Law California

[Baron23]

California firms up marijuana rules, will allow deliveries

By Jonathan J. Cooper | AP June 14 at 9:19 PM
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California would set standards for organic marijuana, allow pot samples at county fairs and permit home deliveries under legislation set to be considered by lawmakers Thursday as the state prepares for next year’s start of legal marijuana sales.

Lawmakers and Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration are working to merge California’s new voter-approved recreational pot law with the state’s longstanding medical marijuana program. They have settled on an array of regulations to protect consumers and public safety while ensuring taxes are collected.

The provisions were tucked into the state budget agreement between Brown and top legislative Democrats announced this week following months of negotiations with businesses operating illegally or in the legal medical marijuana field and investors who want to enter the nation’s largest legal marijuana market.

“One of the biggest challenges we have is taking a multi-billion-dollar industry out of the dark and now into the light,” said Sen. Mike McGuire, a Democrat whose district includes much of Northern California’s prime marijuana growing region.

By 2018, state officials must have crafted regulations and rules governing the emerging legal marijuana market with an estimated annual sales value of $7 billion — ranging from where and how plants can be grown to setting guidelines to track the buds from fields to stores. Full legal sales are expected to roll out later in the year.

In general, the state will treat cannabis like alcohol, allowing people 21 and older to legally possess up to an ounce of marijuana and grow six marijuana plants at home.

The budget agreement includes $118 million to pay for startup costs for the newly regulated industry, including technology and staff to work on regulations and issue licenses. The state will open a tax office in the remote region north of San Francisco so marijuana businesses can pay their taxes in cash without having to drive long distances with thousands of dollars.

Because marijuana remains illegal under federal law, pot businesses generally cannot open bank accounts, conduct credit card transactions or otherwise use the federally regulated banking system.

The legislation outlines baseline rules for marijuana businesses and was crafted to promote a new artisanal industry in a state that has embraced craft beer and small wineries.

It would require state regulators to come up with rules for marijuana producers to call their goods organic — an important designation for California consumers that cannot be used on pot under federal rules. The state would also create standards for official marijuana varietals and growing regions, known as appellations, so craft producers can distinguish their products based on the unique strain and growing conditions like winemakers do.

With temporary licenses from the state, businesses would be allowed to sell pot and provide samples at county fairs, regional agricultural associations and cannabis festivals.

Growers would be allowed to form agricultural cooperatives without running afoul of antitrust laws. Businesses would be able to legally grow, distribute and sell their own product, though firms performing safety tests will have to be independent, with no financial ties to growers or retailers.

Keeping an open container of marijuana in a vehicle would be illegal like it is for alcohol in California, except for people with a medical card or doctor’s note.

Brown and lawmakers agreed to allow sellers with no public storefronts to deliver marijuana directly to customers.

“There are thousands of businesses currently engaged in this type of commerce,” Hezekiah Allen, executive director of the California Growers Association. “The more of them that can get licensed, the better off the state is going to be, the faster we’ll be able to get rid of the criminal element and the faster we’ll be able to make sure the product is safe and tested.”

Seems to be a very reasonable approach, no?

 

[Baron23]

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

SAN DIEGO — Friday was the last day in office for San Diego’s tough-on-crime district attorney, Bonnie Dumanis, known during her 14-year tenure for toughening sex offender laws and targeting cannabis businesses.


In the manner of top law enforcement and elected officials, Dumanis was feted with a “walk out”—she strode out the Hall of Justice, along a path of uniformed officers, and into a vintage police car to cruise into her next life chapter. The ritual exit was accompanied by supporters’ hoots and whistles.


But their salutes were no match for the celebratory tunes played by a nearby jazz band and the noise of around 50 protestors flanking it. Rather than honoring Dumanis’ career, the protestors were expressing a different sentiment: good riddance!

“We’re all glad to see her go.”
Gretchen Burns Bergman, medical cannabis advocate
The protest, called the Bonnie Bash, was organized by the San Diego chapter of Americans for Safe Access, a medical cannabis advocacy organization. The invitation sent to media and the public proclaimed that “Bonnie has been cruel to patients and her leaving is a happy occasion we want to celebrate with you! … Let’s show Bonnie’s fierce fight the door!”

Attendees, many wearing green beads around their necks, held signs bearing the word “DUMEXIT” and slogans such as “Goodbye Bonnie, Hello Justice” and “Bonnie the Buzz-Kill Bully.”


“Dumanis has been ruthless over the years in attacking and harassing the legal cannabis community,” said Gretchen Burns Bergman, a medical cannabis advocate who attended the protest. “We’re all glad to see her go.”

Dumanis, 65, is well known for her hard-line approach to prosecuting cannabis entrepreneurs (arguably with little success). The Massachusetts-born Republican first won election to become the San Diego County’s top prosecutor in 2003. She got her start in public life as a court clerk who studied law at night. She eventually obtained a seat as a municipal judge, then a superior court judge who oversaw drug court cases.
In the largely Republican county, Dumanis won re-election as DA three times—twice without challengers. But in January she announced that she wouldn’t seek re-election. Her resignation comes a year before the end of her current term, which will be carried out by Summer Stephan as interim DA. Dumanis hasn’t said whether she intends to remain in public life.

Police and protestors outside San Diego’s Hall of Justice. (Chase Scheinbaum for Leafly)
In the days presiding over drug cases, Dumanis was already rigorous in punishing drug offenders, said Bergman, who was a state chairperson for California’s Proposition 36. That successful ballot initiative, which passed in 2000, required non-violent drug offenders to enter drug rehabilitation rather than spend time behind bars.

“She claims she believes in addiction treatment, but when you look at her actions you see it’s not true,” Bergman said. “She was opposed to treatment instead of incarceration.”

In her tenure as district attorney, Dumanis adopted a harsh view of state-legal cannabis that won her praise—and derision—as among the toughest prosecutors in the country. Most recently, she headed up a raid of a San Diego dispensary that made national headlines for its use of asset forfeiture that critics have called excessive. In that case, involving a cannabis distributor called Med-West, law enforcement seized more than $300,000 in cash and property from the business, along with an additional $100,000 from personal bank accounts belonging to business owner James Slatic, his wife, and step-daughters.

Despite the seeming urgency of the military-style raid, Dumanis’ office didn’t press charges for over a year. A criminal complaint was filed only after a judge ordered prosecutors to return the money from the personal bank accounts, raising complaints from critics that the charges appeared retaliatory. In the ongoing criminal case, Slatic has professed innocence and his intention to fight the charges.

Surprising many observers, Dumanis also pressed criminal charges against Slatic’s lawyer, San Diego cannabis attorney Jessica McElfresh. McElfresh also denies wrongdoing and has vowed to fight the charges, which accuse her of conspiring to conceal illegal cannabis extraction from investigators.

Before attending Friday’s Bonnie Bash, many protesters went to a hearing in McElfresh’s case to show support. (The hearing itself was mostly uneventful, with the bulk of proceedings rescheduled to a later date.)

Rich Hertz, Bonnie Bash attendee, shared his own story of being raided. The San Diego resident said he was growing marijuana plants within the boundaries of the law but was arrested by authorities anyway.

“She attacks people like me even though I was breaking no laws,” Hertz said. Despite Dumanis lobbing several felony charges against Hertz, he said, he pleaded guilty only to a misdemeanor.

