen as a hinderance to the legal market’s growth according to experts.
The California Department of Food and Agriculture is tasked with creating the regulatory framework for the Cannabis Appellations Program which is set to launch in January of 2021.
That includes the advertising, labeling, and marketing of the city, or city and county of origin and “prohibits the use of a name of a California county, city, or city and county, including any similar name that would be misleading to consumers” ensuring “100% of the cannabis contained in the product was produced in the named geographic area.”
Soon, some of the best outdoor strains will be guaranteed to originate from their prestigious namesakes in Northern California, and those who have been in the cannabis business for decades will get to see some benefit.

 

[Baron23]

Now read these two rulings by the court:

1. It upheld the state regulation that allows licensed marijuana delivery companies to offer services anywhere in the state.
2. It affirmed that cities and counties can forbid those operations, though enforcement of the bans is also up to the local governments.

This redefines....and completely lowers the bar for....double speak. Exactly how do you reconcile these two statement....yes, state law says you can delivery anywhere in the state...oh, and local governments can ban it. Huh?

Only in Kalifornication.

California Cannabis Delivery Lawsuit: “It’s NOT a win” For the Industry​

Since 2019, cannabusiness owners in California have been in litigation over a lawsuit aimed to further restrict access to legal, recreational marijuana. Last week, a verdict was finally reached.​

What initially seemed like a win for the cannabis industry eventually revealed the reality that these legal battles are likely far from over. In case you need a refresher, the initial lawsuit was brought on by 25 local city governments sued the California Bureau of Cannabis Control, arguing that “delivery policy violates state law by overriding their ability to regulate cannabis commerce at the local level.”

So basically, they’ve already banned dispensary storefronts within city limits, and now they want to ban delivery services as well. And this new ruling allows them to do just that, with two main takeaways to keep in mind.

1. It upheld the state regulation that allows licensed marijuana delivery companies to offer services anywhere in the state.
2. It affirmed that cities and counties can forbid those operations, though enforcement of the bans is also up to the local governments.

In other words, marijuana businesses and delivery operators could choose to continue delivering to cities that have bans against them, but they face the risk of expensive legal fights with those local governments. Or they could abide by the ban, but would immediately lose all of their income from that entire city.

“It’s not a loss, but it’s not a win for delivery,” said Zach Pitts, CEO of Los Angeles-based Ganja Goddess and a board member of the California Cannabis Couriers Association. “What I really don’t like is the possibility that we’re still going to have to litigate this,” Pitts said. “And in many ways, that’s putting the litigation onto small companies … with every single city and county that decides to ban delivery.”

Sacramento-based attorney Khurshid Khoja called the ruling a disaster, stating “I don’t see this as a victory at all,” Khoja said. “If this is a victory for anyone, it’s a victory for the cities.”

Marijuana industry attorney Dana Cisneros in Anaheim Hills called the decision “disappointing,” adding: “I think today a lot of folks are going to be confused. I’ve already seen headlines … that say deliveries can occur in any jurisdiction, even if a city bans it. It was a very hair-splitting decision that was made, where the court just said, ‘These are regulations designed to regulate licensees, not local jurisdictions, so there’s not a conflict.’”

Cisneros continued, saying that the “real-world” impact is the added hoops that cannabis operators need to jump through, when they’re already drowning compliance regulations as it is.

“It just adds another layer of insane compliance for our retailers to adhere to, because now, if you’re going to deliver in California, you better know what the specific local law is in every single city,” she added.

As of last month (November 2020) only 187 out of California’s 540 jurisdictions allow marijuana businesses to operate. An additional 42 California jurisdictions have banned store front dispensaries but allow business from outside of their boundaries to conduct delivery services.

It’s notoriously difficult to enforce such laws anyway, because city regulators would have to vet every single dispensary that opens, where there are many of. Not mention the fact that most are no longer advertising on Weedmaps or any one central marketing site, so it would be nearly impossible to know exactly how many dispensaries exist in a given area and what they are doing.

According to Pitts, it all boils down to one thing. “So it’s really going to come out to: How do these cities that have bans decide to enforce them?”

 

[Baron23]

Just what the west coast needs....more fucking people completely out of their gourds.

I'm older and lived thru the Owsley, Kesey era and have seen a lot of brains fried on this shit in addition to my own direct experiences with it when a teen.

Good luck to them...maybe they should also legalize PCP....really throw the gasoline on the fire, yeah?

California Moves Toward Psychedelic Drug Decriminalization with Sensational New Bill​

Could California be on the brink of decriminalizing psychedelics? A proposal aiming to do just that passed a major legislative hurdle on Monday, as it was approved by the state Senate.
The legislation now moves to the California General Assembly. Senate Bill 519 “would make lawful the possession for personal use, as described, and the social sharing, as defined, of psilocybin, psilocyn, dimethyltryptamine (DMT), ibogaine, mescaline, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), ketamine, and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), by and with persons 21 years of age or older,” according to the text of the bill, which was authored by state Sen. Scott Wiener.
In a message posted to Twitter on Monday, Wiener trumpeted the bill’s passage in the state Senate as a “big step for this legislation and the movement,” as well as a step toward “a more health and science-based approach and to move away from criminalization of drugs.”
He also thanked supporters for helping promote the legislation.
In an interview with local television station FOX40 last month, Wiener said that, regardless of what one thinks about drugs, “the question is ‘Should we be arresting and jailing people for possessing and using drugs?’ And I think the answer is absolutely no.”

He also said that psychedelic drugs “have significant benefits both for mental health and addiction treatment.”
That such a proposal passed one half of the legislature in the most populous state in the country might have been shocking as recently as a decade ago––and it serves as another sign of the evolving national conversation surrounding drugs in the United States.

Psychedelic Decriminalization May Sweep the Nation​

In November, voters in Oregon approved a pair of measures at the ballot that decriminalized possession of all drugs and legalized the therapeutic use of psilocybin. The same month, a legislative panel in New Jersey voted in favor of a proposal that would reduce penalties for possession of small amounts of psilocybin mushrooms.
Last month, New York City mayoral hopeful Andrew Yang that, if elected, he would push a program that would offer the use of psychedelic therapies for troubled veterans, including those suffering from depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
The bill that passed the California Senate makes reference to the reforms approved in Oregon, while also noting that “almost 20 countries around the world including Portugal, Czech Republic, and Spain have expressly or effectively decriminalized the personal use of all substances.”
Wiener’s proposal in the California legislature aims to make other sweeping reforms related to psychedelics.
“Existing law prohibits the cultivation, transfer, or transportation, as specified, of any spores or mycelium capable of producing mushrooms or other material which contain psilocybin or psilocyn,” the legislation says, noting that it would “repeal those provisions.”
The bill would also “require the State Department of Public Health to convene a working group, as specified, to research and make recommendations to the Legislature regarding, among other things, the regulation and use of the substances made lawful by this bill, as specified.”
Moreover, the legislation makes a number of declarations pertaining to the War on Drugs, saying that the federally led effort “has entailed overwhelming financial and societal costs, and the policy behind it does not reflect a modern understanding of substance use nor does it accurately reflect the potential therapeutic benefits or harms of various substances,” and that criminalization of drugs has “not deterred drug use, and has instead made drug use less safe” but instead has “created an unregulated underground market in which difficult-to-verify dosages and the presence of adulterants, including fentanyl, make the illicit drug supply dangerous.”
“Lack of honest drug education has laid the groundwork for decades of misinformation, stigma, and cultural appropriation, which have all contributed to increasing the dangers of drug use,” the bill says.

 

[ataxian]

Just what the west coast needs....more fucking people completely out of their gourds.

I'm older and lived thru the Owsley, Kesey era and have seen a lot of brains fried on this shit in addition to my own direct experiences with it when a teen.

Good luck to them...maybe they should also legalize PCP....really throw the gasoline on the fire, yeah?

California Moves Toward Psychedelic Drug Decriminalization with Sensational New Bill​

Could California be on the brink of decriminalizing psychedelics? A proposal aiming to do just that passed a major legislative hurdle on Monday, as it was approved by the state Senate.
The legislation now moves to the California General Assembly. Senate Bill 519 “would make lawful the possession for personal use, as described, and the social sharing, as defined, of psilocybin, psilocyn, dimethyltryptamine (DMT), ibogaine, mescaline, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), ketamine, and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), by and with persons 21 years of age or older,” according to the text of the bill, which was authored by state Sen. Scott Wiener.
In a message posted to Twitter on Monday, Wiener trumpeted the bill’s passage in the state Senate as a “big step for this legislation and the movement,” as well as a step toward “a more health and science-based approach and to move away from criminalization of drugs.”
He also thanked supporters for helping promote the legislation.
In an interview with local television station FOX40 last month, Wiener said that, regardless of what one thinks about drugs, “the question is ‘Should we be arresting and jailing people for possessing and using drugs?’ And I think the answer is absolutely no.”

He also said that psychedelic drugs “have significant benefits both for mental health and addiction treatment.”
That such a proposal passed one half of the legislature in the most populous state in the country might have been shocking as recently as a decade ago––and it serves as another sign of the evolving national conversation surrounding drugs in the United States.

