Law California

[Baron23]

I don't care if he's running to the left of Feinstein, I hope he wins (probably won't but...). IMO, she's a complete and utter hypocrite and machine politician and needs to go....soon.

In California, Feinstein Challenger De León Seen as a Cannabis Progressive

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the iron lady of California politics and perhaps the Golden State’s fiercest drug warrior, is facing a re-election challenge from a leading state lawmaker who has a 100 percent rating from cannabis advocates for his votes on marijuana reform issues.

'Cannabis is not his issue, but he has voted the right way.'
Dale Gieringer, California Director of NORML
Yet California Senate leader Kevin de León, a Democrat from Los Angeles who is challenging Feinstein from the left, isn’t seen as a leader on cannabis policy. If anything, some advocates say, his strength is simply that he doesn’t get in the way of state legislation promoting a regulated marijuana industry.

“Cannabis is not his issue, but he has voted the right way,” said Dale Gieringer, California director for the National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws (NORML). “His record is certainly better than Dianne Feinstein’s.”

Feinstein, a fellow Democrat, former San Francisco mayor and California’s senator since 1992, has opposed nearly all forms of drug reform, from medical marijuana in the 1990s to California’s voter-approved adult use measure, Proposition 64, in 2016. She has also cast votes in recent years against Rohrabacher-Farr, the recurring budget amendment that prevents federal authorities from prosecuting state-permitted medical marijuana businesses and patients.


RELATED STORY
The Dianne Feinstein Mystery: Why Is She California’s Last Prohibitionist?
So cannabis advocates appeared pleased—if not necessarily wildly excited—that de León stepped up to challenge the 84-year-old Feinstein from the left in California’s open primary in 2018. Feinstein recently announced she would seek a 6th Senate term.

“I’ve heard him speak a couple of times. He is really dynamic and impressive,” Gieringer said of de León.

Don Duncan, a cannabis business consultant and former California director for Americans for Safe Access, applauded the state senate leader’s campaign announcement. Duncan was skeptical of de Leon’s chances, though.

“I definitely will vote for him, but I think he will lose,” Duncan said. “I think Dianne Feinstein is out of touch with the values of California. She has never been a big supporter of cannabis as medicine. There is just a huge disconnect and it’s time for new guard.”


RELATED STORY
California Is Still Arresting Too Many People of Color for Cannabis
De León’s Voting Record
During last year’s campaign for Proposition 64, de León stayed on the sidelines. Unlike Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, who openly embraced the initiative, de León kept company with most establishment Democrats who kept a low profile on legalization.

“I’m not there yet” on adult-use legalization, de León said at a press briefing late in last year’s campaign season. “I don’t know if I’m behind the times in comparison to other folks, but I still have my concerns. I have yet to make a final determination where I will stand as an individual citizen on this issue.”

He expressed worries over high THC content in many marijuana strains currently sold in California dispensaries, as well as the existence of gummy bears and edibles that he warned could appeal to children.

But in the Legislature, de León earned a perfect scorecard from the Drug Policy Forum of California for votes on cannabis issues in the 2015-16 legislative session.


RELATED STORY
Leafly List: The Best Cannabis Dispensaries in Northern California, Fall 2017
Cannabis Supporter, If Not a Leader
He voted in favor of a bill to create a “specialty cottage” license for small craft cannabis producers. He backed legislation to end discrimination against medical marijuana patients waiting for organ transplants. He supported three bills in omnibus legislation to regulate—and effectively legitimize—state-licensed medical marijuana businesses.

He also voted in favor of bills that regulated commercial cannabis transportation, reformed asset forfeiture laws, and ended penalties for paying state taxes in cash—the latter a must for many marijuana businesses deprived of banking services.

Despite de León’s votes, marijuana reform “has never been on the front burner of what he has done in the legislature,” said Sacramento political consultant Steve Maviglio, who has represented clients seeking to enter California’s regulated cannabis industry.

Maviglio said he wouldn’t be surprised if de León does make an issue of Feinstein’s opposition to cannabis liberalization “to put another arrow in his quiver to show that she is out of touch with the people.”

Maviglio says he doubts that Feinstein is vulnerable solely because of her cannabis position—despite California voters’ 57-43 percent approval of Proposition 64.

Her stubborn attitude, though, does add to the perception of a Senator increasingly out of alignment with the voters she represents.


RELATED STORY
Leafly List: The Best Cannabis Dispensaries in Southern California, Fall 2017
Feinstein’s Trump Remarks Open the Door
For his part, de León’s first political arrow was aimed at Feinstein over her conciliatory remarks about President Donald Trump at San Francisco’s Commonwealth Club on Aug. 29. Feinstein said of Trump: “I just hope he has the ability to learn and change. And if he does, he can be a good president.” The crowd booed.

De León pounced. He blasted Feinstein, a famous Democratic centrist, for remarks that appeared “complicit,” he said, in Trump’s “reckless behavior.”

In his recent campaign announcement, de León declared: “We now stand at the front lines of a historic struggle for the very soul of America, against a president without one.”

He also released a video that credits his upbringing by his mother, a single parent and Mexican immigrant who toiled for years as a maid. De León vowed to fight for universal health care, increased educational opportunities, environmental protection and respect for diversity and civil rights.


RELATED STORY
Keep Tabs on California Wildfires with SF Chron’s Live Map
Others Ready to Jump In
De León may be the first of many challengers to Feinstein from within her own party. Also reportedly pondering a run against Feinstein is billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer, and political pundits say other challengers could emerge as well.

Yet Maviglio, a Feinstein supporter, says the senator will be extremely difficult to beat – particularly in California’s open primarily, in which a Democratic challenger would have to finish ahead of the leading Republican to earn a runoff in November.

Despite de León’s standing as president pro tem of the California Senate, Maviglio says he has little name recognition outside his Los Angeles legislative district.

“Nobody knows who he is,” Maviglio said. “He had 30,000 people vote for him [in his district] in the last election and he is facing someone who has been in statewide office for a generation. That’s a huge challenge, an awesome challenge.”

 

[Baron23]

Wildfires scorched marijuana crops, possibly complicating California’s rollout of legal sales

The deadly wildfires that ravaged communities and wineries in Northern California also severely damaged numerous marijuana farms, just before the state is expected to fully legalize the drug, in a disaster that could have far-reaching implications for a nascent industry.

At least 34 marijuana farms suffered extensive damage as the wildfires tore across wine country and some of California’s prime marijuana-growing areas. The fires could present challenges to the scheduled Jan. 1 rollout of legal marijuana sales at the start of an industry that is expected to generate billions of dollars in revenue.

In many cases, owners have spent tens of thousands of dollars to become compliant with state law to sell the product. But because the federal government considers marijuana cultivation and sales a criminal enterprise, it remains extremely difficult, if not impossible, for most of the marijuana businesses affected by the fire to access insurance, mortgages and loans to rebuild. Even a charitable fund set up to help marijuana farmers was frozen because a payment processor will not handle cannabis transactions.

[ Ten miles of California’s loveliest countryside, transformed by fire ]

Cannabis businesses also are not eligible for any type of federal disaster relief, according to a spokesman for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

“It’s the darkness right before the dawn of legal, regulated cannabis in California,” said Hezekiah Allen, executive director of the California Growers Association, who cautioned that the full extent of the damage remains unknown. “These businesses are in a really vulnerable position, and this really came at about the worst time it could have. It means we’re on our own.”

Thousands of glass dispensary containers are scattered where SPARC's processing barn once stood in Glen Ellen, Calif. (Mason Trinca/For The Washington Post)
The fires burned swaths of Mendocino County, which is part of what is known as California’s “Emerald Triangle,” the nation’s epicenter of marijuana growing. It also devastated Sonoma County, which is best known for wine but has seen an increase in cannabis farming. The fires killed at least 42 people and damaged thousands of buildings, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

Some marijuana farms were completely destroyed, and many others are believed to have been heavily damaged by fire, smoke and ash. Structures used to store dried marijuana burned, as did greenhouses and irrigation lines. Many marijuana cultivators live on their farms, and some homes burned to the ground.

