Law California

[Baron23]

So, the people of CA voted for this and as soon as they did, self-entitled fucking local politicians started to pass restrictions that will basically prohibit the industry, or at least any industry other than large corporate efforts (but the 22K square foot rule might cause them to grow elsewhere also).

CA seems to have a lot of asshat local politicians. Shame because the comment below is correct, in the face of these prohibitionist regulations, the black market will continue to thrive, IMO

SLO County adopts new marijuana rules: No shops, no outdoor personal plants

It’s official: Residents in unincorporated areas of San Luis Obispo County won’t find marijuana stores in their communities, won’t be able to grow plants for personal use outside, and likely won’t see many licensed cannabis farms.

Those are just some of the expected effects of the 52 pages of rules the Board of Supervisors adopted on Monday under a commercial cannabis ordinance for communities outside city limits. The rules also apply to existing medical marijuana farms that have been operating in the county for as much as two decades, many of which will soon be out of compliance.

Supervisors Debbie Arnold, Lynn Compton and John Peschong voted to adopt the ordinance, which they called a “go slow” approach to commercial cannabis, meant to minimize conflict between neighbors. They said it’s a kind of a trial run and will be revisited next year.

Supervisors Adam Hill and Bruce Gibson voted against the ordinance, calling it overly burdensome bad policy that will drive business into the black market.

Larry and Candice Montenegro were struggling to pay the bills living in California Valley near Carrizo Plain. But now Larry Montengro delivers water pumped from his own two wells to about 60 marijuana growers in the area. They say the cannabis industry has been good for the California Valley economy.

Monica Vaughan The Tribune
The ordinance passed during the fifth public hearing in two months on the issue.

Supervisors heard from residents concerned about the odor of marijuana grows and worried about crime and water use. But they mostly heard from entrepreneurs and longtime medical marijuana growers who said they would be unable to meet the new rules, which would drive them out of business or prevent them from even starting.

To enforce the rules, the board adopted a plan to create a cannabis enforcement hearings officer who will have the ability to order the removal of plants faster than the county’s court process.

Realistically, there won’t really be an industry here.

Marie Roth, SLO County Cannabis Business Association

Just weeks before the state will begin issuing licenses to recreational cannabis businesses, the new county land-use ordinance places tight restrictions on the size and zone where marijuana activities will be allowed, and prohibits some activities including storefront dispensaries and some kinds of manufacturing. It does allow for mobile deliveries.

“Realistically, there won’t really be an industry here. Those small businesses, the legacy growers — the people who have been growing — they’re just squeezed out,” said Marie Roth, president of the county Cannabis Business Association.

The rules for cultivation are strict. Only 141 of the preexisting grows that registered with the county during an urgency ordinance will be allowed to apply for a permit from the county, and many of those who might be able to apply are not on land that meets the requirements. No new farming applications will be accepted at this time.

It’s just not enough for all of us to keep our jobs.

Larry Rodriguez, cannabis farm worker

Here are some examples of the limits on cultivation:

▪ Outdoor cultivation in areas zoned as rural land has to be on sites larger than 50 acres, larger than 20 acres in residential rural and and larger than 10 acres in agricultural.

▪ All grows must be set back a minimum of 300 feet from each property line.

▪ The canopy area of indoor cultivation cannot exceed 22,000 square feet.

▪ All cultivation must be at least 1,000 feet from schools, sober-living facilities, or parks.

▪ Personal grows of up to six plants must be located indoors, which could include a greenhouse.

In addition, all cultivation sites must have an odor plan, and nuisance odors detected off-site will be found out of compliance.

“I understand the concern of having larger cannabis operations on properties that maybe weren’t anticipated for larger ag operations. But the unintended consequences of a blanket prohibition on any cannabis cultivation operation under 50 acres is that it eliminates the small family farm business. The board’s policies should be balanced to allow family farms to be successful, at least attempt to be successful and compete,” said Alan Reitz.

Some advocates said the limitations would hurt larger operations as well. Larry Rodriguez, for example, works on a large cannabis farm.

“When I started to work there there, there was only about 10 or 15 employees. It’s grown — now we have about 80 employees working there now. To have the size of the 22,000 square feet of cultivation, it’s just not enough for all of us to keep our jobs,” Rodriguez said.