Psychedelic Decriminalization May Sweep the Nation​

In November, voters in Oregon approved a pair of measures at the ballot that decriminalized possession of all drugs and legalized the therapeutic use of psilocybin. The same month, a legislative panel in New Jersey voted in favor of a proposal that would reduce penalties for possession of small amounts of psilocybin mushrooms.
Last month, New York City mayoral hopeful Andrew Yang that, if elected, he would push a program that would offer the use of psychedelic therapies for troubled veterans, including those suffering from depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
The bill that passed the California Senate makes reference to the reforms approved in Oregon, while also noting that “almost 20 countries around the world including Portugal, Czech Republic, and Spain have expressly or effectively decriminalized the personal use of all substances.”
Wiener’s proposal in the California legislature aims to make other sweeping reforms related to psychedelics.
“Existing law prohibits the cultivation, transfer, or transportation, as specified, of any spores or mycelium capable of producing mushrooms or other material which contain psilocybin or psilocyn,” the legislation says, noting that it would “repeal those provisions.”
The bill would also “require the State Department of Public Health to convene a working group, as specified, to research and make recommendations to the Legislature regarding, among other things, the regulation and use of the substances made lawful by this bill, as specified.”
Moreover, the legislation makes a number of declarations pertaining to the War on Drugs, saying that the federally led effort “has entailed overwhelming financial and societal costs, and the policy behind it does not reflect a modern understanding of substance use nor does it accurately reflect the potential therapeutic benefits or harms of various substances,” and that criminalization of drugs has “not deterred drug use, and has instead made drug use less safe” but instead has “created an unregulated underground market in which difficult-to-verify dosages and the presence of adulterants, including fentanyl, make the illicit drug supply dangerous.”
“Lack of honest drug education has laid the groundwork for decades of misinformation, stigma, and cultural appropriation, which have all contributed to increasing the dangers of drug use,” the bill says.

It’s over the top thinking?
CANNABIS of course should not be criminal.
But all?
CIVILIZATION need some regulation’s?

 

[Baron23]

California offers $100 million to rescue its struggling legal marijuana industry​

The California Legislature on Monday approved a $100-million plan to bolster California’s legal marijuana industry, which continues to struggle to compete with the large illicit pot market nearly five years after voters approved sales for recreational use.

Los Angeles will be the biggest beneficiary of the money, which was proposed by Gov. Gavin Newsom to be provided as grants to cities and counties to help cannabis businesses transition from provisional to regular licenses.

“California voters approved Proposition 64 five years ago and entrusted the Legislature with creating a legal, well-regulated cannabis market,” said Assemblyman Phil Ting (D-San Francisco), the chairman of the Assembly Budget Committee. “We have yet to reach that goal.”
Many cannabis growers, retailers and manufacturers have struggled to make the transition from a provisional, temporary license to a permanent one renewed on an annual basis — a process that requires a costly, complicated and time-consuming review of the negative environmental effects involved in a business and a plan for reducing those harms.

As a result, about 82% of the state’s cannabis licensees still held provisional licenses as of April, according to the governor’s office.
The funds, including $22 million earmarked for L.A., would help cities hire experts and staff to assist businesses in completing the environmental studies and transitioning the licenses to “help legitimate businesses succeed,” Ting said.

The grant program is endorsed by Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, who said in a letter to legislators that the money is “essential in supporting a well-regulated, equitable, and sustainable cannabis market.”

Separately, the governor wants to give cannabis businesses a six-month extension beyond a Jan. 1 deadline to transition from provisional licenses by complying with mandates of the California Environmental Quality Act. That extension, which faces opposition for delaying promised environmental safeguards, was not included in the state budget bill approved Monday and is still being negotiated with lawmakers.



The governor’s proposal to extend provisional licenses has drawn objections from a coalition of seven environmental groups including Sierra Club California, Defenders of Wildlife and the Nature Conservancy.

They said in a letter to Newsom that the proposal allowing the extension of provisional licenses and interim alternatives to CEQA rules goes against what voters were promised and is “wholly inadequate to protect local communities and the environment.”

At the same time, industry officials say the governor’s proposals do not go far enough in helping businesses struggling to stay open with provisional licenses while meeting what they see as burdensome rules under the state’s environmental regulations.

“It is a significant amount of money, but I don’t know that it actually answers the problem of provisional licenses making it through CEQA analysis in a timely manner to get an annual license,” said Jerred Kiloh, president of the United Cannabis Business Assn.

He said delays in cities adopting rules, their limited staffing and lack of resources by cannabis firms mean some face two to four years to get through the licensing process. Many would face the prospect of shutting down, at least temporarily, if they don’t get a regular license by current state deadlines, Kiloh said.

California voters paved the way for state licensing of cannabis stores, farms, distributors and testing when they approved Proposition 64 in 2016. State officials initially expected to license as many as 6,000 cannabis shops in the first few years, but permits have been issued only for 1,086 retail and delivery firms.

In 2019, industry officials estimated there were nearly three times as many unlicensed businesses as ones with state permits. Although some industry leaders believe enforcement has reduced the number of illegal pot shops, a study in September by USC researchers estimated unlicensed retailers still outnumbered those that were licensed.

Supporters of legalization blame the discrepancy on problems that they say include high taxes on licensed businesses, burdensome regulations and the decision of about three-quarters of cities in California not to allow cannabis retailers in their jurisdictions.

The bill approved by the Legislature on Monday includes $100 million and identifies 17 cities and counties earmarked to receive grants, including Los Angeles, which would get the largest grant. Other cities that will get grants include Long Beach, San Francisco, Oakland, Commerce, Adelanto and Desert Hot Springs.
Originally, pot businesses were supposed to transfer from temporary licenses to regular annual licenses by 2019, but many businesses were unable to comply in time, so the state allowed provisional licenses until Jan. 1, 2020, and then extended the deadline again to Jan. 1, 2022.

A key requirement to convert from a provisional license is to conduct a CEQA review to indicate how pot farms and other cannabis businesses will affect the surrounding water, air, plants and wildlife, and to propose ways to mitigate any harms.

However, Kiloh said, some cities are just setting up ordinances and staffing to process licenses, meaning many businesses cannot meet the looming deadline.
Each cannabis grower must provide evidence that they met the requirements for environmental review. If their city and county do not provide the required document, the applicants must prepare one, which often means hiring environmental consultants.

A bill by state Sen. Anna Caballero (D-Salinas) would have allowed the state to extend provisional licenses six years until 2028, but she shelved it after it drew opposition from the coalition of environmental groups.

The groups sent a letter to lawmakers saying that the bill “does not provide adequate environmental protection.”

The governor’s proposal, which is being considered by lawmakers, would allow the extension of existing provisional licenses by six months.
Environmentalists still hope the budget trailer bill can be changed to address their concerns, according to Pamela Flick, California program director of Defenders of Wildlife.

The group “opposes the proposed trailer bill language because it needs stronger environmental protections consistent with the original commitments made in Proposition 64, in which the voters intended meaningful and timely compliance” with environmental laws, Flick said.

The Newsom administration is warning of dire consequences if pot businesses are not given more time to get a regular license.

“Absent this extension, it is possible that a significant number of these licensees could fall out of the legal cannabis system, significantly curtailing the state’s efforts to facilitate the transition to a legal and well-regulated market,” the administration warned in its budget proposal.

The $100 million would go to local agencies with the most provisional licenses for growing, manufacturing, distribution, testing and retail operations. Some of the money can be used by cities offering equity funding to cannabis businesses owned by people of color.

Lawmakers welcomed the budget proposal from Newsom, who has an interest in seeing the legal market succeed because he was a leading proponent of Proposition 64.

“Gov. Newsom is dedicated to the success of the legal cannabis industry in California,” said Nicole Elliott, the governor’s senior advisor on cannabis. “The purpose of this one-time $100 million in grant funding is to aid locals and provisional licensees, many of which are small businesses, legacy operators and equity applicants, in more expeditiously migrating to annual licensure.”

Garcetti said in his letter that it will help Los Angeles “in creating a robust CEQA compliance program and comprehensive assistance programs to aid licensees in meeting annual licensure requirements.”

However, industry officials note the money will go to a small fraction of California cities, and only those that have already decided to allow cannabis businesses.
“It’s not incentivizing localities who have cannabis bans to get their ordinances up and running,” said Kiloh, owner of the Higher Path cannabis store in Sherman Oaks.
“The real problem is CEQA analysis is a very arduous process,” he added. “I think it would be good to have more reform of the licensing system instead of just putting money to it.”

 

[ataxian]

California offers $100 million to rescue its struggling legal marijuana industry​

The California Legislature on Monday approved a $100-million plan to bolster California’s legal marijuana industry, which continues to struggle to compete with the large illicit pot market nearly five years after voters approved sales for recreational use.

Los Angeles will be the biggest beneficiary of the money, which was proposed by Gov. Gavin Newsom to be provided as grants to cities and counties to help cannabis businesses transition from provisional to regular licenses.