Diane Goldstein, another Bonnie Bash attendee, is a former lieutenant of the Redondo Beach Police Department. Nowadays she sits on the board of directors for Law Enforcement Action Partnership, an organization that advocates for cannabis legalization and other harm-reduction policies. She says Dumanis’ focus on cannabis did little besides fuel a losing war against an issue on which American voters have largely agreed.

“She’s continued to pursue criminal cases that have wasted fiscal resources,” Goldstein said, pointing to legal actions like those against Hertz and Slatic. “What a waste of time, money, and taxpayer resources.”

My personal editorial comment, below:

 

[Baron23]

Another SoCal city wants to require permits for residents to grow cannabis at home


By Monica Rodriguez, The Cannifornian

City leaders are taking steps leading to the regulation of recreational marijuana in Pomona, but before moving ahead they want to hear from residents.

City Council members gave preliminary approval Monday to a proposed ordinance with a strategy to regulate and include the issuance of permits for the indoor cultivation of marijuana for personal use. The proposed ordinance also sets prohibitions on smoking marijuana in designated areas.

The proposed ordinance was approved unanimously. Another proposed ordinance will be presented to council members within weeks.

Assistant City Attorney Andrew Jared said the proposed ordinance calls for banning commercial marijuana activity across the city.

Pomona, since 2008, has had a ban on all medical marijuana dispensaries.

The proposed ordinance banning commercial marijuana activity must first go to the city’s Planning Commission. The proposal is expected to go to the commission for review in August and then go to the City Council for a vote in September, Jared said.

Mayor Tim Sandoval said the legalization of marijuana, its cultivation and processing is an issue that “certainly will have an impact on this community.”

Residents approached Sandoval recently to speak with him about the matter following a recent outdoor concert during which some of those in attendance were consuming marijuana, he said.

“There was a noticeable smell that drove a lot of people away,” Sandoval said.

In addition, other residents made him aware of steps taken in Los Angeles to gather public comment as that city prepares to set its own recreational marijuana regulations, he said.

Pomona residents, Sandoval said, should have an opportunity to express their views on the matter.

“I suspect there are many people who have no idea of what we’re doing here today,” he said.

Sandoval suggested scheduling a series of meetings to gather public comments.

Councilwoman Ginna Escobar said the city could organize community meetings but shouldn’t attempt to have one in each district since the amount of time the city has to establish local regulations is limited.

On Nov. 8, 2016, California voters approved Proposition 64, the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act, and the next day it became legal for people 21 and older to use marijuana and to cultivate a maximum of six marijuana plants per residence for personal use.

The sale of marijuana for recreational purposes becomes legal Jan. 1. As of that day, the state will oversee the cultivation, testing and distribution of nonmedical marijuana and the manufacturing of nonmedical marijuana products.

Cities will have a say in the regulation of cannabis within their borders but only if they have controls in place before Jan. 1.

Sandoval will meet with City Manager Linda Lowry and members of the City Attorney’s Office to work out a community meeting schedule so the comments are collected before City Council members have the final vote on the proposed ordinance they reviewed this week.

Under the proposal, those 21 or older can cultivate a maximum of six plants for personal use but must do so indoors and have a permit.

The city cannot ban the cultivation of cannabis for personal use but it can regulate such activity and provide a means to address “security of plants, odor impact on neighboring properties and access to children,” according to the staff report.

Pomona resident Andrew Quinonez told council members requiring someone to grow the cannabis indoors could present a hardship.

A senior citizen living on fixed income wishing to cultivate marijuana for medicinal purposes may not have the money to acquire the equipment to grow the plants indoors, he said.

The City Council “should recognize the economics” behind such a proposal, Quinonez said.

The proposal prohibits smoking marijuana in public places — including the courtyards of residences or apartment complexes — and places that are visible from outside the property, according to a city staff report.

Using marijuana would be prohibited anywhere that smoking tobacco would be banned, Jared said.

State law prohibits smoking marijuana in private if it can be detected by people at school grounds, day care centers, youth centers or when children are present, the staff report read.

The personal cultivator permit would require submitting an application and payment of a fee to offset costs associated with compliance.

Jared said the fee would be set at a level to recover the costs of processing the application.

City staff will present a proposed fee at a later date, he said.

Councilwoman Cristina Carrizosa said the proposed ordinance was a good one, but she has concerns about its enforcement as well as including the requirement that renters wishing to grow marijuana have property owners’ authorization.

Jared said before a renter could be issued a permit to cultivate the plant the renter would have to obtain a notarized affidavit in which the property owner authorizes growing the cannabis.

“The idea is to have a regulator’s scheme in place,” Jared said.

Never wanted to live in Pomona anyway.....does anybody?

 

[Baron23]

L.A. voters want to legalize marijuana, so why won't city leaders do it?

The Times Editorial Board

Los Angeles voters want to legalize marijuana, and they don’t seem particularly concerned that it remains illegal under federal law. In November nearly two out of three voters in the city of L.A. supported Proposition 64, a statewide initiative to let adults grow, buy and use recreational marijuana. A few months later, voters overwhelmingly backed Measure M to create a city permitting system for marijuana businesses.

City Hall has a clear mandate to legalize, regulate and tax pot.

But it’s not doing that.

Instead the regulations proposed last month would keep marijuana businesses illegal in L.A. — but then offer them “limited immunity” from criminal prosecution if they comply with city and state regulations.

No other city or state chooses to regulate marijuana businesses in this way.
Sound familiar? This hazy limited immunity rule has been in place for the last four years, ever since voters approved Proposition D in 2013 to try to cap the number of medical marijuana shops operating in L.A. The city’s attorneys recommended limited immunity because they were concerned that the city or its employees could be prosecuted for granting a permit to a marijuana business, given that the drug remains illegal under federal law.

Proposition D has been a spectacular failure. While some 135 medical pot shops have limited immunity and are “allowed” to sell their wares, there may be more than 1,000 pot shops and illegal delivery businesses in the city. The black market thrives.

Proposition 64 and Measure M are supposed to reduce the black market. In fact, that’s the main reason Proposition 64 garnered such wide support — with pot already widely available in California, it would be better for public health, for law and order and for society if marijuana were a legal, regulated and controlled product for adults.

But L.A.’s proposal would work against that goal by creating a quasi-legal system that does not encourage businesses to leave the black market. Marijuana growers, distributors or sellers would not be granted a permit, license or any sort of definitive permission to conduct business in L.A. Instead, they would get a “certificate of compliance” that may or may not be sufficient to qualify for a state license. Industry experts say no other city or state chooses to regulate marijuana businesses in this way.

The proposal would, in effect, create a new class of businesses with lesser protections than other businesses. If, for example, the corner bar is accused of violating its license by staying open too late or serving alcohol to minors, the city or licensing agency typically files an administrative complaint and must provide evidence of the violation. Limited immunity flips due process and the burden of proof on their heads. If a marijuana business is accused of breaking the rules, the city attorney can file a criminal complaint, and it’s up the pot shop to prove it was in compliance with every single regulation at all times.

You might ask, “What’s the big deal?” Marijuana is still illegal under federal law, so why shouldn’t cannabis businesses be held to a higher standard than other businesses?