[ ‘We are going to stay’: Northern California residents vow to stay put even as wildfires worsen housing crunch ]

Erich Pearson, co-owner of SPARC, a large medical cannabis dispensary with two locations in San Francisco and others north of the city, saw his crops in Glen Ellen, Calif., about 50 miles north of San Francisco, engulfed by flames after awakening to the smell of smoke. The first thing he saw after getting close to the farm was a metal-roofed barn on fire. It was filled with marijuana harvested to sell on the legal market.

“We lost everything we harvested to date, and had significant damage to what’s left,” he said.

Inside a damaged SPARC barn, bunches of drying marijuana still hang from the rafters. (Mason Trinca/For The Washington Post)
There is concern that what has been destroyed, as well as the damage from smoke, ash and lack of water for crops that did survive, could seriously impact the supply for customers when marijuana is legal for sale. The fire has compounded existing problems with the initial start of sales because of a regulatory mess: Many municipalities and the state have not released draft regulations for how businesses must comply with the new law. Businesses in some places, including San Francisco, are not likely to be able to open Jan. 1.

“Now, we might be facing a much smaller harvest than we were anticipating, which could potentially drive the price up,” said Josh Drayton, deputy director of the California Cannabis Industry Association. “It’s going to touch every different piece of the industry, and we can’t get ahead of this yet. We still don’t know how much has survived, how much has been lost.”

Joey Ereneta, director of cultivation at SPARC, stands near the rubble where the dispensary's processing barn once stood. (Mason Trinca/For The Washington Post)
Chiah Rodriques, chief executive of Mendocino Generations, a marijuana collective in Mendocino County, said that most of the 40 farms she works with were only about 25-to-50-percent harvested when the fires broke out earlier this month. About a quarter of the farms were affected by either fire or smoke, she said, and just 10 of the 40 have the local permit necessary to become compliant with the state, though all are working toward them. None of them have crop insurance, she said.

Rodriques said that the fires could lead to less usable marijuana on the market come January. The one saving grace might be to repurpose affected plants and use them for oil and other tinctures that can be sold at dispensaries. The oils are far less lucrative than the flowers, the part of the plant that is consumed — and this year was expected to be a bumper crop.

“You’re looking at the difference between $800 to $1,500 a pound to now getting $100; it’s a huge blow,” she said, especially when farmers have spent so much money trying to become compliant with laws.

“These people put everything they had into paying for this fee and this tax and this permit and this lawyer, one thing after the next, and to have this happen right when it’s finally harvest is huge,” she said.

Some of the marijuana plants that were destroyed in the Northern California wildfires. (Mason Trinca/For The Washington Post)
Pearson carefully selected the seeds and genetic strains for the cannabis he planted in February on part of 400 acres he shares with 11 other farmers. He is now starting from scratch: finding new seeds and securing greenhouse space to grow the new plants. He had submitted all of his permits to become legal under the county and state’s new regulations.

“The hopes of what we could do are still the hopes of what we’re going to do,” Pearson said. “It’s just going to be a little harder to get there.”

Ashley Oldham, owner of Frost Flower Farms in Redwood Valley, Calif., did something very out of character: She left her cellphone at a friend’s house the day the fire reached her. A neighbor pounded on her door in the middle of the night as flames surrounded her home, saving the lives of Oldham and her 4-year-old daughter.

Oldham’s house was destroyed, but her greenhouse stayed intact, in part because she hiked through what looked like a “post-apocalyptic disaster zone” to check on her property after the fire passed. She said that emergency officials initially did not allow marijuana farmers to check on their crops, as is allowed for farmers of other agricultural products.

Peter Brown, from left, Patrick Liese and Dan Hertz trim marijuana buds, which SPARC’s Ereneta says will be tested for contaminants from the fires. (Mason Trinca/For The Washington Post)
When she arrived at the farm, she used a neighbor’s hose to wet down a large oak tree that was ablaze, saving her greenhouse. Oldham has been okayed for a legal permit in Mendocino County, spending “a lot of money” to come fully into compliance. She estimates that she lost about 25 percent of her crop to wind damage, and much of it looks burned.

She and other cannabis farmers must have their crops extensively tested under California’s new regulations, and most people don’t know what impact smoke or burn damage will have.

“We’ve never experienced this and I don’t know what to expect,” she said. She said that she will not be able to recoup the full value of her house through insurance because she grows marijuana.


“We’re totally legal,” she said of her farm. “But we’re still being treated unfairly.”

Susan Schindler, a grower in Potter Valley, Calif., said she has spent at least $20,000 on consultants, attorneys and fees trying to come into compliance for legal sales in January. She evacuated her home and has been at a San Francisco hotel since the fires. Her master grower told her the plants are “very crisp.”

Half of the crop was destroyed earlier this year due to russet mites, and now she thinks much of the other half will be lost to fire. Some was harvested, and she’s hoping that it will allow her to break even.

Schindler calls marijuana a “holy plant” that she’s farmed for years, selling to medical dispensaries.

“I’m not going to give up,” she said, “but it’s going to take a lot of money out of my bank account this year.”

Marcos Morales holds up a marijuana bud affected by the wildfires. (Mason Trinca/For The Washington Post)

 

[Baron23]

California’s Calaveras County On Verge of Banning Cannabis Farms

Bill McManus, foreground, is the chairman of the local Committee to Ban Commercial Cultivation. (Photo: Peter Hecht for Leafly)
In California’s historic Gold Rush country, financially-suffering Calaveras County made a sizable wager on the Green Rush in the spring of 2016. It paid off handsomely. By welcoming and licensing medical cannabis growers, the county collected millions in dollars in taxes and fees from the locally regulated industry.


Calaveras County pocketed $3.7 million in cannabis permit fees in 2016, and $5m in cultivation taxes.
But now Calaveras, population 45,000, is having second thoughts. In a fiery Board of Supervisors meeting that stretched over two days Tuesday and Wednesday, angry citizens and conservative supervisors argued for a ban on commercial cultivation–while farmers and their supporters pushed back, wondering why the county’s warm welcome has suddenly turned cold.

Fiery cannabis opponents and outraged cannabis farmers packed the chambers and two spillover rooms, debating a proposed moved that could end one of the county’s few strong sources of revenue. Calaveras County pocketed $3.7 million in cannabis permit fees in 2016, and another $5 million in cultivation taxes in the 2016-2017 fiscal year.

After two days of public vitriol, eccentric outbursts and, ultimately, confusion and paralysis, on Wednesday the Board abruptly postponed a decision in the great Calaveras County cannabis clash.


Licensed cannabis farmers Joan and Bill Wilson sport buttons supporting supervisor Jack Garamendi, the target of a recall for his support of a taxed, regulated cannabis industry.
The showdown, perhaps California’s most volatile example of local government anxiety over whether to accept and regulate cannabis businesses or to drive them off, will continue when the board meets less than a week from now, on Oct. 24.

If anyone needs to understand the passions simmering in Calaveras, the appearance Tuesday of Holly Johnson – the singing cannabis farmer – was all it took.

Seven hours into the first-day debate, Johnson strode to the podium with her guitar. She unleashed a protest chorus at supervisors wanting to ban her farm:

“So let me grow my ganja where it’s sunny

And I’ll keep on paying taxes and making money

I’m not going to go tearing down my garden, honey

‘Ain’t going to be treated that way”

Some supervisors decided they wouldn’t be treated that way, either. Seconds into Johnson’s three-minute concert, two anti-cannabis supervisors, Dennis Mills and Clyde Clapp, stormed out of the board room.

Seconds into one citizen's pro-farmer song, two anti-cannabis supervisors, Dennis Mills and Clyde Clapp, stormed out of the board room.
Jack Garamendi, a supervisor who has been targeted by a recall drive over his support for maintaining Calaveras’ licensing and regulation of cannabis growers, lit into his colleagues when they returned.

“We don’t have a prohibition on singing,” Garamendi said. “We’re better than that. We need to let people express themselves and petition their government.”

Clapp rose to face one side of the audience – the people sporting “BAN” buttons – and shouted: “Sign the recall!”

A cannabis ban supporter brought her Old Glory hoodie to warm a chair.
Standing With Jack
The other side of the chamber wore buttons that said, “I stand with JACK.” They pleaded with supervisors to not cut off a lucrative revenue stream in cannabis taxes, particularly in a county that has lost nearly all other industries. The region’s gold mines, lumber mills, and cement factory all shuttered years ago.