“California voters approved Proposition 64 five years ago and entrusted the Legislature with creating a legal, well-regulated cannabis market,” said Assemblyman Phil Ting (D-San Francisco), the chairman of the Assembly Budget Committee. “We have yet to reach that goal.”
Many cannabis growers, retailers and manufacturers have struggled to make the transition from a provisional, temporary license to a permanent one renewed on an annual basis — a process that requires a costly, complicated and time-consuming review of the negative environmental effects involved in a business and a plan for reducing those harms.

As a result, about 82% of the state’s cannabis licensees still held provisional licenses as of April, according to the governor’s office.
The funds, including $22 million earmarked for L.A., would help cities hire experts and staff to assist businesses in completing the environmental studies and transitioning the licenses to “help legitimate businesses succeed,” Ting said.

The grant program is endorsed by Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, who said in a letter to legislators that the money is “essential in supporting a well-regulated, equitable, and sustainable cannabis market.”

Separately, the governor wants to give cannabis businesses a six-month extension beyond a Jan. 1 deadline to transition from provisional licenses by complying with mandates of the California Environmental Quality Act. That extension, which faces opposition for delaying promised environmental safeguards, was not included in the state budget bill approved Monday and is still being negotiated with lawmakers.



The governor’s proposal to extend provisional licenses has drawn objections from a coalition of seven environmental groups including Sierra Club California, Defenders of Wildlife and the Nature Conservancy.

They said in a letter to Newsom that the proposal allowing the extension of provisional licenses and interim alternatives to CEQA rules goes against what voters were promised and is “wholly inadequate to protect local communities and the environment.”

At the same time, industry officials say the governor’s proposals do not go far enough in helping businesses struggling to stay open with provisional licenses while meeting what they see as burdensome rules under the state’s environmental regulations.

“It is a significant amount of money, but I don’t know that it actually answers the problem of provisional licenses making it through CEQA analysis in a timely manner to get an annual license,” said Jerred Kiloh, president of the United Cannabis Business Assn.

He said delays in cities adopting rules, their limited staffing and lack of resources by cannabis firms mean some face two to four years to get through the licensing process. Many would face the prospect of shutting down, at least temporarily, if they don’t get a regular license by current state deadlines, Kiloh said.

California voters paved the way for state licensing of cannabis stores, farms, distributors and testing when they approved Proposition 64 in 2016. State officials initially expected to license as many as 6,000 cannabis shops in the first few years, but permits have been issued only for 1,086 retail and delivery firms.

In 2019, industry officials estimated there were nearly three times as many unlicensed businesses as ones with state permits. Although some industry leaders believe enforcement has reduced the number of illegal pot shops, a study in September by USC researchers estimated unlicensed retailers still outnumbered those that were licensed.

Supporters of legalization blame the discrepancy on problems that they say include high taxes on licensed businesses, burdensome regulations and the decision of about three-quarters of cities in California not to allow cannabis retailers in their jurisdictions.

The bill approved by the Legislature on Monday includes $100 million and identifies 17 cities and counties earmarked to receive grants, including Los Angeles, which would get the largest grant. Other cities that will get grants include Long Beach, San Francisco, Oakland, Commerce, Adelanto and Desert Hot Springs.
Originally, pot businesses were supposed to transfer from temporary licenses to regular annual licenses by 2019, but many businesses were unable to comply in time, so the state allowed provisional licenses until Jan. 1, 2020, and then extended the deadline again to Jan. 1, 2022.

A key requirement to convert from a provisional license is to conduct a CEQA review to indicate how pot farms and other cannabis businesses will affect the surrounding water, air, plants and wildlife, and to propose ways to mitigate any harms.

However, Kiloh said, some cities are just setting up ordinances and staffing to process licenses, meaning many businesses cannot meet the looming deadline.
Each cannabis grower must provide evidence that they met the requirements for environmental review. If their city and county do not provide the required document, the applicants must prepare one, which often means hiring environmental consultants.

A bill by state Sen. Anna Caballero (D-Salinas) would have allowed the state to extend provisional licenses six years until 2028, but she shelved it after it drew opposition from the coalition of environmental groups.

The groups sent a letter to lawmakers saying that the bill “does not provide adequate environmental protection.”

The governor’s proposal, which is being considered by lawmakers, would allow the extension of existing provisional licenses by six months.
Environmentalists still hope the budget trailer bill can be changed to address their concerns, according to Pamela Flick, California program director of Defenders of Wildlife.

The group “opposes the proposed trailer bill language because it needs stronger environmental protections consistent with the original commitments made in Proposition 64, in which the voters intended meaningful and timely compliance” with environmental laws, Flick said.

The Newsom administration is warning of dire consequences if pot businesses are not given more time to get a regular license.

“Absent this extension, it is possible that a significant number of these licensees could fall out of the legal cannabis system, significantly curtailing the state’s efforts to facilitate the transition to a legal and well-regulated market,” the administration warned in its budget proposal.

The $100 million would go to local agencies with the most provisional licenses for growing, manufacturing, distribution, testing and retail operations. Some of the money can be used by cities offering equity funding to cannabis businesses owned by people of color.

Lawmakers welcomed the budget proposal from Newsom, who has an interest in seeing the legal market succeed because he was a leading proponent of Proposition 64.

“Gov. Newsom is dedicated to the success of the legal cannabis industry in California,” said Nicole Elliott, the governor’s senior advisor on cannabis. “The purpose of this one-time $100 million in grant funding is to aid locals and provisional licensees, many of which are small businesses, legacy operators and equity applicants, in more expeditiously migrating to annual licensure.”

Garcetti said in his letter that it will help Los Angeles “in creating a robust CEQA compliance program and comprehensive assistance programs to aid licensees in meeting annual licensure requirements.”

However, industry officials note the money will go to a small fraction of California cities, and only those that have already decided to allow cannabis businesses.
“It’s not incentivizing localities who have cannabis bans to get their ordinances up and running,” said Kiloh, owner of the Higher Path cannabis store in Sherman Oaks.
“The real problem is CEQA analysis is a very arduous process,” he added. “I think it would be good to have more reform of the licensing system instead of just putting money to it.”

in a CIVILIZED SOCIETY FEDERAL LEGALIZED CANNABIS would help clairvoyant thought!

 

[CarolKing]

Why Does California Still Have a Black Market for Cannabis?

California was the first state to pass legislation for medical marijuana, and it was among the first to generate a legal adult-use weed industry. After just two years of operation, the recreational dispensaries have generated over $1 billion in tax revenue, which has gone to fund childcare and...

signalscv.com

There are still illegal dispensaries. Either you have legal or you don’t. In my state if illegal stores continued to operate the cops shut them down. I wasn’t at first happy about that. My favorite dispensary didn’t get a license and refused to close they were shut down. They will never get a license because of that, at least one under their own name.
There are so many regulations.

 

[bulllee]

Falling prices in California marijuana wholesale market alarms some growers; others unfazed​

Published August 6, 2021 | By John Schroyer

Outdoor marijuana grows across California are experiencing falling wholesale prices. (Photo by Bobby Cochran Photography)

Years of rising marijuana production across California appear to be taking a toll on the state’s wholesale market, with prices said to be dropping by up to 60% since at least mid-June for outdoor-farmed flower.
The downward pricing pressure hasn’t hit every cultivation sector in the state – many indoor growers appear to be on better footing, for instance, with wholesale prices reportedly down 10%-20% compared to outdoor farmers.
But many insiders expect the trend to continue for months, if not years, because of the ever-growing amount of marijuana cultivation in California.
“Probably a conservative estimate is we’re producing about twice what the domestic market can consume, and that’s with current permitting levels,” said Ross Gordon, policy director for the Humboldt County Growers Alliance (HCGA).