Because the residents of Los Angeles, in their wisdom, have decided they want legal marijuana and have voted for it — repeatedly. And there’s just not that much to be gained with the “limited immunity” charade. Yes, there’s a fundamental conflict between California and federal law, and eventually that will have to be worked out in the courts or Congress. Ideally, federal officials would start by removing marijuana from the list of Schedule 1 drugs, like heroin, that are highly addictive and have no medical value. But the federal government has proven incapable of having a rationale conversation on drug policy.

In the meantime, though, Los Angeles might as well take a page from all the other California jurisdictions and other marijuana-legal states and offer intelligible, fair guidance to marijuana businesses and users — guidance that makes it clear what they can and can’t do, and where they can and cannot set up shop. To write the law in a too-clever-by-half way in the hope of fooling the courts into thinking that maybe we weren’t really legalizing marijuana when we effectively were is not going to help us move toward clarity or lucidity.

Of course, we have a new president, along with a new attorney general who has said marijuana is dangerous and shouldn’t be legalized. L.A. leaders’ caution is understandable, but it’s counterproductive and may be unnecessary. To address its liability concerns, the city should first try requiring marijuana businesses to hold it harmless in the event of a federal crackdown. The best way to stay out of the federal government’s cross hairs is for the city to license legitimate operators, regulate the industry and get tough on the scofflaws.

"In November nearly two out of three voters in the city of L.A. supported Proposition 64, a statewide initiative to let adults grow, buy and use recreational marijuana. A few months later, voters overwhelmingly backed Measure M to create a city permitting system for marijuana businesses.
City Hall has a clear mandate to legalize, regulate and tax pot.
But it’s not doing that."​

So, once again our elitist political class is ignoring the direct democratically expressed views of its electorate in favor of their own ideas. When did all of our so called leader become fascists who are certain that all will be well if we just do what THEY tell us to.

LA....kick this assholes out of office and take back your city government.

 

[Baron23]

California sheriff raids more than 20 marijuana gardens on tribal land


By Ashley Tressel, The Cannifornian

The County of Mendocino Marijuana Eradication Team led a raid on about 25 marijuana gardens on Sherwood Valley tribal land in Willits on Tuesday, assisted by the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs.

The team, including Mendocino County Sheriff’s Office personnel, arrested six people and seized 2,421 plants, along with eight firearms, off of Eastside Road. They also found 611 pounds of processed hanging marijuana and 95 pounds of processed marijuana.

Sgt. Bruce Smith with COMMET said they believe the gardens were part of an organized operation, the growers renting separate parcels on one property and being paid to trim plants.

“This is all organized. It’s not just individuals making money,” he said.

The team on Tuesday pointed out a few gardens close to the road, one with 73 plants behind a tarp fence. A large canister on that garden held remnants of a chemical fertilizer. Other gardens were scattered farther up the hill.

“It’s just out of control, is what it is,” Smith said. “It’s everywhere.”

Related stories

• Growing tomatoes in Kansas led to SWAT-style weed raid. Judge says gardeners can sue
• San Diego DA ordered to return $100K to marijuana distributor 15 months after raid
• Raids for illegal weed grows down sharply in one Colorado county
• In aftermath of weed party raid, Philly mayor says Pennsylvania should legalize marijuana
• Cops raid “Philly Smoke Session” party, 22 arrested

He noticed many marijuana plants had been moved since they flew over the property four or five
weeks ago, although there was still plenty left, in various stages of growth.

The team arrived at the property at 7:02 a.m. and finished counting and shredding plants around 4 p.m. Many of the gardens were in plain sight, and the smell was pervasive, one reason for the complaints from tribe members living nearby.

Another issue with the gardens was environmental violations, which raise a cultivation misdemeanor arrest to a felony. One man on Tuesday was arrested on suspicion of being a felon with a firearm, also a felony.

Many gardens had been illegally diverting water, and others were cutting into the ground, causing loose sediment that will likely end up in the nearby creek, said Smith.

Smith said COMMET had been working on the Eastside Road raid for about two months, after the
Sherwood Valley tribal chairman brought the issue to the MCSO. The tribal council voted to allow law enforcement to eradicate the plants, according to Sheriff Tom Allman. Residents near the gardens had been complaining since long before then, Smith said.

Allman brought up the issue of grows on tribal land to the Board of Supervisors earlier this month, saying they are out of control.

“The free reign of marijuana has to be reeled in,” he said then.

Smith said COMMET is on the Round Valley Reservation in Covelo every year, and he has heard that growers there have been trading meth to maintain gardens on the property, instead of money. Last year, they raided Pomo land in Hopland, and the Pinoleville Pomo in Ukiah the year before that.

 

[Baron23]

Los Angeles Ponders the Prohibition of Concentrate Production

As Los Angeles unfurls its long list of rules and regulations, as part of its effort to establish order in the state’s legal weed industry, input has been effusive and pencil pushing endless.

Home to four million people, L.A, is set to be a blockbuster market, but city voters want their say in how the operation is going to be set up.

One thing folks don’t want is for anyone to set anything on fire. After all, California is only just now recovering from a long period of drought, and they hate the smell of smoke.

That being the case, City Hall’s proposal to outlaw “volatile cannabis manufacturing” may seem logical to some, but it’s not going down too well among dabbers, not to mention practical matters like millions in lost revenue.

A ban on volatile cannabis manufacturing, the most common method used for creating weed concentrates, such as dabs, wax and THC oils, could curtail revenues in L.A. and force lucrative weed businesses to set up shop outside the city’s boundaries.

Rhory Gould of the Arborside dispensary in Ann Arbor said, “Concentrated cannabis can generate up to 40 percent of our sales in the form of wax, oil, hashish, kief, e-pens and edibles made with concentrates,” HIGH TIMES previously reported.

Some observers put that number even higher. According to LA Weekly, concentrates compose as much as 60 percent of the MMJ market in Southern California.

Concentrates are also the active ingredient in another fast-growing market: edibles. And, in California, the edibles market is booming.

“They’re a growing part of the market. But if Los Angeles ends up being one of the only cities to go in this direction, this will put it at a competitive disadvantage,” said Chris Walsh, of Marijuana Business Daily.

That’s for sure. Arcview Market Research estimated that California customers munched on about $180 million worth of edibles last year alone, and they’re still hungry for more.

But, reports of amateurs blowing up homes and hotel rooms while using flammable butane to make extracts have L.A. officials spooked.

“One or two headlines can scare a lawmaker into being overly restrictive,” said Walsh.

Experts agree that professional laboratories producing concentrates for California dispensaries are much safer than the amateur operations that end up in the news.

“It’s perfectly safe when there’s a trained operator using high-quality materials,” said David Sparer, CEO of Bay Area–based Refined Hydrocarbon Solutions, per the LA Weekly.

“We’re talking to the City Council about what is safe use. If the City Council doesn’t allow this to happen in a highly regulated environment, the good players will go to outlying cities, and the tax revenue will go with them,” continued Sparer. “And it will still be sold in L.A. Those bad players left will continue to blow things up.”

As yet, the rules aren’t set in stone, so there’s still time for reasonable lobbying.

“The good news is that they’re not banning concentrates outright,” Walsh said.