Calaveras was also severely impacted by a scorching 2015 wildfire that destroyed 860 houses. Many of the charred lots soon bloomed with cannabis gardens as a means of economic recovery.

Back then, the county Board of Supervisors were more amenable to cannabis farmers. They approved rules permitting property owners up to a half-acre of commercial marijuana cultivation and up to 10,000 square feet of indoor growing in limited industrial zones.

More than 700 people applied for permits and paid $5,000 each in county fees, which funded new police and code enforcement officers. In 2016, 68 percent of county voters approved Measure C, which sweetened county coffers with a $2 per square foot tax on outdoor grown cannabis and $5 per square foot on indoor.

‘This will end in poverty and despair.’
Joan Wilson, a farmer who grows 3,000 square feet of cannabis on a county-licensed 20-acre parcel, came out to warn supervisors about the economic suicide of a “bait and switch” vote to bar commercial cannabis cultivation.

“The result of banning commerce that has already been allowed to operate would be devastating…ending in poverty and despair,” she said.

Don't be swayed by 'stoner karaoke,' Bill McManus said. Ban the farms now.
Bill McManus, head of the Calaveras Committee to Ban Commercial Cultivation, said neither tax revenue stream nor any boardroom “stoner karaoke” should deter supervisors from getting rid of cannabis farms.

McManus said the county’s cannabis experiment drew permitted guerrilla growers, criminal elements, environmental destruction and a shredding of the social fabric. “What the county has now is pure 100 percent chaos,” McManus said.

McManus’ social fabric claim carried more than a bit of hyperbole. But documents from county planning staff and the sheriff’s office showed that the county experienced a big influx of out-of-town cannabis growers after the 2015 fire and, again, when the county began accepting permits. So clearly a lot of newcomers have moved into the rural county, including many who arrived after the June 2016 application deadline had passed.

Sheriff: Legal Growers Reduce Illegal Grows
Calavaras County Sheriff Rick DiBasilio warned that illegal cannabis cultivation would continue to thrive no matter how the supervisors voted. Without cannabis taxes, he said, his department would lack the manpower to go after criminal growers.

“If this goes back to a black market completely, I think we’re going to see more grows in the hills,” DiBasilio said. “I’m not advocating one way or another. I’m just stating facts: The illegal growers are not going away.”

'I’m not advocating one way or another. I’m just stating facts: The illegal growers are not going away.'
Rick DiBasilio, Calveras County Sheriff
Since Jan. 1, the sheriff said his department – including a nine-member cannabis compliance team funded by money from fees on county permitted growers – has eradicated 52,000 cannabis plants from growers operating without county permits.

During that time, officers also seized $118,000 in cash, 225 pounds of processed cannabis, and 24 guns while making 50 arrests. In contrast, DiBasillo said he has had few problems with the county’s licensed cannabis farmers.

He said many of those licensed growers act as “eyes and ears” for sheriff’s investigators seeking to crack down on illegal cultivation and related environmental crimes, including siphoning water from sensitive streams and illegal dumping of toxins and pesticides.

The county, with three code enforcement officers funded by cannabis fees, filed abatement notices against 159 unpermitted gardens and issued 224 citations, seeking fines of $551,000.

Even under the best of financial circumstances, with the county using money from permitted cultivation to fund police and abatement programs, DiBasilio said it would take “three or four years” to drive illegal cultivation from the county’s secluded wooded landscape.

“Holy cow, we have had legal alcohol for years,” the sheriff said, “and there are still bootleggers.”

 

[ataxian]

California’s Calaveras County On Verge of Banning Cannabis Farms

Bill McManus, foreground, is the chairman of the local Committee to Ban Commercial Cultivation. (Photo: Peter Hecht for Leafly)
In California’s historic Gold Rush country, financially-suffering Calaveras County made a sizable wager on the Green Rush in the spring of 2016. It paid off handsomely. By welcoming and licensing medical cannabis growers, the county collected millions in dollars in taxes and fees from the locally regulated industry.


Calaveras County pocketed $3.7 million in cannabis permit fees in 2016, and $5m in cultivation taxes.
But now Calaveras, population 45,000, is having second thoughts. In a fiery Board of Supervisors meeting that stretched over two days Tuesday and Wednesday, angry citizens and conservative supervisors argued for a ban on commercial cultivation–while farmers and their supporters pushed back, wondering why the county’s warm welcome has suddenly turned cold.

Fiery cannabis opponents and outraged cannabis farmers packed the chambers and two spillover rooms, debating a proposed moved that could end one of the county’s few strong sources of revenue. Calaveras County pocketed $3.7 million in cannabis permit fees in 2016, and another $5 million in cultivation taxes in the 2016-2017 fiscal year.

After two days of public vitriol, eccentric outbursts and, ultimately, confusion and paralysis, on Wednesday the Board abruptly postponed a decision in the great Calaveras County cannabis clash.


Licensed cannabis farmers Joan and Bill Wilson sport buttons supporting supervisor Jack Garamendi, the target of a recall for his support of a taxed, regulated cannabis industry.
The showdown, perhaps California’s most volatile example of local government anxiety over whether to accept and regulate cannabis businesses or to drive them off, will continue when the board meets less than a week from now, on Oct. 24.

If anyone needs to understand the passions simmering in Calaveras, the appearance Tuesday of Holly Johnson – the singing cannabis farmer – was all it took.

Seven hours into the first-day debate, Johnson strode to the podium with her guitar. She unleashed a protest chorus at supervisors wanting to ban her farm:

“So let me grow my ganja where it’s sunny

And I’ll keep on paying taxes and making money

I’m not going to go tearing down my garden, honey

‘Ain’t going to be treated that way”

Some supervisors decided they wouldn’t be treated that way, either. Seconds into Johnson’s three-minute concert, two anti-cannabis supervisors, Dennis Mills and Clyde Clapp, stormed out of the board room.

Seconds into one citizen's pro-farmer song, two anti-cannabis supervisors, Dennis Mills and Clyde Clapp, stormed out of the board room.
Jack Garamendi, a supervisor who has been targeted by a recall drive over his support for maintaining Calaveras’ licensing and regulation of cannabis growers, lit into his colleagues when they returned.

“We don’t have a prohibition on singing,” Garamendi said. “We’re better than that. We need to let people express themselves and petition their government.”

Clapp rose to face one side of the audience – the people sporting “BAN” buttons – and shouted: “Sign the recall!”

A cannabis ban supporter brought her Old Glory hoodie to warm a chair.
Standing With Jack
The other side of the chamber wore buttons that said, “I stand with JACK.” They pleaded with supervisors to not cut off a lucrative revenue stream in cannabis taxes, particularly in a county that has lost nearly all other industries. The region’s gold mines, lumber mills, and cement factory all shuttered years ago.

Calaveras was also severely impacted by a scorching 2015 wildfire that destroyed 860 houses. Many of the charred lots soon bloomed with cannabis gardens as a means of economic recovery.

Back then, the county Board of Supervisors were more amenable to cannabis farmers. They approved rules permitting property owners up to a half-acre of commercial marijuana cultivation and up to 10,000 square feet of indoor growing in limited industrial zones.

More than 700 people applied for permits and paid $5,000 each in county fees, which funded new police and code enforcement officers. In 2016, 68 percent of county voters approved Measure C, which sweetened county coffers with a $2 per square foot tax on outdoor grown cannabis and $5 per square foot on indoor.

‘This will end in poverty and despair.’
Joan Wilson, a farmer who grows 3,000 square feet of cannabis on a county-licensed 20-acre parcel, came out to warn supervisors about the economic suicide of a “bait and switch” vote to bar commercial cannabis cultivation.

“The result of banning commerce that has already been allowed to operate would be devastating…ending in poverty and despair,” she said.

Don't be swayed by 'stoner karaoke,' Bill McManus said. Ban the farms now.
Bill McManus, head of the Calaveras Committee to Ban Commercial Cultivation, said neither tax revenue stream nor any boardroom “stoner karaoke” should deter supervisors from getting rid of cannabis farms.

McManus said the county’s cannabis experiment drew permitted guerrilla growers, criminal elements, environmental destruction and a shredding of the social fabric. “What the county has now is pure 100 percent chaos,” McManus said.