“We’re looking at prices that are as bad or worse than they’ve ever been,” Gordon said. “It’s the No. 1 thing on pretty much every farmer’s mind right now.”
According to multiple industry sources, the price drops have had a bigger impact on outdoor cultivators. Indoor growers, by contrast, have been more insulated from what Northern California farmers are calling a market crash.
Those who haven’t been hit as hard have avoided such terminology and instead call the drop a “correction.”
Many outdoor farmers typically hold on to much of their outdoor harvests from each fall to sell in the following spring or summer, when there’s typically less supply, which traditionally has resulted in a wholesale price spike.
For instance, in Trinity County – one of the three famed Emerald Triangle counties – a “significant amount” of the 2020 fall harvest went unsold for that very reason, said Karla Avila, executive director of the Trinity County Agriculture Alliance (TCAA).
But this year, there was no spring price spike. And Humboldt’s outdoor farmers now must compete with cultivators using light-deprivation techniques that give them two or three harvests per year, one of which already hit the wholesale market in the spring.
Currently, Gordon said, outdoor farmers in Northern California are seeing wholesale prices of $200-$500, down from $800-$1,000 a year ago. Even light-deprivation crop prices are down to $600-$800 from $1,300-$1,600.
Avila said farmers the TCAA represents are seeing about the same prices.
“Until small, craft cannabis farms can operate similarly to a small, craft winery or brewery, we are faced with commodification and possibly, the end of good weed,” Avila told MJBizDaily via email.
Reports vary
To be sure, not everybody has seen a price drop.
Data firms such as New York-headquartered LeafLink and Connecticut-based New Leaf Data Services – the latter produces the Cannabis Benchmarks report – said they haven’t yet picked up any major market fluctuations outside the norm.
“We are seeing flower prices in CA across a broad range, with most transactions within $550 to $3,350 per pound; with a roughly $400 spread between outdoor and greenhouse, and a roughly $700 spread between greenhouse and indoor,” New Leaf Data CEO Jonathan Rubin wrote in an email to MJBizDaily.
“At this point in the season, we are not seeing prices trend” significantly downward, he wrote.
A LeafLink spokesperson wrote that, “from the data on LeafLink’s wholesale platform, there is no evidence of a wholesale price crash in California in the past 6 weeks. In fact, prices have remained mostly consistent across all major product categories in the last 12 months.”
That stands in stark contrast to reports from the Emerald Triangle, where industry officials say a price crash began around June.
“What I am hearing is … any sort of outdoor product from last year is absolutely not moving at all, and if it is moving, the price point is as low as $275 to $500 max,” said one industry insider from Mendocino County who requested anonymity to speak candidly.
“The market is super-flooded,” the source said. “There’s a huge glut. Nothing is moving. … Talking to the old-, old-timers, no one has ever seen it this bad. And it’s on both sides, the white and black (markets).”
But in Southern California, according to cultivation consultant and distributor Scott Raquiza, indoor farmers haven’t seen as much of a price hit, provided they’re growing premium-quality cannabis.
Those who are growing buds known as “mids,” or midgrade quality flower, could be in serious trouble, he said.
“This is just a market correction. Last year was a fluke with COVID,” Raquiza, the chief cannabis officer at Cream of the Crop Gardens in Perris, California, said, referring to the higher prices wholesalers were receiving for pounds during 2020 and the height of the coronavirus pandemic.
But, Raquiza said, there’s definitely price “compression” happening compared to what pounds were fetching on the wholesale market in 2020.
“For commercial grows, non-AAA, you’re probably at a 40% price compression. Outdoor is 50%-60% price compression, and premium indoor is only 10-20% price compression,” he summarized.
Raquiza, who tracks California wholesale pricing, said that currently equates to about $2,000 per pound for quality indoor flower, as low as $200 per pound for last year’s outdoor harvest and $700-$900 for the fresh new light-deprivation crops.
“If you’re going to call it a crash, it’s going to be on the outdoor product that didn’t sell last year,” Raquiza said.
Factors at play
Industry insiders agreed that a glut of product is behind the wholesale price drop. It’s an issue other recreational marijuana markets have had to grapple with in recent years, including when product in Oregon fetched only $50 a pound in 2018.
“There’s a supply problem. … All you saw in the first quarter and early second quarter of this year was, ‘Hey, we’re opening up a million square feet,’” said Adrian Sedlin, the CEO of Santa Barbara-based Canndescent, a larger commercial grower.
“There’s 12 times as much licensed production as there is licensed sales in dispensaries.”
HCGA’s Gordon said the state has a “structural oversupply problem.”
Gordon estimated California has roughly 1,700 acres of cannabis production that’s operational, while the state’s cannabis consumers account for only about 1,000 acres worth of sales annually.
“There’s hundreds of acres still in the pipeline in places like Santa Barbara County. And if nothing changes, that’s going to come online, and basically things are being permitted that there’s no market for,” Gordon said.
The industry insider who requested anonymity also noted that there’s been a surge in temporary “provisional” cultivation licenses since December, with an increase of roughly 22% of grow licenses, according to the source’s calculations.
“At that point, there were 6,150 active cultivation licenses, and now there are 7,911,” the source noted. “Let’s just say they’re outdoor. That’s another 400 acres of production.”
California doesn’t have a statewide cap on the number of cultivation permits that can be issued.
And because wholesale prices were boosted by COVID-19 last year, many farmers either reinvested in additional cultivation infrastructure or held on to some of their crop from last year in hope of riding a typical spring/summer price spike that never arrived.
“As always the wholesale price dropped in the winter of 2020, but this time when January 2021 came around, the wholesale price didn’t increase like the year before,” Santa Barbara-based grower Autumn Shelton told MJBizDaily via email.
“By this summer, when prices should have been at their high, (they) trended down to winter prices instead,” Shelton wrote. “This will be a very difficult year for many cultivators and distributors that weren’t prepared for this kind of price drop.”
Wholesale not likely to rebound, experts say
California sources widely agreed that the price drop won’t reverse anytime in the near future and that stakeholders should prepare themselves accordingly.
“I expect it to continue to go down, as we get closer to the start of the fall harvest,” Canndescent’s Sedlin said.
“We’re going to start from a lower place than we have in a while, and … it’s going to be interesting to see how people play it, when we get to November-December, and what are people going to do with their product?”
HCGA’s Gordon and others in the Emerald Triangle are particularly worried about small homestead farmers who rely on their once-a-year fall harvest to keep them afloat.
“I think there are going to be a lot of farmers that this is not sustainable for,” Gordon said, adding that he’s hearing “more and more panic” from HCGA members.
“Most people are buckling in and looking at the next two to three years – before we have interstate commerce – and saying, ‘How can we get through this? Can we operate at a loss for two to three years at a loss?'”
John Schroyer can be reached at john.schroyer@mjbizdaily.com.

 

[bulllee]

California completes marijuana regulatory agency merger; new cannabis czar takes over​

Published August 17, 2021 | By Chris Casacchia

California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Department of Cannabis Control aims to unclog a glut of temporary licenses and transition them to annual permits as well as ease regulatory red tape and financial burdens on businesses.
That’s according to spokespeople at the newly established agency, which launched in July and amounts to one of the state’s biggest regulatory overhauls in years.
The Department of Cannabis Control (DCC), which counts nearly 400 employees, is led by Director Nicole Elliott, a Newsom confidante for more than a decade.

From the start, the new agency’s goals represent a lofty to-do list for what in effect is a central clearinghouse charged with overseeing the world’s largest legal marijuana market.
It also must grapple with the world’s largest illicit market.
The DCC combines the regulatory, licensing and enforcement responsibilities of three different state agencies into one large, wide-ranging regulator.
“We heard from businesses, local governments, law enforcement and others that it was complicated to work with three different state cannabis programs,” according to Christina Dempsey, the DCC’s deputy director of external affairs.
Those three agencies were:

• The Department of Consumer Affairs’ Bureau of Cannabis Control.
• The Department of Food and Agriculture’s CalCannabis Cultivation Licensing Division.
• The Department of Public Health’s Manufactured Cannabis Safety Branch.

The DCC’s creation represents California’s largest regulatory reorganization since the 2013 debut of the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency, the department under which the DCC now falls.
The agency’s goal, according to Dempsey: Boost the number of businesses participating in the legal market, ease the licensing process for applicants and keep licensed operators compliant.
“It simplifies regulatory oversight by having one entity issuing licenses, promulgating and interpreting regulations for the entire commercial cannabis supply chain, and addressing all compliance and enforcement issues,” she added.
Moving forward, the DCC will oversee all commercial cannabis license holders in California, including cultivators, retailers, manufacturers, distributors, testing labs, microbusinesses and event organizers.
The agency also will manage the state’s track-and-trace system used to monitor cannabis flower and other products, from seed to sale, within the legal supply chain.
Newsom proposed the regulatory consolidation as part of the state’s $262 billion fiscal budget, which he signed into law July 12.
The agency was formally created through Assembly Bill 141, a so-called trailer bill that also eliminates provisional licensing in 2026 and prohibits the DCC from issuing provisional licenses after Jan. 1, 2025.
The DCC’s budget for the fiscal year is $154.3 million, nearly identical to the three former cannabis programs combined.
The overhaul is the culmination of 18 months of planning, public comment and debate involving more than 10 state agencies, various stakeholders and several assembly members.
Key personnel
Elliott, who was confirmed by the state Senate, has formally advised the governor on cannabis issues since 2019. She also served as director of the Office of Cannabis in San Francisco and held several positions under Newsom while he was mayor of that city.
Other key personnel, all appointed by Newsom, include:

• Chief Deputy Rasha Salama, who has served at the state’s Department of Public Health since 2016, including the past five years as assistant branch chief of the Manufactured Cannabis Safety Branch.
• General Counsel Matthew Lee, who has served as deputy legal affairs secretary in the governor’s office.
• Deputy Director of Legal Tamara Colson, who has served as assistant chief counsel of the Bureau of Cannabis Control since 2016. She’s the only Republican appointee.
• Deputy Director of Equity and Inclusion Eugene Hillsman, who most recently served as deputy director of the Office of Cannabis for the city and county of San Francisco.