So.....in the city of angels are there not gasoline stations, propane filling stations for everything from BBQ to commercial burners, companies selling chemicals that are both inflammatory and toxic, etc, etc, etc. The reasoning here does not stand up to logical scrutiny, IMO.

 

[momofthegoons]

The reasoning here does not stand up to logical scrutiny, IMO.

It isn't often that it does when it pertains to cannabis legalization.

 

[Baron23]

It isn't often that it does when it pertains to cannabis legalization.

Yes, but I would modify this to be often the case where cannabis legalization and egg sucking politicians intersect.

 

[Baron23]

Out of time: California moves to “emergency” rules to keep recreational weed sales on track

Published: Jul 28, 2017, 10:37 am • Updated: about 3 hours ago Add a Comment

By Brooke Edwards Staggs, The Cannifornian

Three state agencies spent more than a year drafting 211 pages of regulations for California’s medical marijuana market. And they’ve collected thousands of public comments on those proposed rules since they were released in the spring.

But state officials announced late Wednesday that they must go back to the drawing board, crafting new rules under an “emergency rulemaking process” that bypasses the normal public hearing phase. Otherwise, they’d miss a mandated Jan. 2 deadline to begin issuing licenses for cannabis businesses and allow recreational marijuana sales to start in the biggest market in the world.

The agencies have to scrap their proposed rules thanks to a trailer bill that was tacked onto California’s annual budget.

Senate Bill 94, also known as the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act, was passed in June. It attempts to reconcile differences between the state’s medical and recreational cannabis laws. But it also conflicts with a number of regulations proposed for the medical market by the three state agencies charged with overseeing the industry, including how cannabis is distributed and what types of licenses will be available.

Related stories

• Another SoCal city wants to require permits for cannabis home-grows
• Does branded marijuana merch attract teens? This California bill sponsor thinks so
• Marijuana farmers market shut down in Humboldt County, California
• Cannabist Show: She helps decode cannabis regulations in California, Colorado, Nevada and beyond
• A flower’s long journey: How legal weed goes from seed to sale

Now the Department of Consumer Affair’s Bureau of Cannabis Control, the Department of Public Health and Department of Food and Agriculture anticipate officially withdrawing their first set of proposed regulations in early August.

New emergency regulations for medical marijuana are expected to be published this fall, though there’s no hard date yet.

The agencies will then need to incorporate those changes into proposed regulations in the works for the recreational marijuana market, which are also due out this fall.

Alex Traverso, spokesman for the state cannabis bureau, said officials will still respond in writing to the public comments they’ve already received. And he said those comments will be “extremely useful” as they finalize rules for the recreational market.

Hezekiah Allen, executive director of the California Growers Association, spoke during the public comment hearing on the state’s draft medical cultivation regulations at the Ukiah Valley Conference Center. (Chris Pugh-Ukiah Daily Journal.)
The department still plans to start issuing licenses on Jan. 2. That doesn’t leave them with enough time to release the revised regulations and hold public hearings to get feedback as they did on the first set of proposed rules.

Instead, Traverso said, “We will likely do public comment after the fact to get input as we know the fine-tuning will continue to be a process.”

Hezekiah Allen, a Humboldt cultivator who serves as executive director of the California Growers Association, said he’s generally happy with the changes made in the budget trailer bill. And he’s not too concerned about the state skipping the public hearing process at this point.

“We’ve been working with them pretty closely for more than a year now. We trust them,” he said. “We have a high degree of confidence that they’re going to do a reasonable job.”

Allen said he also appreciates the time sensitivity and doesn’t want to see any delays to California rolling out its licensing program.

“We wanted to get this done quickly,” he said. “Growers are still criminals until we get licenses, technically speaking. So we appreciate an accelerated timeline.”

 

[Baron23]

California cities push limits of “reasonable” restrictions on home grows


By Brooke Edwards Staggs, The Cannifornian

Yes, every Californian 21 or older now has a right to grow up to six marijuana plants per household for personal use. But did you know that local officials get to weigh in on where and how residents grow those plants?

Proposition 64 says cities or counties can “reasonably regulate” homegrown pot.

Many have already banned outdoor cannabis gardens, as Prop. 64 clearly states they can. But an increasing number of cities are instituting rules for in-home cultivation that test the limits of what’s considered “reasonable,” with a legal battle over how far cities can go now playing out in one Southern California city.

I did a deep dive earlier this year on cities pushing back against Prop. 64, looking at policies from Indian Wells to Elk Grove that put temporary bans on all home marijuana gardens or required permits that cost as much as $411.

I chatted about the topic with hosts of KABC 790 radio in Los Angeles. Listen to the full interview below, starting at the 8:15 mark.

Given the vague language in Prop. 64 about where the line between “reasonable” and “onerous” regulations is drawn, experts predicted back in February that the issue would have to be settled in courts in the months and years to come.

Sure enough, the ACLU of California and the Drug Policy Alliance filed a lawsuit in June against the Inland Empire city of Fontana, claiming that the city’s marijuana ordinance conflicts with rights granted to all Californians under Proposition 64.

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

Whittier took note of that lawsuit. While the Los Angeles County city will likely ban outdoor home cannabis gardens, the city attorney just recommended against instituting a permit program. She cited the lawsuit against Fontana, also noting that police would still need probable cause to enter a home to

determine if a resident was growing more than six plants.

But since cities can essentially keep interpreting Prop. 64 as they wish until a judge tells them otherwise, other cities are still pursuing permit programs for home-grows.

Pomona city leaders are moving forward with the idea, for example, though a price for the permit hasn’t yet been set.

While we wait for the courts to come down with a ruling, we had an attorney weigh in on this question from a Cannifornian reader: Can cities legally block residents from growing up to six plants at home — even temporarily? I thought that right was guaranteed by Prop. 64?

Since many cities have outlawed outdoor gardens — and some have gone further by implementing permit programs, rules on lighting and other requirements — it’s best to check with your local city before investing in an at-home grow setup.

 

[Baron23]

Californians must be vigilant and never let the recently retired San Diego District Attorney ever wield power again. The woman is a fascist, IMO.

Modest Victories for Defense in Case against Med-West Cannabis Company
In a case being watched by both the cannabis and legal communities nationwide, attorney Jessica McElfresh and her legal team scored two modest victories last week.

In a pre-trial hearing in San Diego Superior Court, Judge Laura W. Halgren ordered the return of McElfresh’s seized medical records and set a schedule for the attorneys in the case to file further briefs.

The major issue of the briefs requested by the judge is how the long-established concept of attorney-client privilege applies in this case. McElfresh had worked with hundreds of clients during her seven years practicing cannabis law. The current lawyers for many of those clients have expressed to Judge Halgren their claim that attorney-client privilege applies to paper and electronic files seized during a search of McElfresh’s home and office.

Judge Halgren (Photo by A.J. Herrington)

McElfresh is charged with several felonies in the case against Med-West, a San Diego medical marijuana company that was raided by law enforcement in January 2016. The district attorney alleges McElfresh, among other things, conspired with Med-West ownership and staff to conduct and conceal illegal cannabis extraction operations. She has entered a not guilty plea to all charges.

Stacy Hostetter is an associate attorney at the Law Offices of Omar Figueroa, a prominent cannabis legal firm. She flew to San Diego from Northern California to appear in court on behalf of the National Cannabis Bar Association (NCBA). The NCBA plans to file an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief in support of a ruling from the bench that upholds attorney-client privilege.