McManus’ social fabric claim carried more than a bit of hyperbole. But documents from county planning staff and the sheriff’s office showed that the county experienced a big influx of out-of-town cannabis growers after the 2015 fire and, again, when the county began accepting permits. So clearly a lot of newcomers have moved into the rural county, including many who arrived after the June 2016 application deadline had passed.

Sheriff: Legal Growers Reduce Illegal Grows
Calavaras County Sheriff Rick DiBasilio warned that illegal cannabis cultivation would continue to thrive no matter how the supervisors voted. Without cannabis taxes, he said, his department would lack the manpower to go after criminal growers.

“If this goes back to a black market completely, I think we’re going to see more grows in the hills,” DiBasilio said. “I’m not advocating one way or another. I’m just stating facts: The illegal growers are not going away.”

'I’m not advocating one way or another. I’m just stating facts: The illegal growers are not going away.'
Rick DiBasilio, Calveras County Sheriff
Since Jan. 1, the sheriff said his department – including a nine-member cannabis compliance team funded by money from fees on county permitted growers – has eradicated 52,000 cannabis plants from growers operating without county permits.

During that time, officers also seized $118,000 in cash, 225 pounds of processed cannabis, and 24 guns while making 50 arrests. In contrast, DiBasillo said he has had few problems with the county’s licensed cannabis farmers.

He said many of those licensed growers act as “eyes and ears” for sheriff’s investigators seeking to crack down on illegal cultivation and related environmental crimes, including siphoning water from sensitive streams and illegal dumping of toxins and pesticides.

The county, with three code enforcement officers funded by cannabis fees, filed abatement notices against 159 unpermitted gardens and issued 224 citations, seeking fines of $551,000.

Even under the best of financial circumstances, with the county using money from permitted cultivation to fund police and abatement programs, DiBasilio said it would take “three or four years” to drive illegal cultivation from the county’s secluded wooded landscape.

“Holy cow, we have had legal alcohol for years,” the sheriff said, “and there are still bootleggers.”

Don't worry they will lose!
Palm Desert and Southern California can make up for the HILLBILLY'S bigoted decision to go against the benefit's from CANNABIS.
We grow very good cannabis as well. (outdoor's even!)
Let them struggle with their BRONZED aged ideal's?

 

[Baron23]

You got to be kidding....is there nothing that government can't fuck up? sigh.


California Medical Board Adopting New Cannabis Guidelines

he Medical Board of California (MBC) will vote today (10/27) to adopt “Guidelines for the Recommendation of Cannabis for Medical Purposes.” The guidelines were drafted by a two-member task force that relied heavily on input from the Center for Medical Cannabis Research (CMCR) at UC San Diego. The MBC task force has dropped the most onerous provisions promoted by the Federation of State Medical Boards in their “model guidelines.” (Read the background here.)

“Thankfully absent” from the guidelines the California board will vote on today, according to Steve Robinson, MD, are provisions that would allow only a patient’s primary physician to approve their use of cannabis; create a registry of cannabis-using patients; require that a patient be seen in person before an initial approval is issued; make cannabis a treatment of last resort (after the pharmaceuticals have failed); and trigger investigations of physicians based on number of approvals issued.

Robinson is concerned that a “Decision Tree” developed by the CMCR as an attachment to the MBC guidelines could yet make cannabis a treatment of last resort. (See graphic below.) Given the CMCR’s prestige, the medical board’s power, and the fact that very few physicians have had any education with respect to cannabis, the handy “Decision Tree” is likely to be widely used.



Dr. Robinson comments,

“The proposed Decision Tree could be interpreted as a retreat from the more ‘progressive’ stance of the draft guidelines, which state, “A patient need not have failed on all standard medications in order for a physician to recommend or approve the use of cannabis for medical purposes.”

The Decision Tree needs to reflect this policy, which could be done by moving the choice point of “willing to consider cannabis” up from the fifth-tier decision level to the third-tier decision level, on par with “Standard RX.”

The session will be webcast — view it here — and members of the public can comment and ask questions.

Perhaps at today’s meeting, the board will decide to reconfigure the “Decision Tree.” The session will be webcast and members of the public can comment and ask questions. Hard to say when they’ll get to agenda item 18 — MBC publicist Jennifer Simoes guesses between 10 a.m. and noon. The number to call is 888-455-9726 and the passcode is 8280664. “Callers will be asked to verbally provide this code to the operator to enter the meeting,” says the agenda.

The MBC guidelines also include a sample “Agreement” that physicians can give pain patients to sign upon granting approval to use cannabis. This one-sided “Agreement,” since its debut as a handout at the August 30 meeting of the MBC’s Cannabis Task Force, has been critiqued by Dale Gieringer of California NORML and the Society of Cannabis Clinicians. Its authors (CMCR psychiatrists Igor Grant, MD, and Brad Wilsey, MD) have made substantial revisions.

Your correspondent thinks the “Agreement” is inherently misleading — cannabis is not a dangerous drug — and demeaning to patients. In the retro spirit of the Cannabis plant itself, O’Shaughnessy’s hereby provides an Agreement for patients to present to their doctors:

O’Shaughnessy’s Agreement for Physicians Issuing Cannabis Approvals

Date:

I, ______________ (clinician name) am treating. _______________ (name of patient) for chronic pain.

1. I acknowledge that in medical school I learned nothing about the body’s endocannabinoid system or cannabis as medicine.

2. I began approving cannabis use by patients in _________________ (year)

3.. To educate myself about medicinal cannabis I have

• taken CME courses (please list)

• read relevant books and periodicals (please list)

• attended conferences on medicinal cannabis (please list)

4. I belong to a group of clinicians who share findings and observations re cannabis, and keep abreast of the emerging scientific and clinical evidence.

5. In treating pregnant women, I follow the “Best Practices Guidelines” developed by Wilson-King and Sexton for the Society of Cannabis Clinicians.

6. I am familiar with the findings of Tashkin et al showing that cannabis smoking does not cause lung cancer or exacerbate COPD.

7. In general, I consider whole plant cannabis extracts more efficacious than single-molecule formulations.

8. Facilitating socialization is one of the major benefits of cannabis use. I support on-site consumption at cannabis dispensaries.

9. I strongly urge patients not to get behind the wheel when they’re stoned —an assessment only they can make.

10. Annual re-evaluations are required by medical board guidelines though in many cases they place an unnecessary, costly burden on patients.

11. I consider it unfair and unAmerican that patients who do not use cannabis at work and who have shown no signs of impairment on the job can be fired on the basis of metabolites in their urine.

12. I am familiar with the extensive Clinical Evidence showing that pain patients can reduce or eliminate use of opiates, sedative-hypnotics and/or alcohol by using cannabis instead.​

 

[Baron23]

High taxes could drive up marijuana prices and bolster the black market in California, analysis says

High taxes on legal marijuana in California could have the potential to turn many consumers away from the state’s cannabis shops and toward the black market, according to a report from Fitch Ratings.

The credit rating agency estimates state and local taxes on marijuana, which will become legal in California on Jan. 1., could be as high as 45 percent in some cases. It would trail only Washington state, which levies a 50 percent tax on marijuana.

“The existing black market for cannabis may prove a formidable competitor to legal markets if new taxes lead to higher prices than available from illicit sources,” the report says.

Recreational marijuana will be taxed on both the state and local level, contributing to the potential for high rates. California will impose a 15 percent excise tax, as well as cultivation taxes. Municipalities will also levy sales tax and a business tax, which could be anywhere from 1 to 20 percent, on gross receipts. Business taxes on recreational marijuana have been approved by voters in 61 California cities and counties, according to the report.

These high tax rates have the potential to drive customers toward the black market. The state is the nation’s epicenter of marijuana growing and has long provided black market pot. The report states that Colorado, Oregon and Washington all reduced tax rates after the commencement of legalization to shift customers back toward the legal market.



California will implement a statewide framework for marijuana legalization, but each municipality must decide whether it wants to house marijuana businesses and, if so, map out its own regulations and tax structure. This may lead to a playing field that is not level in terms of tax revenue. Some cities like Adelanto, about 85 miles northeast of Los Angeles, are using the cultivation of marijuana as an economic development strategy. In Monterey County in northern California, the local government is encouraging cannabis growers to use its vacant greenhouses.