These positions are among 26 new roles at the DCC, which is comprised of 10 divisions, including lab services, enforcement and licensing.
Provisional licenses and grant program atop agenda
The department, according to Dempsey, is unifying its processes and procedures, consolidating regulations and streamlining licensing applications to create a more consistent experience for businesses.
As of Aug. 9, California cannabis operators held 8,649 active provisional licenses, which represents more than 75% of all state licenses, according to the governor’s office. By contrast, there were only 2,834 active annual licenses, Dempsey said.
Provisional license holders and industry advocates have voiced concerns that regulators and applicants will be hard-pressed to meet the looming 2026 deadline to transition provisional licenses into annual ones.
The DCC hopes a new government relief program – perhaps the first one anywhere dedicated for cannabis businesses – will alleviate those fears.
“We are preparing to roll out the Local Assistance Grant Program, which commits $100 million in funding to assist local governments and licensees with swiftly moving from provisional licensure into annual licensure,” Dempsey said.
Though none of the $100 million has yet made it to any of the recipients, Dempsey said the agency’s goal is to “begin dispersing funds by the end of the year.”
The grants, which will be dispersed to 17 cities and counties, will provide:

• Aid for local governments in processing substantial workloads to transition businesses into the regulated market.
• Incentives for local governments to better align permitting methods with the state to remove barriers to licensing.
• Resources to support the completion of environmental impact assessment and mitigation.
• Additional assistance to support eligible jurisdictions implementing social equity programs.

A push to support local municipalities to create more pathways to the regulated market is welcomed by legal operators, who take on high capital, taxes and compliance costs while the underground market thrives.
Los Angeles-based Global Go Analytics estimates California’s illicit cannabis market generates $8 billion in annual sales, nearly double that of the legal market, which the MJBizFactbook pegged at $4.4 billion last year.
“Ultimately, we want to make it easier to participate in the legal, regulated market and less desirable to operate in the illicit market,” Dempsey said.
“We hope to create more opportunities for businesses, particularly small businesses, who want to enter the cannabis market.”
Chris Casacchia can be reached at ccasacchia@hotmail.com.

 

[Baron23]

“The legal market is still one-quarter what the illicit cannabis market is,” said Mark Ponticelli"

"Most cities in the state still don’t allow retail adult-use sales. Many of those that do cap the number of dispensaries allowed within city limits. And almost everyone running a retail storefront says that high taxes....."

See any causal relationship here, eh?

“It’s Gonna Be A Bloodbath”: Epic Marijuana Oversupply Is Flooding California, Jeopardizing Legalization​

If you want to get into the cannabis industry in California—where more than $5 billion worth of legal, adult-use cannabis is on pace to be sold this year, according to tax figures—and you want to do it quickly, don’t bother with selling adult-use cannabis. Instead, you want to grow it.
Most cities in the state still don’t allow retail adult-use sales. Many of those that do cap the number of dispensaries allowed within city limits. And almost everyone running a retail storefront says that high taxes and an abundance of cheap, illicit-market weed is killing them. It’s not a good way to make money!

The quickest way to get into the cannabis business, then, is to get a cultivation permit and start growing massive amounts of cannabis. That’s what big companies in the Salinas Valley and Santa Barbara County did.
And what they’ve done, according to interviews with industry experts, is grow entirely too much cannabis. Exact figures are not known, but according to one rough estimate, California’s legal cultivators grow more than three times as much cannabis as is sold in legal dispensaries.
Whatever the exact figure, the common belief is that it’s so much cannabis that the market is flooded, prices are crashing, and legal growers—in the red this year—may finally be forced out of business.
“It’s gonna be a bloodbath,” said one industry insider, who works in wholesale sales and distribution, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to speak freely.

Exactly how much cannabis is grown within the state of California is still a state secret, known only to state regulators and select elected officials. But using available data, you can hit at some estimates.

According to the most recent public estimate—published in 2017—the state’s appetite for cannabis is about 2.3 million pounds. That includes medical and adult-use consumption.

That’s roughly consistent with the amount of cannabis on which the state Department of Tax and Fee Administration reported collecting cultivation taxes between July 2020 and July 2021, according to the most recent data available.



But in mid-2021, the state may be producing up to three times as much cannabis as the state can consume, according to Natalynne DeLapp, executive director of the Humboldt County Growers Alliance.
That estimate comes from tallying up the total acreage of permitted grows registered with the state Department of Cannabis Control. When the total acreage of indoor grows, outdoor grows, and mixed-use grows is tallied up, the permitted, legal cultivation capacity in the state tops 6 million pounds.

“And that’s real back of the napkin math,” said DeLapp, who advocates for small farmers up in the forested hills and mountains, the state’s traditional “cannabis basket.”
And they can’t compete with massive greenhouses producing lower-quality but higher-margin cannabis in valleys in Salinas and Santa Barbara.
So the reward for the more than 2,500 Humboldt County farmers who pursued state licenses in 2016, even before adult-use cannabis was legalized? With the price of an outdoor pound of cannabis dipping under $1,000, and last year’s harvest returned, unsold, “They’re selling their farms and selling their businesses,” she said.
But on top of threatening small businesses still trying to grab a foothold in an emerging industry, this surfeit of cannabis also threatens the integrity of marijuana legalization itself.
According to other industry insiders, despite too much cannabis already in California, higher quality cannabis grown in Oregon—where production costs are cheaper—is supposedly crossing state lines and appearing in California dispensaries. If true, that would violate all kinds of laws: state, federal, you name it.
But if that’s true, and if there’s too much weed grown in the state—where is the California cannabis going?
No one but state regulators and law-enforcement (and whomever is moving the stuff) can say for certain, but the conventional wisdom is that it’s either being sold off-books within state lines for half the price of heavily taxed legal cannabis—or it’s appearing in New York, Florida, and other states where California cannabis fetches a premium.
“The legal market is still one-quarter what the illicit cannabis market is,” said Mark Ponticelli, the founder and owner of the People’s Remedy, a dispensary in Modesto, California, in the state’s agricultural Central Valley—where the illicit, underground market cannabis is both cheaper and better.
“The black market is still coming here,” he said, noting that the greenhouse-grown cannabis produced in the massive farms that are killing the small growers just isn’t as good. It’s not cured right. The nutrient mixes are wrong. It’s grown at scale, and it’s just not as good as the traditional growers’ product.
On the illicit market, “You can get pounds in the streets, $2500 to $3000, all day,” he said. “And it’s fire, fire weed. And then you can sell it over in Florida for $4,000, $5,000 on the streets.”
Too much cannabis. The wrong cannabis. Cannabis that’s too expensive. And cannabis that’s not profitable.
There’s no one factor that led to this particular situation. There are loosened regulations after legalization that allowed for massive grows. There are environmental quality regulations that favor big producers. And there’s also the natural cycles of the market, which may seesaw between too much and too little before settling into some groove resembling equilibrium.
But that’s not where California is right now. And after an imbalance, comes an inevitable correction. And with the state busy with COVID-19 and a recall election, it appears the market will be left to itself to figure out what to do with all this extra weed—and whether the people who grew it can stay in business.

 

[bulllee]

California marijuana industry divided on Gov. Newsom recall​

Published 8 hours ago | By John Schroyer

As California Gov. Gavin Newsom battles for his political life with a recall election looming next week, the state’s marijuana industry remains divided on whether to fully back the incumbent.
Newsom’s uncertain future has some wondering about the ramifications for California cannabis businesses if the governor were to lose and become the first chief executive since Gray Davis in 2003 to be recalled from office.
Though Newsom has been a proponent of legal marijuana for the better part of a decade, he is seen as something of a disappointment by many in the California marijuana industry.
That feeling has led to a sense of apathy in the industry toward the Democratic governor’s recall election, set to be decided Sept. 14.