Before the proceedings, Hostetter explained the goals of her trip.

“I’m hoping that the judge will be discussing what she wants briefed with regards to attorney-client privilege,” she said. “There’s a question about how that works and what the process should be moving forward in this case. It’s nice to be able to get an idea of where she stands preliminarily, that way we can address her specific concerns.”

Stacy Hostetter (Photo by A.J. Herrington)

Eugene Iredale, McElfresh’s criminal defense attorney, sensed support from Judge Halgren for limiting the scope of the prosecution’s search of McElfresh’s computer files. Iredale believes that the D.A.’s request for a broad search is prosecutorial overreach.

“With respect to attorney-client privilege, it is the prosecution’s somewhat peculiar, Pickwickian interpretation of the warrant that is mostly problematic. And that is, they say ‘We can go through every file, we can look in every file that was seized, regardless of whether it was mentioned in the warrant application, regardless of whether there was a finding of probable cause, regardless of the scope of the warrant,’ and fortunately, it appears that rather unusual view is not going to prevail,” said Iredale after the hearing.

Iredale was also encouraged by the judge’s order that medical records taken by the government be returned to McElfresh.

“The seizure of her personal medical records was lunatic. It’s inexplicable. It’s the grossest of overreaches. It has nothing to do with anything,” he said. “It’s an example of the overreach, the totalitarian nature of the search warrant and the theory by which the prosecution claims a right to invade every file of every client to search through to find some potential or speculative evidence against her. It’s unprecedented.”

The judge also requested legal briefs on how a search of location data contained in McElfresh’s mobile phone should be accomplished. The prosecution wants access to all GPS data on her phone for a period of three years.

Iredale sees this request as beyond the scope of the warrant and another example of over-zealous prosecution from the D.A.’s office.

“The second aspect of what they’re seeking is truly, outrageously over-broad,” he said. “And that is, they want to know every search she did for three years, every website she visited, every social media app, everything that she has in her computer. Incredible.”

Iredale believes the judge may limit the search to locations specified in the warrant, based on her comments and questions.

Jessica McElfresh and Eugene Iredale (Photo by A.J. Herrington)

Jessica McElfresh, while pleased with the outcome of the hearing, was also visibly frustrated with the ordeal she is going through.

“I am still disturbed that the D.A. keeps trying to expand this into a further search of files not related to the warrant,” she said. “I appreciate that the judge has to hear everyone out, but this has been going on now for a while. I think it’s time that they stop trying to get into more of my files than could ever be covered by the warrant.”

Judge Halgren has asked for briefs and replies from both sides by September 15. She is expected to rule on the matters at a hearing scheduled for September 27.

A legal defense fund has been established for McElfresh. You can help preserve the rights of all members of the cannabis community by donating HERE.

 

[Baron23]

California considering creating a state-run bank for cannabis businesses


By Brooke Edwards Staggs, The Cannifornian

California government, financial and marijuana business leaders met last week in a far-from-resolved debate over whether a state-run bank could be the solution to the cannabis industry’s banking problem.

Supporters argued during a Los Angeles gathering of California’s Cannabis Banking Working Group that a public bank would give the state autonomy, serve communities that struggle with bank access and send a message that could shift the nation’s financial paradigm away from Wall Street.

Critics insisted a public bank would be too pricey, too risky and do little to overcome banking problems triggered by the conflict between state and federal marijuana laws.

Though eight states have legalized recreational marijuana and 30 permit medical cannabis, the federal government still classifies cannabis as a Schedule I narcotic on par with heroin. That means major banks and credit card companies won’t do business with growers, manufacturers and dispensaries out of fear they’ll be penalized for money laundering.

While some smaller banks and credit unions are filling that gap, surveys show a majority of marijuana businesses are still forced to operate in cash. That makes them targets for crime, with tales of dispensaries being robbed and workers harmed. That also makes it tough for business owners to get loans and pay their taxes, which are expected to total around $1 billion each year after recreational marijuana sales start Jan. 2.

Related stories

• This economist has a strategy to kill the marijuana black market
• Colorado lawmaker calls Sessions’ marijuana policy letters a “political ploy”
• State lawmakers group endorses descheduling of cannabis with eye on banking
• Riding along on a nail-biting trip to pay cannabis taxes
• Los Angeles might create its own bank for the cannabis industry (among others)

With that date in mind, State Treasurer John Chiang in December formed a working group to explore options and come up with recommendations for addressing the banking issue.

The 17-member group includes representatives from state agencies such as the Bureau of Cannabis Control, financial groups such as the California Bankers Association and industry groups like the California Growers Association. They’ve been meeting throughout the state, with Thursday’s session in Los Angeles the last before they turn their attention to preparing a report on their findings and suggestions.

“We all agree the best and most effective step would be for the federal government to remove cannabis from the list of Schedule I drugs,” Chiang said.

But given Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ staunch opposition to cannabis and threats of a crackdown on state marijuana programs, he acknowledged that change doesn’t seem likely anytime soon.

The working group briefly discussed allowing marijuana businesses to pay taxes using a digital currency similar to Bitcoin, lobbying for federal changes and encouraging small banks to expand service to the industry. But the majority of Thursday’s meeting focused on the idea of creating a state-run bank.

While public banks are fairly common in developing nations, the United States has just one: the Bank of North Dakota, created in 1919 to serve farmers and other residents struggling to get access at commercial banks. Transactions there are backed by the state rather than the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which means they’re not subject to all of the same federal regulations.

A push for public banks picked up in 2008, when the collapse of major financial institutions triggered the Great Recession. Chiang said the idea has gained steam in recent months, as the scandal over claims that Wells Fargo created fraudulent accounts and forced customers to pay for service they didn’t need continues to grow.

“There is widespread support for exploring public banking in California,” Matt Stannard, policy director for the advocacy organization Commonomics USA, told the group gathered in a Sheraton hotel conference room.

Members of the cannabis industry shared stories of how the lack of banking access has forced them to carry around duffel bags full of cash and held back their businesses.

Residents also voiced their support for a public bank, sharing tales about how they lost their homes during the recession and how they’ve suffered through the federal government’s war on drugs.

Both Oakland and Los Angeles are studying the idea of creating city-run banks. While these talks were triggered by the growth of the cannabis industry, both cities have expressed interest in being able to use marijuana funds to build public infrastructure and make low-interest loans to folks in need.

But Kevin Klowden, executive director of the California Center and Managing Economist at the Milken Institute nonpartisan think tank, told the group a public bank could most safely serve both the cannabis industry and the general public if it created a “firewall” between the two systems. He said it would also be risky for California to try to move funds between other legal cannabis states, since federal regulators still control interstate commerce.

Other government and finance experts threw cold water on the idea of a public bank.

Massachusetts created a commission to study the idea of a state-run bank in 2010. But David Cotney, who served on the commission, told members of California’s working group that they ultimately decided the costs would outweigh the benefits.

Don Childears, president and CEO of the Colorado Bankers Association, said they’ve been trying to address the “federal and state tug-of-war” ever since Colorado was first to legalize recreational cannabis alongside Washington in 2012. But he said there are still only 12 small banks serving the state’s massive industry today, after federal regulators shut down plans for a dedicated credit union and lawmakers showed no appetite for the risk involved in forming a public bank despite the “curb appeal” of the idea.