[ Wildfires scorched marijuana crops, possibly complicating California’s rollout of legal sales ]

The report says that legalization brings extremely high stakes for parts of the state, including the so-called Emerald Triangle in northern California. Trinity, Shasta and Mendocino counties encompass the triangle, which has long been the U.S. marijuana-growing mecca. The report said legalization could do what many small farmers fear: create large-scale marijuana farms that undercut the small, often family-run operations that have proliferated in the region for decades.

If other new marijuana markets are an indication, California will likely start with high sales that gradually slow over time. The report cites Colorado’s Legislative Council Staff, which estimates 44 percent revenue growth from marijuana in the 2016-17 fiscal years, slowing to 25 and 10 percent increases in the subsequent years.

One issue in California, however, is that both the state and many municipalities have not released their regulations, leaving businesses in limbo just weeks before legalization. Some cities, including San Francisco, have admitted they will not have their regulations in place for the start of legalization on Jan. 1.

 

[ataxian]

High taxes could drive up marijuana prices and bolster the black market in California, analysis says

High taxes on legal marijuana in California could have the potential to turn many consumers away from the state’s cannabis shops and toward the black market, according to a report from Fitch Ratings.

The credit rating agency estimates state and local taxes on marijuana, which will become legal in California on Jan. 1., could be as high as 45 percent in some cases. It would trail only Washington state, which levies a 50 percent tax on marijuana.

“The existing black market for cannabis may prove a formidable competitor to legal markets if new taxes lead to higher prices than available from illicit sources,” the report says.

Recreational marijuana will be taxed on both the state and local level, contributing to the potential for high rates. California will impose a 15 percent excise tax, as well as cultivation taxes. Municipalities will also levy sales tax and a business tax, which could be anywhere from 1 to 20 percent, on gross receipts. Business taxes on recreational marijuana have been approved by voters in 61 California cities and counties, according to the report.

These high tax rates have the potential to drive customers toward the black market. The state is the nation’s epicenter of marijuana growing and has long provided black market pot. The report states that Colorado, Oregon and Washington all reduced tax rates after the commencement of legalization to shift customers back toward the legal market.



California will implement a statewide framework for marijuana legalization, but each municipality must decide whether it wants to house marijuana businesses and, if so, map out its own regulations and tax structure. This may lead to a playing field that is not level in terms of tax revenue. Some cities like Adelanto, about 85 miles northeast of Los Angeles, are using the cultivation of marijuana as an economic development strategy. In Monterey County in northern California, the local government is encouraging cannabis growers to use its vacant greenhouses.

[ Wildfires scorched marijuana crops, possibly complicating California’s rollout of legal sales ]

The report says that legalization brings extremely high stakes for parts of the state, including the so-called Emerald Triangle in northern California. Trinity, Shasta and Mendocino counties encompass the triangle, which has long been the U.S. marijuana-growing mecca. The report said legalization could do what many small farmers fear: create large-scale marijuana farms that undercut the small, often family-run operations that have proliferated in the region for decades.

If other new marijuana markets are an indication, California will likely start with high sales that gradually slow over time. The report cites Colorado’s Legislative Council Staff, which estimates 44 percent revenue growth from marijuana in the 2016-17 fiscal years, slowing to 25 and 10 percent increases in the subsequent years.

One issue in California, however, is that both the state and many municipalities have not released their regulations, leaving businesses in limbo just weeks before legalization. Some cities, including San Francisco, have admitted they will not have their regulations in place for the start of legalization on Jan. 1.

MY OPINION for what it's worth?

The GOLDEN TRIANGLE was a great place to hide while growing.
However SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA grow very amazing CANNABIS. (more open)
DESERT land is being taken by CORPORATION'S like crazy.

The GOLDEN TRIANGLE is a great place to grow for sure!
Please don't under estimate GROWERS from other places?
DUMP TRUCK'S full of fertilizer's + NATURAL WIND'S + IRRIGATION WATER?

$500 for a OZ was the price a few year's ago.
$100 for a OZ now?

Other COUNTRIES are growing as well.

MEXICO is growing MEDICAL GRADE CANNABIS.
NAFTA will open our border's! (legal help's)

$38.00/OZ = coming price with TAX

 

[momofthegoons]

$38.00/OZ = coming price with TAX

That would be taking prices back to what they were back in the '70's...... man wouldn't that be nice?

Of course.. the taxes...

 

[ataxian]

That would be taking prices back to what they were back in the '70's...... man wouldn't that be nice?

Of course.. the taxes...

Not to take credit for $38/OZ.
I got this figure from a NORML piece.

 

[Baron23]

That would be taking prices back to what they were back in the '70's...... man wouldn't that be nice?

Of course.. the taxes...

yeah, 70's price for brick weed...$38/oz for what we grow now would be wonderful.

The point of the article, however, is (at least I think it is) about how our venal, parasitic, blood sucking, lying ass, self-entitled politicians plan to tax the shit out of it so no matter what the price of the weed is from increased competition, grow tech, etc, it will be undermined by them slapping up to a 45% tax on it.

And why do politicians like tax revenue....because they then turn that money into entitlements for whichever demographic whose votes they are courting....in other words, they give people other people's money in return for votes.

Just the way it is these days of our shameless scumbag professional political class.

 

[Baron23]

Well, I can say that IMO there is one idiot mentioned in this story, but its not the MJ advocates.

“You idiot!”: Cursing councilman goes on tirade against marijuana advocates


By Benjy Egel, The Sacramento Bee

Mayor pro tem Tony Hesch cursed out a resident last week during a City Council meeting for interrupting him during a debate on keeping some marijuana policies under local control in Colfax, California.

Hesch referred to pro-marijuana advocates as “people who have wasted our freaking time” over the last three years. He and Mayor Steve Harvey repeatedly called for order as audience members objected to that characterization. When Mark Younggren continued to question the council, Hesch flew into a rage.

“I was the one speaking, you idiot!” Hesch yelled, slamming his fist onto a table. “You shut the (expletive) up when somebody’s talking.”

Hesch doubled down on his words as other Colfax City Council representatives attempted to defuse the situation.

“I’m not going to settle down,” he said. “That’s just plain ridiculous, childish, unbelievable activities by you guys.”

More odd news

• Snack attack: New Jersey cops bust illegal op selling infused dog biscuits and pot pretzels
• Amazon primo shipment: Florida couple receives surprise 65 lbs weed with order
• Family-run plumbing business was front for illegal marijuana grow op in Massachusetts
• Soft on crime? Candidate advocates use of drug-sniffing bunnies
• 2 briefly escape Oklahoma jail to visit girlfriends, smoke weed

Hesch voted in favor of the ordinance regulating cannabis growth, cultivation, delivery and sales at the local level in anticipation of statewide legalization early next year. A Colfax resident who ran the town’s lone dispensary before its 2012 closure had his business license renewed at the previous council meeting despite Hesch and Harvey’s opposition.

Hesch and Younggren had previously sparred over the issue, but Wednesday’s meeting marked a new level of confrontation, Younggren told CBS13. The mayor pro tem has served on the Colfax City Council since 2012, when he was appointed to fill a vacant position. Earlier this year, he announced plans to step down from the council, but then reversed his decision, according to a report in the Colfax Record.

As Wednesday’s meeting returned to order, Hesch fired one more shot at Younggren and others interested in opening dispensaries in Colfax.

“All you’re doing is wanting to make money,” Hesch said. “You don’t give a damn about anybody in this community, you just want to make money. You should be ashamed of yourself.”

Information from: The Sacramento Bee (Sacramento, Calif.)

 

[Baron23]

California slapping high taxes on marijuana, causing sticker shock for some

California’s legal marijuana marketplace is coming with a kaleidoscope of new taxes and fees that could influence where it’s grown, how pot cookies and other munchies are produced and the price tag on just about everything.

Be ready for sticker shock.

RELATED: Will high taxes allow black market in pot to thrive?

On a retail level, it costs about $35 to buy a small bag of good quality medical marijuana in Los Angeles, enough to roll five or six joints.

Brennan Linsley / Associated Press
But in 2018, when recreational sales take hold and additional taxes kick in, the cost of that same purchase in the new market is expected to increase at the retail counter to $50 or $60.

At the high end, that’s about a 70% jump.