The leading candidate to replace Newsom is Republican talk show host Larry Elder, according to most polls – though several recent surveys show the governor winning relatively easily.
Still, the prospects of what might happen if Newsom is replaced have been a focus for many in the cannabis business.
“If a Republican governor came in, or someone who doesn’t have the same stance on cannabis, they could unwind so many things we’ve all been working on,” said Jerred Kiloh, the president of the Los Angeles-based United Cannabis Business Association (UCBA).
He was referring to the various marijuana regulatory reforms the UCBA and other trade groups have lobbied for at the state Legislature.
“It could set us back years. Yeah, that’s pretty scary,” Kiloh said.
An industry divided
Newsom made a name for himself as one of the most prominent state-level politicians to throw his weight behind full marijuana legalization. And in 2016, he gave his full-throated support to Proposition 64 and even spoke at the election-night victory party after voters approved the measure.
Despite such triumphs, cannabis industry support for Newsom has waned since he assumed the governor’s office in January 2019.
While many – such as the UCBA’s Kiloh – have continued to assert publicly that the industry should continue supporting Newsom, others have become disenchanted with the governor.
One of those is marijuana consultant Jackie McGowan.
She decided to throw her hat in the ring in July and has since become known as the cannabis candidate, even garnering a shout-out from comedian Bill Maher on his HBO show last month.
In a subsequent poll released Aug. 26, McGowan ranked third in the race of 46 candidates hoping to replace Newsom.
But with 5% of voter support, she was still far behind Elder, the leader with 27%. The poll showed that Newsom was ahead overall, with 57% of voters saying they opposed the recall.
Elder’s campaign did not respond to an MJBizDaily request for comment, and the candidate hasn’t staked out much in the way of policy positions – and definitely not on anything as niche as cannabis regulations.
Most of the publicity Elder has gotten regarding cannabis have been allegations by his ex-fiancee that Elder, high on marijuana, threatened her with a firearm.
McGowan has asserted that Elder would be no friend to marijuana companies.
“Larry Elder is a flip-flopper … so, good luck getting anything done. Good luck getting tax reform. Good luck getting more retail locations,” she said, referring to two of the industry’s top political goals and predicting a “catastrophic effect” for cannabis companies should Elder win.
McGowan said that while a lot of the industry is behind her candidacy, many businesses are cautious about publicly supporting her because of fear of political reprisals.
“The cannabis industry is also very nervous about coming out publicly to support me,” she said, “because they fear that if I’m not elected, then either Newsom stays in office or a Trump Republican is elected, that there’s going to be some sort of retaliation.”
L.A.-based consultant Avis Bulbulyan agreed with McGowan that much of the industry has been hesitant to take sides in the election because companies are trying to hedge their bets.
“The industry … (is) a little more hesitant to come out in opposition, in case Newsom does get reelected. So that’s why you’re not hearing much about Newsom and the implications,” Bulbulyan said.
In contrast to McGowan, Bulbulyan believes an Elder governorship would be “super positive” for cannabis businesses because, while Newsom has been slow to act on marijuana-related policy, Elder would likely bring a low-tax, free-market approach to the industry.
“(Newsom has) dragged his feet on cannabis stuff. He’s a supporter, but not really,” Bulbulyan said. “He hasn’t done anything to really aggressively move the industry forward.”
But Elder, Bulbulyan said, is “going to be for lower taxes, for open opportunity.”
Bulbulyan also suggested that Elder, an African American, would “accelerate” awareness and conversations surrounding social equity programs and use the bully pulpit of the governor’s office to promote the industry to cities and counties in California that haven’t yet accepted marijuana businesses.
Ramifications of a new governor?
If Newsom were to lose the recall, multiple possible real-world implications for the cannabis industry exist, several insiders said.
At the top of the list would be potential bureaucratic turnover.
For example, the head of the newly created Department of Cannabis Control, Nicole Elliott – a longtime Newsom backer – would almost certainly be replaced by a new governor.
That alone would be “hugely disruptive,” said Jared Ficker, a principal at Axiom Advisors – longtime Newsom allies – and also a cannabis executive with Herbl Distribution Solutions in Santa Barbara.
“If the recall is successful, we have all new personnel – it would be just another delay in the good work going on to continue to fine-tune implementation of the state’s commercial cannabis program,” Ficker warned.
He added that any vote cast in favor of a recall by a member of the marijuana sector “would be a vote against your own interest.”
Another consideration, according to one industry insider, is that Elder – Newsom’s most likely replacement – has historically been opposed to affirmative-action policies and other steps taken to assist the Black community.
“Elder is a nightmare for anyone who believes in the fairness of opportunity and that it is in the interest of all of us to do well,” Karim Webb, who owns L.A. social equity company and retailer 4thMvmt, told MJBizDaily via email.
But the biggest practical result would be more uncertainty for cannabis business owners, said Jim Araby, an organizer with the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 5 and a Newsom ally.
“If Newsom gets recalled, the biggest enemy of the cannabis industry gets even larger, which is uncertainty,” Araby said.
“We may not agree with everything the governor’s done, but better to have him in office than another year of uncertainty.”
John Schroyer can be reached at john.schroyer@mjbizdaily.com.

 

[CarolKing]

I really tried to find out what Larry Elder’s stance on cannabis was. There wasn’t much and he seems to be in second place. The articles just wanted to talk about pulling a gun on his ex.​

​

A Campaign Rooted In Cannabis​

Although she did not sign petitions that forced the recall vote and opposes removing Newsom from office, fellow Democrat McGowan says she launched her campaign for governor as an insurance policy against the largely Republican-led recall effort. She is running on a campaign based on, among other priorities such as homelessness and justice reform, addressing the needs of California’s legal marijuana industry, which so far has failed to live up to expectations.

Tax revenues from California’s legal cannabis industry have lagged compared to projections, and the state’s illicit cannabis market continues to command a major share of sales. The industry’s challenges have led some desperate small farmers to take their own lives, McGowan says in a telephone interview, although she declined to provide details out of respect for the families involved.

“Governor Newsom was a major proponent of cannabis legalization, but his administration’s implementation of the law has harmed so many Californians and even led to an increase in suicides,” McGowan said in a July press release. “We need a Governor who understands cannabis and economics and can make California work for all Californians.”

California gubernatorial candidate Jackie McGowan

PHOTO BY JACK SIMPSON PHOTOGRAPHY
McGowan, an 18-year veteran of the Wall Street financial world who has been a cannabis consultant since 2014, believes that relaxing the state’s tight marijuana regulations and supporting small businesses can benefit all Californians.

“Lowering the barriers to entry in the legal cannabis market will not only bring in an estimated $5 billion in extra revenue to the state of California, it will also disincentivize criminal organizations from stealing away market share,” she writes in an email.

 

[bulllee]

CA lawmakers approve hemp regulatory bill that divided marijuana sector​

Published 23 hours ago



A long-debated bill to establish new hemp rules in California – but which drew the ire of business owners in both the hemp and marijuana sectors – has gained final approval from state lawmakers.
The measure, Assembly Bill 45, easily passed both the state Senate and Assembly this week.
It is now on its way to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his signature.
Among other things, the bill would:

• Allow hemp extracts – including CBD – to be added to food, beverage and cosmetic products.
• Establish new rules for hemp farmers and businesses, akin to the regulatory framework for marijuana companies, such as lab testing standards.
• Hold out-of-state hemp products imported into California to the new state standards.
• Ban the sale of intoxicating THC isomers such as delta-8 THC outside regulated cannabis sales channels.
• Permit the sale of smokable hemp, but only once lawmakers agree on a new tax for “inhalable products.” The timing for such a tax is uncertain. Producers could make smokable-hemp products for out-of-state sale right away.

The passage of the bill was the result of years of effort to update industry rules for California’s hemp companies.
Up until its passage, the measure remained a divisive issue among marijuana and hemp industry stakeholders.
The marijuana industry stands to benefit because low-THC hemp products now will be subject to the same regulations, testing and taxing that MJ businesses are subject to. Thus, companies selling low-THC products will have a harder time undercutting marijuana businesses.
According to a state legislative analysis issued Wednesday, supporters of the measure included the U.S. Hemp Roundtable, California Cannabis Industry Association, California Hemp Council, Cannabis Beverage Association and a few marijuana companies such as Canadian producer Canopy Growth.
“These critical changes to California law will drive economic opportunity and boost job growth by providing certainty to farmers, manufacturers, and retailers through a clear roadmap for expansion by providing consumers with a regulated CBD marketplace,” David Culver, Canopy’s vice president of global government relations, said in a news release.
There were vocal opponents, though, including the California Hemp Association, Cannabis Distribution Association and a number of regional MJ cultivation trade groups such as the Origins Council.
Some changed their formal stance to neutral after several last-minute amendments, according to the Los Angeles-based United Cannabis Business Association.
The final version of the bill “finally moves toward establishing a legitimate foundation upon which we can build responsible policies for all cannabinoid products of all origins,” the UCBA said in a release.
California had 479 hemp growers on 17,184 acres in 2020.

 

[momofthegoons]

California Bill to Allow Medical Cannabis in Hospitals Heads to Governor’s Desk​

Ryan’s Law could help hospital patients in life or death situations, who rely on medical cannabis.

The Compassionate Access to Medical Cannabis Act or Ryan’s Law would allow patients in California with serious conditions to use non-smokable medical cannabis inside of hospitals. After receiving approval in California’s Assembly and Senate, Ryan’s Law and a bill regulating smokable hemp products both headed to the governor’s desk, amid a recall election.

If and when it’s signed by the governor, Senate Bill 311 or Ryan’s Law would allow terminally ill patients to use medical cannabis in healthcare facilities. The proposal prohibits patients, however, from inhaling or vaping herbal cannabis products. It also restricts the use of any forms of cannabis in emergency rooms.

Members of the California Assembly and Senate approved legislation and sent a bill to the Governor’s desk to allow the use of medical cannabis products within hospitals and other eligible health care facilities.

The California State Assembly voted 57-1 to approve the bill on September 9, and the Senate approved the other chamber’s amendments in a 36-1 vote the next day.

The bill was pushed by State Senator Ben Hueso, who has fought to allow cannabis use in medical facilities for terminally ill patients repeatedly. In July, Hueso sent a letter to HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, asking them to provide clarification on whether hospitals in legal cannabis states can allow terminally ill patients to use medical cannabis without jeopardizing federal funding.



The bill “would require specified types of health care facilities to allow a terminally ill patient’s use of medicinal cannabis within the health care facility, subject to certain restrictions,” it reads. “The bill would require a patient to provide the health care facility with a copy of their medical marijuana card or written documentation that the use of medicinal cannabis is recommended by a physician. The bill would require a health care facility to reasonably restrict the manner in which a patient stores and uses medicinal cannabis to ensure the safety of other patients, guests, and employees of the health care facility, compliance with other state laws, and the safe operations of the health care facility.”

Lawmakers approved a similar bill in 2019, but it was vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom who expressed concerns that it create a conflict between federal and state law.

Representatives from both HHS and the governor’s office have recently reached out to Hueso to say they’re continuing to look into the matter.