“I would suggest you really do not underestimate the challenges, complexity and time requirements of these sorts of issues,” he said. “They are enormous for a normal bank. They are absolutely onerous for the kind of first-time-ever decisions that would need to be made in a public bank.”

Even if a California-run bank stuck closely to federal guidelines, Klowden said there’s no guarantee that federal regulators wouldn’t seize weed money.

“As long as the federal law says marijuana is illegal, they can go after it,” he said.

The only thing holding them back now, he pointed out, is an amendment to the national spending bill that blocks federal funds from being used to go after state-legal marijuana programs. That amendment was extended through September, but Sessions has encouraged Congress to drop it.

Then there’s the cost and time involved in creating a public bank. Jon Lunsford, president of California First Financial, a private commercial lender based in Los Angeles, predicted it could cost California $2 billion and take “a long time to a very long time” to get a state bank up and running.

Khurshid Khoja, an attorney who serves on the working group, said such doubts may not have been what they hoped for, but it’s what they “needed to hear” as they get ready to make recommendations for the future of the industry.

Chiang said they’ll craft those recommendations during the final Cannabis Banking Working Group meeting in Sacramento this fall.

 

[momofthegoons]

Members of the cannabis industry shared stories of how the lack of banking access has forced them to carry around duffel bags full of cash and held back their businesses.

My caregiver has had to bury his cash in the backyard in the past. It's absurd.

If they don't open up banking to this industry, it could be a self fulfilling prophecy when they say cannabis sales create more crime. You have enough cash sitting around in duffle bags, someone's gonna get a whiff of it and want some.

 

[Baron23]

My caregiver has had to bury his cash in the backyard in the past. It's absurd.

If they don't open up banking to this industry, it could be a self fulfilling prophecy when they say cannabis sales create more crime. You have enough cash sitting around in duffle bags, someone's gonna get a whiff of it and want some.

Yeah, its already starting....can't remember where, but just saw an article on a few guys caught trying to boost dispensaries....like Willy Sutton said: "cause that's where the money is at".

 

[momofthegoons]

The dispensary I visit most frequently has a metal detector that you walk through and an armed guard called 'Big Wheel' who checks your purse or you if you set the detector off. I wouldn't want to mess with him.... Also has bullet proof glass for the receptionist. And you get buzzed into the back.

But since most of the dispensaries are in Detroit, many are in rough areas. I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone tries to rip them off every now and then.

 

[CarolKing]

LA Confirms Cannabis Czar to Regulate Legal Pot Industry
With recreational marijuana use just months away from being legal in California, Los Angeles has appointed a so-called cannabis czar tasked with regulating the local pot industry.


Aug. 17, 2017, at 9:30 a.m.

MORE

LA Confirms Cannabis Czar to Regulate Legal Pot Industry

LOS ANGELES (AP) — With recreational marijuana use just months away from being legal in California, Los Angeles has appointed a so-called cannabis czar tasked with regulating the local pot industry.

The Daily News reports (http://bit.ly/2v4S5oE ) the City Council on Wednesday voted unanimously to confirm Cat Packer as executive director for the newly created Department of Cannabis Regulation.

Packer, a nominee of Mayor Eric Garcetti, recently served as a director for the Drug Policy Alliance, which lobbies for changes to cannabis laws at the state level.

Californians will be able to legally use recreational marijuana starting Jan. 1.

Los Angeles is weighing proposed regulations to allow dispensaries, cultivators, manufacturers and other types of cannabis-related businesses to operate.

Information from: (Los Angeles) Daily News, http://www.dailynews.com
________________________________________________________________________
Even though cannabis is legal here in Washington state every cannabis store I've gone to just deal in cash. At one point the state wanted medical cannabis patients to use their debit or credit cards but that never happened. That way they could keep track of the money they lose with the 9% tax. Medical patients get an adjustment in costs they just have approx 9% sales tax that they don't have to pay. So $9 on a $100 transaction.
CK

 

[Baron23]

More on the same subject

Los Angeles’ new cannabis czar for ‘new era’ is longtime legalization activist
Cat Packer, a nominee of Mayor Eric Garcetti, was confirmed on a City Council vote of 13-0


By Elizabeth Chou, The Cannifornian

An active and prominent supporter of the campaign to legalize recreational-use cannabis in California will head up the Los Angeles agency tasked with regulating the local marijuana industry.

Cat Packer, a nominee of Mayor Eric Garcetti, was confirmed on a City Council vote of 13-0 Wednesday to serve as executive director for the city’s newly created Department of Cannabis Regulation. The city is weighing proposed regulations to allow dispensaries, cultivators, manufacturers and other types of cannabis-related businesses to operate.

Packer recently served as policy director for the Drug Policy Alliance, which lobbies for changes to cannabis laws at the state level. Previously she was a campaign coordinator for Californians for Responsible Marijuana Reform, a group that raised money for Proposition 64, the state ballot measure voters approved to legalize recreational-use marijuana by adults.

As California prepares to move forward in January with legalizing the recreational use of marijuana, Packer will be the person steering the Los Angeles rollout of regulation for the burgeoning industry.

Packer told the City Council she is looking “forward to working with all of you to make sure, as we embark on this new era of cannabis policies, that we do it the right way.”

City leaders are in the midst of debating the regulation, which is expected to include a licensing or permitting program for the industry.

Packer has been critical of the effects the prohibition of marijuana — and a law enforcement crackdown on the illegal drug trade — has had on the black community and other minority groups.

She told the council Wednesday that she worked to change cannabis policies because of how the prohibition, and the “war on drugs,” has affected “communities of color.”

In her new post, however, Packer will be expected by city leaders to straddle the goals of ensuring a smoothly run licensing program with the need to enforce firm rules for the cannabis industry.

Touching on this balancing act, Packer said she wants to “create a department with public service to let community members know that we will protect their communities.”

“We intend to protect children here in Los Angeles,” she said. “We intend to protect the environment here in Los Angeles, and we intend to protect legal businesses here serving Los Angeles.”

She also said she plans to bring a scientific and “data-driven” approach to the industry. Council President Herb Wesson said that in confirming Packer to lead the city’s cannabis regulatory agency, “we show the rest of the world what the values are for us on this council and for the people of the city of Los Angeles.”

The city’s new cannabis regulatory agency was created through passage of Measure M, which allows city leaders to create regulation for the industry. That measure replaces Proposition D, a 2013 voter-approved ban on marijuana businesses that was aimed at stemming a proliferation of medical marijuana dispensaries. The medicinal use of marijuana was legalized in 1996 under an earlier ballot measure approved by California voters.

The council also confirmed nominees to a five-person Cannabis Commission, which will review licensing applications. The members are:

• Rita Villa, an accountant and neighborhood council member;

• Misty Wilks, an attorney who says she initially got involved with the issue of cannabis due to “the oversaturation of illegal cannabis businesses” in South Los Angeles;

• Philip Mercardo, chief surgeon at Kaiser Permanente’s Baldwin Park Medical Center;

• Robert Ahn, an attorney and former member of the Planning Commission, and

• Victor Narro, an attorney and project director of the UCLA Labor Center.