RELATED: Veteran pot growers see the end of a way of life

Medical pot purchases are expected to rise in cost too, but not as steeply, industry experts say.

Or consider cannabis leaves, a sort of bottom-shelf product that comes from trimming prized plant buds. The loose, snipped leaves are typically gathered up and processed for use in cannabis-laced foods, ointments, concentrates and candies.

Growers sell a trash bag stuffed with clippings to manufacturers for about $50. But come January, the state will tax those leaves at $44 a pound.

That means the tax payment on a bag holding 7 or 8 pounds would exceed the current market price by five or six times, forcing a huge price hike or, more likely, rendering it essentially valueless.

“All it would become is compost,” predicted Ryan Jennemann of THC Design in Los Angeles, whose company has used the leaves to manufacture concentrated oils.

Governments struggling to keep up with the cost of everything from worker pensions to paving streets are eager for the cascade of new tax money from commercial pot sales that could eventually top $1 billion statewide.

But higher taxes for businesses and consumers give the state’s thriving illicit market a built-in advantage. Operators in the legal market have been urging regulators to be aggressive about shutting down rogue operators.

Donnie Anderson, a Los Angeles medical cultivator and retailer, predicted the higher level of state taxation next year is “just going to help the illicit market thrive.” He said more needs to be done to cut the cost, especially for medical users, many of whom won’t be able to absorb a price jump.

The increased tax rates are just one part of California’s sprawling plan to transform its long-standing medical and illegal markets into a multibillion-dollar regulated economy, the nation’s largest legal pot shop. The reshaping of such an expansive illegal economy into a legal one hasn’t been witnessed since the end of Prohibition in 1933.

The change has come haltingly. Many cities are unlikely to be ready by Jan. 1 to issue business licenses, which are needed to operate in the new market, while big gaps remain in the system intended to move cannabis from the field to distribution centers, then to testing labs and eventually retail shops.

The path to legalization began last year when voters approved Proposition 64, which opened the way for recreational pot sales to adults. Medical marijuana has been legal in California for about two decades.

Come January, state taxes will include a 15% levy on purchases of all cannabis and cannabis products, including medical pot.

Local governments are free to slap on taxes on sales and growing too, and that has created a confusing patchwork of rates that vary city to city, county to county.

In the agricultural hub of Salinas, southeast of San Francisco, voters approved a tax that will eventually rise to $25 a square foot for space used to cultivate the leafy plants, a rate that’s equivalent to about $1 million an acre.

But farther north, in the pot-growing mecca of Humboldt County, rates will be a comparative bargain, ranging from $1 to $3 for a square foot for cultivation space.

By some estimates Humboldt County has up to 15,000 unregulated pot grows, and Supervisor Ryan Sundberg said he was eager to fashion a tax scheme that would encourage cultivators to come into the legal system and adhere to environmental regulations.

 

[Baron23]

CA is so, so, so fucked up.

"He argued the board was ignoring the will of the voters, who approved the decriminalization of marijuana last year with Proposition 64."

“Every one of our districts voted in favor of Proposition 64,'' Nelson said. “That should mean something.''

Are we yet seeing a common theme here of professional politicians thwarting the expressed direct will of the electorate? This is really a much bigger issue that just MMJ/MJ legalization. This is a threat to the fundamental principles of our country. These asshats need to be run out of town.


Orange County moves to ban marijuana sales and distribution

The Orange County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday gave preliminary approval to an ordinance banning marijuana sales, distribution and cultivation in unincorporated parts of the county.

Orange County Supervisor Shawn Nelson cast the lone dissenting vote. He argued the board was ignoring the will of the voters, who approved the decriminalization of marijuana last year with Proposition 64.

The new state law, which takes effect Jan. 1, allows for the recreational use of marijuana for residents 21 and older and the cultivation of up to six plants.

The Legislature approved a law this year allowing cities and counties to approve bans, preventing the issuing of licenses in those areas.

“Every one of our districts voted in favor of Proposition 64,'' Nelson said. “That should mean something.''

Supervisor Lisa Bartlett said she spoke with some elected officials in Colorado, where marijuana was legalized, and reported they had regrets since then.

“It's true no one's ever died of a [marijuana] overdose, but [emergency room] visits skyrocketed there,'' she said, adding many children were hospitalized after finding edible marijuana and consuming it.

Supervisor Todd Spitzer argued that the county was only adopting what all but just two cities in the county have approved. Costa Mesa is allowing for medical marijuana research and development, and Santa Ana will allow for production of marijuana in 20 spots in the city.

Seal Beach and Lake Forest have not decided whether to enact a ban.

 

[Baron23]

Oh for heaven's sake....now they are squabbling over who is the most liberal and culturally sensitive. FFS.

It’s looking unlikely San Francisco residents will be able to buy legal weed Jan. 1

At this point, recreational marijuana would only be available Jan. 1 if supervisors meet in special session


By Janie Har, The Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO — San Francisco supervisors delayed voting Tuesday on proposed pot regulations, making it more unlikely that people in this weed-friendly city will be able to buy recreational pot when adult use becomes legal Jan. 1 in California.

Supervisors have had a hard time fashioning local rules for pot shops as older members of the Chinese immigrant community have come out against placing retail stores too close to schools, daycare centers and anywhere else that children might gather.

Tuesday’s board meeting in San Francisco was emotional, with some supervisors arguing to get temporary rules on the books for the first day of legal sales while others urged the board to take more time to make the regulations right.

San Francisco Supervisor Malia Cohen asked the board to hold off until it could meet again in two weeks, saying a stop-gap measure to allow existing marijuana outlets to sell recreational weed Jan. 1 would only benefit existing operators, who are not African Americans, veterans, women or other traditionally marginalized groups.

“Doing this ensures that the final legislation passed is thoughtful, culturally sensitive and the best legislation for the city of San Francisco,” Cohen said.

Supervisor Aaron Peskin said passing the temporary measure would give the board more time to hash out rules and send a signal that San Francisco “is ready to enter the dawn of the 21st century.”

Related stories

• Weed-friendly San Francisco facing challenges with recreational rules
• With 9 weeks to go, California’s cities not positioned to start recreational marijuana sales
• How many Californians will be able to buy recreational cannabis on Jan. 1?
• Which Bay Area cities will allow recreational marijuana sales in January? (hint: not many)
• Eaze accelerating marijuana delivery tech with $27 million investment

Recreational pot might be available in San Francisco in the first week of January, if officials meet a tight timeline requiring the mayor’s quick approval. It could also be ready Jan. 1 if supervisors meet in special session.

San Francisco isn’t the only California city struggling with local permits, which growers and retailers need in order to apply for a state license. Los Angeles is still working on its rules.

The state expects to release emergency regulations later this month and has said it will begin issuing temporary licenses on New Year’s Day.

Lori Ajax, the state’s top state marijuana regulator, has said she doesn’t know how many growers or retailers will come forward to seek licenses. It’s a critical question, since the state’s legitimate pot sales could be undercut by illegal operators.

Jeff Sheehy, a San Francisco supervisor who uses medical marijuana to mitigate pain from older HIV medications, pleaded with the board to adopt the temporary measure.

“Taking the time to get the piece right makes a lot of sense, but not having something available on Jan. 1, I think that makes us look bad,” he said.

He and other cannabis advocates prefer a 600-foot (183-meter) buffer zone between pot shops and schools, comparable to the distance now required for stores that sell liquor or tobacco.

But some Chinese-American organizations want future retail stores to be at least 1,500 feet (460 meters) away from schools, child-care centers and any other places where minors gather.

Several supervisors expressed outrage at the way cannabis advocates have characterized Chinese opponents, calling the comments racist and intolerant.

 

[Baron23]

Well, I'm sure if they tried really, really hard they could fuck this up more than they have. So look, I am all in favor of provisions that support and protect the botique grower (and I'm sorry but 1 acre is a back yard, not a farm) but along side that there is not way they can support their market without commercial growers. And that includes long time growers like Crockett Family Farms (most famous for Tangie and Strawberry Banana) . You going to cut them down to 1 acre? Wow.

California to limit cannabis farms to one acre per person until 2023

Until 2023, California cannabis farmers will not be allowed to grow more than 1 acre of marijuana, regardless of whether they are allowed to do so at the local level, according to an environmental review of proposed state regulations released this week.