The senator’s legislation was partly inspired by the experience of a father whose son died from cancer and was initially denied access to cannabis at a California hospital. Jim Bartell did eventually find a facility that agreed to allow the treatment, and he has said his son’s quality of life improved dramatically in those last days.

The U.S. Hemp Roundtable claims that they’ve reached an agreement and expect Governor Newsom to sign the hemp-derived CBD bill. “We’re excited to report that a final deal has been reached with Governor Gavin Newsom to move to final passage of AB 45, our long term effort to explicitly permit the retail sale of hemp-derived extracts such as CBD in California,” a U.S Hemp Roundtable release reads. However, it’s unclear if the governor will sign Ryan’s Law, as he vetoed similar legislation earlier due to confusion about federal implications.

AB 45 would allow the sale of hemp-derived CBD extracts outside of licensed cannabis dispensaries. The Senate in a 29-2 vote on Wednesday. The Assembly concurred with amendments and gave final passage to the bill in a 56-3 vote on Thursday.

 

[momofthegoons]

Judge Rules County Can’t Stop Water Deliveries to Hmong Weed Farmers​

California is attempting to keep water from illegal grows in Northern California, and Hmong farmers are specifically suffering.

A Northern California federal judge ruled this month that Siskiyou County officials cannot stop trucks delivering water to Hmong unlicensed cannabis growers, writing that the ban raises “serious questions” about their right to be free of racial discrimination.

In a decision handed down earlier this month, Chief U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller wrote that preventing the deliveries to the Mount Shasta Vista subdivision in the Big Springs area of inland Northern California also leaves the families living there without a source of water for drinking, cooking and bathing. To enforce her order, Mueller issued a temporary injunction against the county’s ban on water deliveries trucked into the community.

“Without an injunction, the plaintiffs and other members of the Shasta Vista Hmong community will likely go without water for their basic needs and will likely lose more plants and livestock,” she wrote. “Fires may burn more homes. People may be forced to leave their homes and land behind without compensation.

“The plaintiffs have also raised serious questions about their constitutional right to be free from racial discrimination,” Mueller added.

Thousands of Illicit Greenhouses​

Officials estimate that there are 5,000 to 6,000 greenhouses growing unlicensed marijuana in the Big Springs area, many of them in the Shasta Vista subdivision operated by Hmong and Chinese immigrants and their families who have moved to the community over the last five years. Officials say the illicit grow sites have led to a rise in crime in the area and complaints from residents who say the cannabis cultivation operations are causing their wells to run dry.

To address the issue, Siskiyou County officials approved ordinances this spring to prohibit selling well water without a permit and to ban water trucks on roads leading to Shasta Vista. County deputies enforced the ordinances by aggressively pulling over people they believed were hauling water illegally, according to reporting by the Sacramento Bee.

Attorneys for a group of Hmong farmers filed suit in federal court in Sacramento to block the ordinances, arguing that they were racially motivated and left the families without water for their homes, gardens and livestock. They also noted that the ban left the community without water to fight wildfires, such as the Lava Fire that burned through parts of Shasta Vista in June after a nearby lightning strike.

Suit Alleges Ordinances Were Racially Motivated​

Mueller wrote in her September 3 ruling that the growers have a case to allege “the ordinances are motivated by racial animus,” but acknowledged that Siskiyou County attorneys had presented a compelling case that crime was on the upswing in the area.

“Violent crime in Shasta Vista has also spiked in recent years,” she wrote. “The Sheriff’s Office has responded to reports of armed robbery, assault and murder. In just one recent week, a man was pistol-whipped and robbed; another was the target of gunshots fired by a neighbor, and six people were bound and robbed by gunmen wielding AK-47s. Few similar crimes were reported in Shasta Vista before illegal cannabis cultivation took hold.”

Mueller let stand a county ordinance that specifically banned selling water for illegal cannabis cultivation. The injunction only applies to water sales and deliveries to the community intended for needs including bathing and gardening. Mueller rejected county arguments that the prohibition on water deliveries was needed to protect residents of Shasta Vista, many of whom live in unpermitted residences and are subject to unsafe living conditions. The judge ruled that the county has other laws including zoning ordinances to address those issues.

“Shasta Vista residents might drink and bathe in unpotable water trucked into Shasta Vista from nearby agricultural wells, but the alternative is very little water or no water at all,” she wrote. “If potable water is in fact ready available, as the county claims… this order in no way prohibits officials from helping the people in Shasta Vista find and use that potable water.”

The attorneys for the lead plaintiff, Dilevon Lo, are Allison Margolin and James Raza Lawrence of Margolin & Lawrence. Raza Lawrence said that he hopes that Mueller’s injunction becomes permanent in order to avert a “humanitarian crisis” in the area.

“Now they can finally get back to living their lives like normal on their land,” he said.

 

[bulllee]

As more licenses to grow cannabis are added, illegal growing has also risen in California​

[IMG alt="Legal and illegal cannabis in California
"]https://www.ocregister.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Illegal-legal-weed-top.jpg?w=620[/IMG]
Legal and illegal cannabis in California
By KURT SNIBBE | ksnibbe@scng.com | Orange County Register
PUBLISHED: August 11, 2021 at 10:09 a.m. | UPDATED: August 11, 2021 at 1:36 p.m.
Recreational cannabis sales began in January 2018, and while many have played by the rules, the illegal growth and sale of the plant continues to undermine those following the rules.
Licensed to grow, manufacture and sell
State license issuance began in 2018, but data isn’t available for that initial year because they were issued as temporary licenses. Data sets begin in 2019, when 12-month annual and provisional licenses began to be issued, using the online licensing systems. Licenses remain active for one year, at which point they can be renewed for an additional 12 months. This list displays counts of when the licenses were first issued, but not each time one was renewed.

Cannabis status by state
Marijuana is legal for adults to use in 18 states and Washington, D.C. Medical marijuana is legal in 37.Most recently, New Mexico, Virginia and Connecticut legalized recreational cannabis.

Illegal plants seized in California by year
Since its establishment in 1983, the Campaign Against Marijuana Planting has had more than 110 law enforcement agencies involved, making it one of the largest law enforcement task forces in the U.S.


You can report an illegal business anonymously online at cannabis.ca.gov
Street value?Pot can vary a lot in quality and value, but with a conservative estimate that a plant can yield one pound of average weed at $1,600 a pound, the 1.11 million plants seized in 2020 could have a street value of about $1.77 billion.
That would make it the eighth most valued commodity in California agriculture.
California top commodities of 2019:

1. Dairy products: $7.34 billion
2. Almonds: $6.09 billion
3. Grapes: $5.41 billion
4. Cattle: $3.06 billion
5. Strawberries: $2.22 billion
6. Pistachios: $1.94 billion
7. Lettuce: $1.82 billion
8. Illegal marijuana plants seized: $1.77 billion (based on estimates)

Sources: Campaign Against Marijuana Planting, California Department of Justice, Department of Cannabis Control California, The Associated Press, Business Insider, California Department of Agriculture, potguide.com

 

[bulllee]

Millions of pounds’ of legal marijuana diverted to underground market, California lawsuit alleges​

Published 4 hours ago | By John Schroyer

(This story has been updated with comment from the Department of Cannabis Control.)
Major flaws in California’s marijuana regulatory system have allowed criminals to gain control of legal distribution permits and divert “untold millions of pounds” of cannabis to the illicit market – all while state officials “turn a blind eye,” a new lawsuit charges.
The suit – filed last week in state court by a California retail chain against the state’s top marijuana regulator – alleges that criminals have been legally buying an unknown number of cannabis distribution licenses by using “front men” to disguise their true identities and intentions.
Using the permits, the rogue distributors are buying huge amounts of legally grown marijuana at wholesale prices and selling it out of state or inside California through unlicensed channels, according to the lawsuit, which shines a light on a practice that industry executives complain has been going on for more than a year.

“This leads to two inevitable and ultimately devastating consequences,” claims the suit, filed Sept. 15 in Orange County Superior Court:

• Cheaper illicit-market cannabis that undercuts the legal industry.
• A huge hit to state tax revenue, which the suit estimates to be in the “hundreds of millions of dollars.”