This story was first published on TheCannifornian.com

 

[Baron23]

"To sell cannabis in Sacramento legally, businesses must apply and pay for two separate permits with the city. Prices for those permits, which cost thousands of dollars each"

THIS ^^ is how you encourage people to stay in the black market...punative taxes and fees. When people are faced with this, then you get off piste activity.

Personally, I agree about these illegal grows having to go. This is not someone in a home growing for personal use but are large grows in unlived in houses in your neighborhoods. Yes, I do think this will attract criminals looking to boost the MJ or $$ and violence often accompanies.

Wait and see what's going to happen in MA with their legislature over-riding the will of the people and increasing taxes from max of 12% to 20%. If its cheaper to buy on the black market, then people will do so despite lack of testing and other safety data. Fucking greedy politicians, everyone of them.

Growing weed illegally in your home? A SWAT team may soon pay you a visit.
By Nashelly Chavez
nchavez@sacbee.com
August 19, 2017 7:35 PM
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article168239327.html#storylink=cpy

The Sacramento Police Department could send members of its SWAT team to combat illegal marijuana grows while the department forms a dedicated group of officers to respond to the criminal activity.

The option is one of several recommendations to help curb illicit weed grows that will be brought to the Sacramento City Council during its Tuesday meeting. The Office of Cannabis Policy and Enforcement will give the presentation, outlining current enforcement efforts in Sacramento that target the criminal operations and offering potential alternatives.

“We need to be able to meet the challenge of eliminating these illegal grows,” said Joe Devlin, who runs the cannabis office. “Our challenge are these illegal residential grows, homes (where) nobody lives.”

Councilwoman Angelique Ashby called on local agencies to develop an “urgent plan of action” within 30 days to combat the illegal grows last month, following the increase in marijuana-related crime.

That included a July 12 incident in which someone drove a car through the garage door of a Meadowview home that police later determined was being used to grow marijuana. Almost two weeks later less than a mile away, police said a vehicle drove through a garage of an empty home also used to grow marijuana.


Two 18-year-olds, Glen Myers and Ahjanique Hodges, were killed outside a suspected marijuana grow house in south Sacramento in April. Police identified the victims as alleged home-invasion burglars, though a family member for one of the teens refuted that claim during a vigil service following the shooting. Sean Huang, 46, was arrested as the suspected shooter.

Devlin estimates there could be 1,000 illegal growing operations in the city. In this year alone, the Sacramento Police Department has responded to 76 cannabis-related robberies, the report said.

Besides an uptick in crimes associated with illegal marijuana grows, including home invasions and robberies, Sacramento Police Department spokesman Sgt. Bryce Heinlein said modifications to grow houses also pose fire hazards to those living inside and nearby.

The illegal grows the department finds usually involve more than 300 plants and are set up in an environment intended to mimic outdoor conditions, Heinlein said. To achieve that, growers sometimes have to remove walls, as well as install lights and watering equipment, which means modifying the home’s electricity to be able to power the equipment. Those modifications are done without permits or city inspections.

“The problem needs to be dealt with and the message needs to be that it will not be tolerated in the city of Sacramento,” Heinlein said in an email about the grows.

The council report said the city’s fire department has handled 11 incidents associated with marijuana grows since August 2015.

Sacramento allows residents 21 and older to grow marijuana for personal use in accordance with last year’s passage of Proposition 64. Both medical and recreational users can grow the plant within the city limits in indoor spaces no larger than 400 square feet, Devlin said.

The city isn’t concerned with residents who are growing marijuana legally, but rather those who are growing it in large quantities for commercial purposes, something that is not allowed under Proposition 64, Devlin said.

To sell cannabis in Sacramento legally, businesses must apply and pay for two separate permits with the city.

Prices for those permits, which cost thousands of dollars each, were finalized by the Sacramento City Council earlier this year, and were established, in part, to help pay for additional enforcement efforts to combat the illegal marijuana grows, according to the Office of Cannabis Policy and Enforcement report.

Related stories from The Sacramento Bee



Meet Sacramento's new commercial cannabis czar
The report said the city is receiving fewer permits than anticipated, causing officials to delay hiring enforcement staff.

“That’s why we haven’t filled all these positions that have been authorized because we haven’t received as much money,” Devlin said.

The Sacramento Police Department has three dedicated officers who primarily focus on marijuana grows, Heinlein said.

Those officers send warning letters to tenants and homeowners who may be illegally growing marijuana in their homes, giving them a short period to fix any issues. The City Attorney’s Office can step in and issue inspection warrants, giving building inspectors the ability to go inside the homes to see if they are up to city codes.

“With over 800 residences suspected of illegally growing, it is difficult for the officers to make any substantial impact with our current staffing,” Heinlein said.

The Sacramento Police Department said in the report that using SWAT officers was one option for enforcing the illegal grows, though noted the team is an important resource in planned protests and has a primary role of serving high-risk warrants and attending required monthly trainings.

The department said it could also create a dedicated team of three sergeants and a dozen officers, though that would mean pulling resources from existing patrols.

The City Manager’s Office suggested using the SWAT team for a period of three months, followed by pulling officers from patrols if needed, according to the report.

Additionally, the city’s cannabis office is drafting an ordinance to allow a maximum of six marijuana plants per household, replacing the current 400-square-foot limit. The ordinance would additionally impose a $500 fine for each plant more than the six allowed


Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article168239327.html#storylink=cpy

 

[Baron23]

Trying to transition CA to a completely regulated and licensed system is going to be very messy, I think...actually, its getting pretty messy out there right now.

California Rushing to Meet January 2018 Legalization Deadline

With only four months left until full legalization in California, regulations are literally being adopted on the fly.

The state needs to fill out its commissions and offices by hiring up to 82 people. Software has to be written in time to start accepting applications from the thousands of entrepreneurs hoping to sell weed. In fact, regulations governing sales aren’t even properly in place.

Lori Ajax, the director of the California Bureau of Cannabis Control (formerly the Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation AKA BMCR or, colloquially, “Bummer”), told the Sacramento Bee that California’s entire regulatory scheme was a work in progress.

Considering that voters approved Proposition 64 only this past November, delays are to be expected, but they are still cause for concern. And it’s worth mentioning that California has had medical marijuana since 1996.

Nevertheless, some people are getting anxious. When Prop. 64 was approved, a deadline of January 2018 for retail sales was set.

So what’s left to be worked out? Lots.

As previously reported, California growers produce way more weed than they consume.

However, regardless of the excess weed, the issue of pesticides testing has reared its ugly head, and some worry that there will not be enough product that has been properly tested for pesticides, mold and potency once retailers open their doors on January 2, 2018.

Then, there’s the nagging driving issue. UC San Diego is currently undertaking a study to determine when a pot consumer can and cannot safely drive. That study won’t be completed for another year.

But probably most importantly, as this has to do with the aforementioned sparsely staffed BMCR offices, the state has not yet started accepting applications for licenses.

This bureaucratic task won’t begin until the end of the year, which means that all licenses issued will be temporary because the state won’t have enough time to check applicants’ backgrounds.

Very few of California’s 58 counties and 482 cities have started working on local regulations, which includes ordinances to implement the initiative. Some fear that might end up being problematic.

In the best of circumstances, under the initiative, the state could receive a request for a license to open a store in a particular jurisdiction and approve it within 60 days if there are no conflicting local ordinances on the books.