Some in the industry are lauding this restriction as a way to protect small farmers over larger corporate mega-grows.

“I know this is going to be very difficult, costly and painful for some producers,” California Growers Association Executive Director Hezekiah Allen said Wednesday, “but when you look at the big picture and the entirety of the state of California or even bigger with the national cannabis reform movement, this is a very prudent decision to have been made.”

Others like Honeydew Farms LLC owners Alex and Miranda Moore of Ferndale, who have already been permitted to farm more than 1 acre, now find themselves potentially having to completely overhaul their business plan just six weeks before the statewide marijuana market opener in January.

The couple has more than 6 acres of medical cannabis cultivation that has been permitted by Humboldt County and are already about a year-and-a-half into their operations.

“It’s frustrating,” Alex Moore said Wednesday. “Ultimately, I’m staying positive. If Honeydew Farms has farms for our company and ends up being landlords with the rest and leasing to other companies then so be it.

“There is no other option. There is no going back,” he continued with a laugh.

STATE VS. LOCAL RULES
The Moores were one of the first farms in Humboldt County and likely the state to receive a county permit for a medical cannabis farm back in July 2016. At the time, the state’s medical marijuana laws under the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act were the only rules in place and included a license type that allowed up to 4 acres of cultivation.

However, after the passage of the recreational marijuana legalization measure Proposition 64 later that year and the state Legislature’s merging of the medical and recreational laws this year through Senate Bill 94, this 4-acre allowance did not make the cut.

“To just dump that and have us or how many others there are like us that have invested a lot into infrastructure and building a company and then to say, ‘We changed that, sorry,’ it’s kind of ridiculous,” Alex Moore said.

The 1-acre grow limit was released this week as part of the California Department of Food and Agriculture’s environmental review of the state’s revised cannabis cultivation rules. These revised rules are expected to be released Thursday along with others regulating testing, licensing and other aspects of the industry.

In order to be a legal cannabis grower in the state, a person must have both a state license and a local permit.

If the 1-acre limit is adopted, it would conflict with Humboldt County’s efforts to expand its cannabis industry, with the county’s draft ordinance currently allowing for grows larger than 1 acre.

Despite this, county Planning and Building Department Director John Ford said he does not expect the county will change its ordinance.

“We’re trying to maintain a completely separate kind of path that is independent, but not in conflict,” Ford said Wednesday.

So while the Moores might be permitted to cultivate 4 acres of cannabis at the local level, the state will only license 1 acre of that. That means the other acres will either have to be leased out to other people or sold, Ford said — at least until 2023.

“That doesn’t mean the permits that we have issued are invalid,” Ford said.

While there have been a few farms that have been permitted to grow more than 1 acre, Ford said the vast majority of cannabis farm applications in Humboldt County seek to grow under 1 acre.

WHY ONE ACRE?
Allen and others have said the 1-acre limitation is not a surprise, especially after Senate Bill 94 did not include the 4-acre cultivation allowance.

“I have, at times, been critical of the speculators who are promoting the green rush,” Allen said Wednesday. “There was some willful ignorance here where they read what they wanted to in the law. They wanted to go big and want to go industrial. Our read of the law has always been clear that the limit is one acre.”

Allen said that it goes against the state’s interests to allow for farms larger than one acre.

“Consolidating the marketplace runs counter to the public safety and environmental goals that the state is trying to achieve,” he said. “... The [environmental impact report] is very clear in one of the preceding sections that oversupply is a problem. If the state of California has too much product, it’s likely to drive people back into the unregulated market.”

Allen said that while they supported the 4-acre allowance under the old rules, the association also supports the one-acre limit.

“At this point, it is very unlikely that four-acre allowance will be coming back,” Allen said. “The response that I’m hearing from our membership and organization is this is probably the most prudent, responsible and impactful policy decision that has been made to cannabis to date.”

This reporter’s attempts to contact the Department of Food and Agriculture press office were not returned by Wednesday afternoon.

California’s cannabis laws under Senate Bill 94 prohibits the state from issuing licenses for farms larger than 1 acre before Jan. 1, 2023. While some may celebrate the limitation as a win for small farmers, Alex Moore said he doesn’t think it will change much and will only delay the influx of larger farms.

“I see it as mega corporations are going to own these huge greenhouse facilities and lease square footage to different businesses regardless of how many businesses there are [in the statewide market],” he said. “There will be more companies out there, but I don’t think it will cap the amount of cannabis that will be produced. It means more people will hold those licenses. Then that’s only for five years.”

Alex Moore said that the state should make an exception for farms like his, which were following existing state laws at the time they were permitted.

“This whole industry is a roller coaster ride right now. That route might change,” he said. “We’re going to be riding the roller coaster, and whatever changes happen, we’ll absorb them and that will be that.”

 

[Baron23]

Wow...yeah, the title of this article is a bit of an understatement, I think.


Californians, you should probably keep your medical marijuana cards in 2018

California's cannabis program remains up in the air less than two months before launch. The safest bet might be to remain a patient, even within a legal climate.

Everyone’s anticipating the rollout of California's adult-use cannabis program in 2018, but medical marijuana patients may want to hold onto their recommendations just a little bit longer. Come January 1st, Californians likely still won't be able to ditch their medical cards and simply buy weed from a retailer.

Even in an adult-use market, having a medical marijuana recommendation will come with its own set of benefits, like reduced prices — adult-use weed is expected to cost 14 to 20 percent more than medical — and access to a greater number of dispensaries..

But that's not all: medical marijuana patients can purchase cannabis starting at age 18, rather than having to wait until they're 21. Moreover, having a medical recommendation on your person means you have the right to carry medical cannabis freely, without trouble from law enforcement. Otherwise, under Prop 64, you can only carry up to an ounce in public.

"With 482 municipalities in California and 58 counties, essentially all of them have to make the decision themselves whether they'll allow adult-use dispensaries, so if they don't allow for recreational licenses and someone in the county wants to get cannabis, they'll only be able to get it if they have a [medical] recommendation," explains Dr. Perry Solomon, chief medical officer at HelloMD.

What's more, he explains, medical patients can maintain relationships with their doctors in order to learn about the kind of cannabis they should take for their particular conditions. "You're essentially at the whim and knowledge of the budtender [in a dispensary], but if you're older, middle aged, or what not and you know nothing [about cannabis], you won't get much of an education. Is it worth $49 to get advice for your medical conditions, in privacy without people hanging around, in a HIPAA-compliant, medically oriented setting?"

Nonetheless, not every patient is keeping tabs on California's messy rollout of its adult-use market — and once their medical recommendations expire, they may not know better to renew them. Solomon suspects he eventually may lose business, but so far it’s holding steady.

"People are renewing [their recommendations] at regular rates and nothing I've seen compels me to tell them not to," says Los Angeles medical marijuana doctor Dean Weiss. "I think one way or another they'll save money."

In fact, the prices on adult-use cannabis are expected to be so exorbitantly high, due to heavy taxes, that even the black market is expected to see a boost.

"To just keep your [medical] rec is probably good advice," echoes Susan Soares, organizer behind The State of Cannabis. She says her own recommendation doesn't expire, and she suggests other medical marijuana patients ask their doctors to write the same clause on their own recommendations.

Most people's medical cannabis recommendations expire after a year (for some, even less), but there's nothing written into California’s current medical law that mandates an expiration date, says Soares (however the Medical Board of California does advise doctors to follow a one-year limit).

If your personal physician or another doctor who doesn't specialize in medical marijuana writes your recommendation, it might be worth a shot to ask them to have it not expire. But Soares also cautions that the question of renewing your recommendation, in and of itself, is premature.

With less than two months to go, the Golden State still has not released final regulations for its cannabis program, which will implement similar rules across both the adult-use and medical markets. There's a great deal of speculation and worry as to how they will play out, including one rumor that everyone will need to renew their medical marijuana recommendations come January 1st anyway.

Like everyone else in the freshly legal cannabis industry, including business owners, manufacturers, and cultivators, so too will patients and everyday consumers have to wait and see how to move forward with adult-use pot in California.

 

[Baron23]

"Preliminary information from the state indicated a maximum 1-acre (0.4-hectare) cap would be set on most cultivators. In what would be a major shift, the regulations did not include that language, placing limits on only certain growers’ licenses."