The practical result: The legal market has been propping up the illicit market instead of replacing it, said Elliot Lewis, CEO of Catalyst Cannabis Co., a Southern California retail chain that currently operates six stores. Catalyst’s parent company, HNHPC, is the plaintiff in the suit.
“More legal product is going out of the state than is being sold legally in the state,” Lewis added. “The only question is, is it two times, three times, four times?”
The suit also alleges that state authorities – in particular, the Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) – are aware of the problem but have refused to fix it by addressing a loophole in the state’s seed-to-sale tracking system.
The DCC is the primary defendant in the suit, which asks a judge to force the agency to remedy the situation.
“The DCC by its inaction has significantly bolstered the illegal black market in California and encouraged the illegal export of cannabis across state lines,” the suit alleges, adding the DCC has “inexplicably opted to ‘look the other way’ rather than protect the public and legal cannabis operators such as HNHPC from the illegal black-market sale of cannabis.”
Christina Dempsey, the DCC’s acting deputy director for external affairs, said as a policy the agency doesn’t comment on pending litigation.
But Dempsey did write in an email to MJBizDaily that the “DCC is directing significant resources and focus towards licensing, compliance and enforcement.”
She also called on those who are aware of illegal activity to notify the agency.
“Reducing and eliminating the unlicensed market requires effort from everyone – state officials, local officials, licensees and the public at large. Those who are aware of illegal or improper activity can and should share that information so action may be taken.
“Complaints can be filed through the DCC website: cannabis.ca.gov/resources/file-complaint. Complaints can be filed anonymously.”
Industry executives, for their part, said the suit is important because it exposes a problem that state regulators and/or lawmakers must address.
“I’m really happy this lawsuit is coming to light, because it’ll force the state to act,” said Vince Ning, CEO of Oakland-based marijuana distributor Nabis.
‘Burner’ distribution licenses
Industry insiders refer to the permits at the heart of the lawsuit as “burner distribution licenses,” a likening to so-called “burner” cell phones intended for short-term use before being discarded.
The suit claims criminals can walk away from the licenses if their activities face scrutiny from law enforcement, allowing the practice to become an “incredibly high yield, low risk endeavor.”
The suit also alleges that California regulators must be ignoring the problem because the state is reliant on marijuana cultivation taxes that rogue distributors have remitted to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA), even while these same operators evade other MJ taxes such as the state’s 15% excise tax and local levies that are typically assessed on fully legal cannabis transactions.
“The State (via the CDTFA) is collecting substantial ‘cultivation taxes’ from Burner Distros, and it wants that tax revenue to continue flowing despite knowing it is receiving cultivation taxes on far more cannabis than ultimately is being sold in licensed dispensaries (i.e., it knows significant amounts of cannabis is being diverted to the black market or illegally transported out of state),” the suit alleges.
According to the CDTFA, as of the second quarter of 2021, the state has collected $2.8 billion in cannabis tax revenue, including:

• $1.4 billion in excise taxes.
• $347.4 million in cultivation taxes.
• $1 billion in sales taxes.

A CDTFA spokesperson declined to comment for this story, citing the pending nature of the lawsuit.
In addition, the suit claims that the software company that operates California’s seed-to-sale tracking platform, Florida-based Metrc, has notified state authorities of a loophole in the system and that a solution is available.
“(The) DCC and the CDTFA both are well aware this is going on; they just refuse to do anything about it,” the suit asserts.
A Metrc spokesperson declined to comment.
Part of the problem, the suit claims, is that most industry investigations stem from complaints received by the DCC, which makes oversight reactionary instead of being conducted in real time for regular business transactions.
Also, California’s Metrc platform is unable to “flag suspicious activity,” which the suit claims could help identify the rogue distributors and fix the problem.
“(The) DCC has been notified by METRC’s developers … of the issues with Burner Distros and their evasion of substantial cannabis taxes, has been told the current track and trace system can be modified or upgraded to flag illegal or irregular conduct,” the suit claims.
“In response (the) DCC has refused to authorize such modifications to the METRC system.”
The complaint-driven nature of the DCC’s enforcement means that “if no one complains, Burner Distros potentially can operate indefinitely without fear of detection or enforcement,” according to the suit.
The suit further suggests that California’s Metrc system could be fixed for a “nominal” cost, which Lewis suggested could be “a few million bucks,” which he asserted is a paltry sum compared to the $2.8 billion in marijuana taxes the state has already collected.
The lawsuit seeks to force the DCC to “create and maintain a track and trace system” capable of flagging suspicious business activity, so the legal market can fully replace the illegal one.
Industry reaction
Several California cannabis insiders said the lawsuit accurately reflects a serious flaw in the regulatory system that is cutting the financial legs out from under the legal market.
“It’s a pervasive problem, and it’s been allowed to proliferate by the failure to police not only the regulated market but the unregulated market,” said Pamela Epstein, general counsel for Oakland-based Eden Enterprises, a vertically integrated marijuana company.
“This highlights a significant issue, and if we want to be a player in the larger federal scheme, now is the time we need to clean house in California.”
She added that the lawsuit will likely prove a “game changer.”
Even if it fails in court, Epstein said, the suit focuses attention on a major problem that regulators – or even the Legislature – might now be forced to address.
Los Angeles-based marijuana consultant Avis Bulbulyan said the suit’s description of the burner distribution license problem is “dead-on.”
He said the issue has been ongoing for at least a year, perhaps two, in part because distribution licenses are easy to obtain and are relatively cheap on the secondary market.
“It’s circumventing taxes and circumventing oversight,” Bulbulyan said. “For the illegal operator, (distribution licenses are) readily available.
“Almost no jurisdiction puts a cap on the number of distribution licenses.”
Ning, the CEO of Nabis, said “it’s about time” someone put burner distribution licenses front and center.
“It’d be really great if there was more class action support for this,” Ning said, adding that burner distros are a “major issue” that reaches beyond California’s borders.
“Everyone knows about it,” Ning said. “It’s just that it’s hard for individual operators to dig up the evidence to support this claim.
“But it’s generally agreed upon.”

 

[bulllee]

NEWS BRIEF

California adopts updated rules for cannabis industry​

Published 2 hours ago



The California Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) said Wednesday it formally adopted an updated set of regulations for the state’s marijuana market, effective immediately.
According to a news release, the consolidated rules “create consistent standards for cannabis licensees across all license types, by aligning application requirements, unifying terminology, and clarifying ownership and financial interest requirements.”

The updated regulations also include guidelines on how licensed businesses can legally share trade samples of cannabis goods inside the supply chain, a major change that many companies have been awaiting.
The new full text of the regulations are available here.
The update stems from the consolidation of three state agencies – which oversaw different sectors of California’s marijuana industry – into a single bureaucracy, the DCC. The DCC was established in July.
“We are working towards simplifying regulatory requirements and making it easier to operate within the legal market,” Nicole Elliott, director of the DCC, said in the release.
“The approval of these regulations puts us one step closer towards meeting this objective.”

 

[momofthegoons]

​

California Governor Signs Bill To Allow Medical Marijuana Use In Hospitals For Severely Ill Patients​

The governor of California on Tuesday signed a bill to require hospitals to permit medical marijuana use by certain patients.

Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) approved the legislation, signaling that his prior concerns about an earlier version that he reluctantly vetoed in 2019 have since been resolved.

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Ben Hueso (D), has been pushing for his measure to allow cannabis use in medical facilities for terminally ill patients over multiple sessions. He recently sent a letter to the head of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) seeking clarification on whether the policy change could jeopardize federal funding for those facilities.

“It is inconceivable to me that, in a state where medical cannabis was legalized more than 25 years ago, those in deepest suffering receiving treatment in our state’s healthcare facilities cannot access this proven, effective and prescribed treatment,” Hueso said in a press release.

“Instead, terminally-ill patients in California healthcare facilities are given heavy opiates that rob them of their precious last moments with family and friends,” he said. “This is a simple, yet critical, move that will provide relief, compassion and dignity to terminally-ill Californians.”



Confusion about possible implications for permitting marijuana consumption in health facilities led to Newsom’s 2019 veto decision. Representatives from both HHS and the governor’s office have recently reached out to Hueso to say that they were continuing to look into the matter.

Hueso received a letter from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) several months ago stating that there are no federal regulations in place that specifically address this issue and that the agency isn’t aware of any cases where funding has been pulled because a hospital allows patients to use medical cannabis.

“With this confirmation from CMS and the safeguards in the law, we are confident that healthcare facilities have the necessary authority to implement these provisions while ensuring the safety of other patients, guests, and employees of the healthcare facility, compliance with other state laws, and the safe operations of the healthcare facility,” the senator said.

There are some restrictions embedded in the new law. For example, patients receiving treatment for emergency care wouldn’t be covered, and smoking and vaping marijuana would be prohibited. It also stipulates that hospitals aren’t required to provide or dispense cannabis.

Newsom didn’t release a statement about the hospitals bill, which his office announced he signed along with more than two dozen other pieces of unrelated legislation.

The legislation was partly inspired by the experience of a father whose son died from cancer and was initially denied access to cannabis at a California hospital. Jim Bartell did eventually find a facility that agreed to allow the treatment, and he has said his son’s quality of life improved dramatically in those last days.

“In the invaluable last days as Ryan fought stage 4 pancreatic cancer, I first-handedly experienced the positive impact medical cannabis had on my son’s well-being, as opposed to the harsh effects of opiates,” Bartell said. “Medical cannabis is an excellent option for relieving pain and suffering in those who are terminally-ill, but most importantly it serves to provide compassion, support, and dignity to patients and their families, during their loved-ones’ final days.”

“Looking at each other, holding Ryan’s hand and telling him how much I loved him during his final moments would not have been possible without the medical cannabis,” he said.

Also pending on Newsom’s desk is a bill to set up a regulatory framework for hemp-derived CBD sales that also removes the ban on smokable hemp products.

Separately, a California bill that passed the Senate and several Assembly committees to legalize possession of a wide range of psychedelics such as psilocybin and ayahuasca has stalled following a decision by the sponsor that more time is needed to build the case for the reform and solidify its chances of being enacted.

Meanwhile, California activists have also recently been cleared to begin collecting signatures for a 2022 ballot initiative to legalize psilocybin mushrooms in the state.