Ajax naturally anticipates a big bump in the tourist industry, which is a good thing. However, some bed-and-breakfast operators are already suggesting that they move into the bud-and-breakfast space, which the Sacramento Bee points out, might raise health-related issues over the smoke.

California has a strict a statewide ban on smoking cigarettes and vaping in the workplace, including bars and restaurants.

Smoking or vaping apparently would be permitted at cannabis retailers, if local authorities grant permits for on-site use. This is yet another permit bud-and-breakfast entrepreneurs would need to secure.

 

[Baron23]

LA cannabis industry demands full business licensing from city council

On the steps of L.A. City Hall on Tuesday, dozens of cannabis industry activists gathered to fight for local licensing. At face value, the question at hand is simple, so simple some wonder why it's even a question: in November, California citizens passed Proposition 64 to legalize marijuana — and an overwhelming majority of Angelenos voted for it. Then in March, 80 percent of L.A. voters passed Measure M, authorizing the city to establish a licensing, taxation, and regulatory structure for cannabis businesses. After that, cannabis industry representatives and concerned citizens gave input over months in public hearings as to how the city should regulate legal pot, repeatedly advocating for comprehensive permitting. Yet despite all those efforts, the latest draft regulations to come from the city council proposed to grant "limited immunity" to pot businesses, instead of issuing actual licenses.

L.A. is the only jurisdiction in any canna-legal state where a “limited immunity” model for businesses has even been considered. As the largest market in the cannabis industry — anticipating $700 million in total sales in the first year — L.A. is a leader for other localities, but the proposed regulations could spell failure for its own sector. "If L.A. adopted [limited immunity], other jurisdictions could move in that direction, too," says Elizabeth Ashford, communications director for the Los Angeles Cannabis Task Force (LACTF). "If L.A. fails, the state market fails. You can't have a portion of the market this size and have it not work."

Following the afternoon rally, led by a coalition of organizations including United Cannabis Business Association (UCBA), UCFW Local 770 — a union which has successfully organized workers in L.A.’s cannabis sector — and LACTF, cannabis industry folk lined up en masse to give public comment during a packed session of the city council’s Rules Committee. Most spoke passionately in favor of licensing, among other issues like social equity and a local banking system for the cannabis industry. Even medical marijuana patients came to give testimony, speaking to the miracles of cannabis treatments, asking city officials to ensure the health of the industry; some however, feared that the cost of getting licensed would hike up the prices of medical marijuana. "If the prices go up, I can't afford to live," testified cancer patient Jenny Pagliaro. Yet, without licensing, many in the cannabis industry might not be able to survive, either.


"We want stability, that's what we've been dying to have all these years," says Aaron Justis, CEO of L.A. dispensary Buds & Roses and board member of the Greater Los Angeles Collective Alliance. "Limited immunity is too unstable. We can be shut down at any time; that's no way to run a business. We'd have to prove we're following all these rules, and they'd say, 'Okay, you have immunity, you can stay open,' until the next time they come to shut you down. Limited immunity is not an authorization to operate."

What limited immunity is, however, has yet to be clearly defined — that's the problem, and that's what distinguishes it from a discrete, legitimate license. Presumably, limited immunity would give businesses a defense to alleged violations, explains attorney Michael Chernis, who represents clients in the cannabis industry.

"Anything short of an absolute permit or license puts [cannabis businesses] in a vulnerable position," says Chernis. Limited immunity would force stakeholders to constantly prove they're running kosher business operations, whereas if they were licensed, they would only be scrutinized if they violated code, he explains. "It flips around the presumption and burdens and creates a dynamic where the businesses are always on the defense. That's not a way to run a business — especially one that requires hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars of investment."

In addition to legal risk, there are also a number of practical problems with limited immunity, Chernis adds, such as obtaining insurance or opening a bank account with only a certificate of compliance. "The city is moving incrementally beyond the era of prohibition, but this is not a step forward, it's a step sideways," he says. "We need to deal with the practical realities of what it takes to start up these businesses and stop treating them like drug dealers. If you want to take their taxes, treat them as partners and not like second-class citizens."

Theoretically, there may be some rationale in favor of limited immunity if exposure to federal liability is a concern. With prohibitionist Attorney General Jeff Sessions in office, some fear the cannabis industry might be at risk of a crackdown. Technically, city workers could be held legally responsible if they grant licenses to cannabis businesses. "But that risk is so miniscule and remote that it's not worth discussing," Chernis says. "L.A. doesn't need to be an island here doing its own thing, different from what every other city and county in the state is doing. Why are city workers more vulnerable than state workers? They're not, it's bullshit." Moreover, if the feds do attack California's industry, the state government has already a expressed willingness to defend it.

Rigo Valdez (left), director of organizing for UFCW Local 770.

"We're not just saying to give folks licensing, we're [also] saying to support people's work so they'll be able to succeed," says Rigo Valdez, director of organizing for UFCW Local 770. He speculates that if the city council decides to move forward in licensing, the first set of licenses will likely go to the 135 dispensaries that are already compliant with Proposition D—the city’s current set of medical cannabis regulations. "They've been doing this kind of work already and are ready to come up above ground," he says. But social equity is another large piece of the puzzle. "Social equity gives opportunity to folks who were most harmed by the War on Drugs, especially the Latino community and the African American community," says Valdez. "And there has to be an ability for women to be a part of this industry."

Tangibly speaking, social equity could come in the form of incubation, networking, financial aid, or education on how to run a cannabis business. Cannabis workers should also be able to unionize, and fight to be paid more than 25 cents above minimum wage, Valdez adds. "Here in L.A., we feel that every business that has more than ten workers should have a labor peace agreement." The idea is for the cannabis industry to be a both lucrative and humane industry for its employees. That also includes a banking system to keep the industry's finances secure.

"If we don't have proper banking, we have an increased risk of people around with cash and working us into a grey market," said Jerred Kiloh, president of UCBA and owner of Higher Path dispensary, during Tuesday's press conference.

Compliant dispensaries, cultivators, manufacturers, testing services, deliveries and more all deserve the opportunity to operate legally, safely, and securely, he says, but that relies on licensing. In about a month, the city council will decide. "We need to make sure licenses are the cornerstone for our businesses," says Kiloh. "We're looking at one of the largest economies when it comes to cannabis. The entire world is looking at us to make sure we're making good decisions and policy."

Jerred Kiloh, president of the United Cannabis Business Association.

By the end of Tuesday’s hearing, it appeared that the industry’s demand for a real canna-business licensing structure could very well pay off. After listening to numerous comments denouncing the draft regulations, City Council President Herb Wesson called for the committee to vote on whether it recommended the development of a “permanent licensing system”; its members approved unanimously. Wesson also announced they would “aggressively pursue the concept of establishing a Los Angeles municipal bank so we would be able to [serve] your industry,” which was met with fervent applause. The next step is for the full 13-member city council to approve final regulations for L.A.’s cannabis industry, with enough time for implementation in advance of the intended start date for recreational sales on January 1, 2018. If those rules don’t ultimately include a plan for full business licensing, L.A. could become a large and unusual outlier in California’s newly legal cannabis economy, and if the size of the audience at Tuesday’s hearing is any indicator, many Angelenos won’t be happy.