California issues emergency marijuana rules with 45 days to go to recreational sales
The emergency rules will allow the state to begin issuing temporary licenses for growers, distributors and sellers next year


By Michael R. Blood, The Associated Press

LOS ANGELES — The largest legal marijuana marketplace in the U.S. is taking shape — at least on paper.

California regulators released long-awaited rules Thursday that will govern the state’s emerging cannabis economy, from fields to retail sales.

The regulations have been in development for many months and in some cases covered familiar ground: At first, the state will issue only temporary licenses to growers and retailers, provided they have a local permit to open for business.

Other changes appeared significant.

Preliminary information from the state indicated a maximum 1-acre (0.4-hectare) cap would be set on most cultivators. In what would be a major shift, the regulations did not include that language, placing limits on only certain growers’ licenses. However, the state must also ensure it doesn’t violate any local rules.

Hezekiah Allen, executive director of the California Growers Association, an industry group, said the rules appeared to allow large businesses to obtain “as many licenses as they could afford,” opening the way for vast grows that could threaten the success of smaller cannabis farmers.

The state “could have just opened the door for well-capitalized interests … to really jeopardize the success of the marketplace,” he said.

With the state already saturated with marijuana, it could “make an oversupply problem into an oversupply crisis,” he added.

Voters last year legalized the recreational use of marijuana beginning Jan. 1. The market that has been valued at $7 billion, and within several years the state expects to collect up to $1 billion in new taxes.

The emergency rules will allow the state to begin issuing temporary licenses for growers, distributors and sellers next year.

But they come just 45 days before legal sales can kick off, and many problems remain.

Related stories

• It’s looking unlikely San Francisco residents will be able to buy legal weed Jan. 1
• Weed-friendly San Francisco facing challenges with recreational rules
• California’s new cannabis market will bring sticker shock to consumers
• Fears mount for California MMJ patients over “cannabis deserts”
• With 9 weeks to go, California’s cities not positioned to start recreational marijuana sales

Some predict high taxes will drive consumers to the black market.

Most banks won’t do business with cannabis companies, and Los Angeles and San Francisco are among many cities without local rules in place.

Meanwhile, big gaps loom in the system intended to move cannabis from the field to distribution centers, then to testing labs and eventually retail shops.

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

Come January, the newly legalized recreational sales will be merged with the state’s two-decade-old medical marijuana market, which is also coming under much stronger regulation.

According to the regulations, annual fees for cultivation licenses could be nearly $80,000, or as little as $1,200, based on production.

 

[momofthegoons]

“This whole industry is a roller coaster ride right now.

Boy is this the understatement of the year....

 

[ataxian]

Boy is this the understatement of the year....

I think it will take another cycle for the POLITICIANS to act according to the people?

 

[Baron23]

This is too f'd up for words.

High-profile cannabis foe with medical marijuana card sues pair who allegedly disclosed it

Matthew Martin, treasurer of the Kern County Young Republicans, has sued former Bakersfield mayoral candidate T.J. Esposito and former Bakersfield City Councilman Mark Salvaggio for releasing his private medical records.

The case had its first court hearing Tuesday.

The legal drama plays out against the backdrop of the passionate debate over commercial cannabis that has taken place in the county of Kern and the city of Bakersfield over the past several months.

And it seems to center around a document Martin’s attorney Doug Gosling tried to keep private in court Tuesday.

POLITICS

Martin is an employee of Western Pacific Research, a Republican political consulting firm that represents a number of clients who have voted against marijuana, including Councilwoman Jacquie Sullivan, the public face of an effort organizers have dubbed Kern County-Get Off the Pot.

Martin’s father, Ridgecrest City Councilman Wallace Martin, has spoken out passionately in support of a ban on cannabis in Kern County.

And Matthew Martin himself has spoken out against the adult use of marijuana.

“We’re suffering a deficit right now of motivation and morality. This is another means to keep people high, sitting on their couch and they’re not out there fighting for what they believe in or working for their families,” Martin told interviewer Kelly Gladden on an Oct. 19 Canoodle Studios show.

He told her, however, that there were legitimate uses for medical marijuana.

And he apparently put that belief into action.

According to an e-mail obtained by The Californian, Matthew Martin himself has a doctor’s recommendation to use medical marijuana.

It appears that is the information that triggered Martin’s suit against Esposito and Salvaggio.

Esposito was a flamboyant candidate for the Bakersfield mayoral seat now held by Western Pacific Research client Karen Goh. Esposito has spent a lot of time recently as an advocate for the local legalization of marijuana.

Salvaggio is an internet gadfly with a sharp sense of humor and a long memory of Kern County political history. He regularly barbs Martin, Western Pacific Research and owners Mark and Cathy Abernathy in e-mails sent out to a massive local mailing list.

Martin, in his court filing, accuses Esposito of acquiring a document containing Martin’s “protected health information” and using it to try and force Martin to use his political connections to influence public policy on pot in favor of commercial marijuana.

Martin’s complaint states that “on or about” Oct. 22 at 9:30 p.m. Esposito sent him an e-mail containing a digital copy of his protected medical information.

The e-mail, Martin states, “made threats and demands on Martin and insinuated that Martin should attempt to influence the clients of his employer and attempt to influence public votes and public policy in favor of Esposito and the proliferation and commercialization of marijuana or the protected health information … would be illegally disseminated to the media, business owners and others.”

That e-mail was later sent to Salvaggio, Martin claims, and Salvaggio illegally distributed it to “third parties.”

EMAIL

Attorney Gabe Godinez, who representes Esposito, said Tuesday that the claims of extortion in Martin’s filings are false.

“That position is a complete fabrication,” Godinez said. “We’re going to fight that vigorously.”

Mr. Martin is a lobbyist and public figure and the issue of cannabis is of public concern given the serious and passionate debate over the topic in recent weeks, Godinez said.

Salvaggio, contacted Tuesday afternoon, stated he has never been served in the lawsuit and only learned about it through word of mouth.

“It will be resolved in court,” he said.

The core of the case appears to be an e-mail and document obtained by TBC Media on Oct. 23.

It contains a copy of an October 22 e-mail sent at 9:31 p.m. from Esposito to Martin with the subject line “found your marijuana license.”

The date and time match almost exactly the e-mail cited in Martin’s claim against Esposito and Salvaggio.

Two days later the Kern County Board of Supervisors was due to take up a vote on a plan to legalize and regulate commercial cannabis.

The e-mail claims that Martin left the attached doctors’ medical marijuana license in a mutual friend’s car and Esposito wants to return it, if Martin will agree to meet.

But Esposito is clearly not pleased with Martin and “his bosses.”

His first thought, he wrote, “was to fax it out to every business in Kern County, but then I thought what kind of (expletive) would do that?”

Rather than make the document public right before supervisors heard the matter, the e-mail reads, Esposito would trust county leaders to do the right thing.

But he clearly wanted something from Martin.

“I do want you and your guys to remember this next time you trash someone publicly. Remember everyone has baggage and this is a small town,” he said. “I would hope you and your bosses have a come to Jesus when you think it's okay to play dirty or talk bad about me to Sacramento lobbyists. Sometimes it's better to take the high road and keep your mouth shut.”

On Tuesday Martin and his attorney, Doug Gosling, declined to comment when asked about Martin’s medical marijuana recommendation.

Martin referred questions to Gosling, who said he “reserved comment due to pending litigation.”

COURT

On Tuesday Martin’s attorney Doug Gosling asked the court to issue an order preventing Espositio and Salvaggio from any additional release of his private medical information.

But Judge David Lampe wasn’t provided that private medical information and declined to approve the order.

“As I read this I didn’t think I could grant the stay. There is information missing,” Lampe said.

Gosling didn’t want the documents included in the public record and offered to show Lampe the information in the judge’s chambers.

But Attorney Jeffrey Wise, standing in for Godinez on Esposito’s behalf, opposed Gosling’s argument, saying he couldn’t defend his client unless he was able to see what he was defending him from.

Lampe agreed with Wise.

“I have to have a record of what I’m reviewing,” he said. “I can’t just take documents and look at them without the other side knowing what I’m looking at.”

Lampe ordered Gosling to deliver sealed copies of the documents to him and Esposito’s lawyers.

The case returns to court at 8:30 a.m. on Dec. 1.