Read more here: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article186803643.html#storylink=cpy

 

[ataxian]

So, the people of CA voted for this and as soon as they did, self-entitled fucking local politicians started to pass restrictions that will basically prohibit the industry, or at least any industry other than large corporate efforts (but the 22K square foot rule might cause t

Read more here: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article186803643.html#storylink=cpy

It's a matter of PERSPECTIVE!

CORPORATION's will have MULTIPLY story GROW'S!
ENGINEER'S are already drawing BLUE PRINT'S for COMPANIES!
LESS REAL ESTATE not a issue!

TOO EARLY to say what will happen?

NAFTA: MEXICO is growing MEDICAL GRADE CANNABIS instead of BRICK WEED?

 

[Baron23]

It's a matter of PERSPECTIVE!

CORPORATION's will have MULTIPLY story GROW'S!
ENGINEER'S are already drawing BLUE PRINT'S for COMPANIES!
LESS REAL ESTATE not a issue!

TOO EARLY to say what will happen?

NAFTA: MEXICO is growing MEDICAL GRADE CANNABIS instead of BRICK WEED?

Yeah, and it will be like tobacco with a few companies offering limited variety of homogenized shit. I personally do not mind corporate grows....they can grow efficiently, be controlled, will adhere to the regs, etc. But there must still, IMO, be a place for the boutique grower just like there is Mondavi wines and there is Larkmead Vineyards.

Cheers my friend.

 

[ataxian]

Yeah, and it will be like tobacco with a few companies offering limited variety of homogenized shit. I personally do not mind corporate grows....they can grow efficiently, be controlled, will adhere to the regs, etc. But there must still, IMO, be a place for the boutique grower just like there is Mondavi wines and there is Larkmead Vineyards.

Cheers my friend.

Like a green rush!

Small boutique grow's will be vogue like micro BREWERIES!

Politician's are lame for sure.
Now $$$ will drive this situation!

420 + GSC + GonG + FC 186 + 6.125 on my NANO dial = CIVILIZED CELEBRATION! Glass of CENTRAL COAST OLD VINE
My wife twisted my arm!
GSC for myself!

@Baron23 CIVILIZED is a great way to be!

 

[Baron23]

@Baron23 CIVILIZED is a great way to be!

Indeed it is, my friend, indeed it is.

 

[Baron23]

A Look At The Fallout From California’s Legalization Regulations
California’s legalization regulations have been updated, outlined and released by state authorities. So why aren’t more people happy in the Golden State?

Authorities from the Golden State have outlined California’s legalization regulations. These new regulations governing the legal cannabis market are to be officially instated on January 1.


Jointly drawn up by the Department of Health, Department of Food & Agriculture and the new Bureau of Cannabis Control, the regulations are meeting with some trepidation from the Golden State’s traditional cannabis sector.

The most controversial issue?

The regulations include no limit on the number of licenses a single grower can hold. Or the total acreage that one can farm.

Spectre Of Corporate Cannabis

This has inflamed fears that agricultural business could quickly overwhelm local producers and dominate the market.

“Frankly, this could be a catastrophe,” Hezekiah Allen, executive director of the California Growers Association, told the San Francisco Chronicle. “It creates a clear cut-and-dried advantage based on how much money a business has.”


State Senator Scott Wiener echoed these concerns. “By not limiting the amount of land that can be cultivated by any one operation, we are basically inviting mega industrial-scale operations into the state,” the San Francisco Democrat told the Chronicle. “It will squeeze out the small farmers that have been at the forefront of the industry for many, many years.”

With a touch of cynicism, the Chronicle recalled Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom.

He was a big backer of the 2016 voter initiative for legalization. At the time, he said that there would be no “new gold rush” of corporate cannabis. But “Newsom, who is running for governor, appears to be fine now with allowing for big growers.”

California’s Legalization Regulations and Equity

Then there are other controversies about California’s legalization regulations. Specifically, about permits.

Oakland city officials are reviewing 255 applications from individuals seeking permits to operate cannabis cultivation, distribution or sales outlets. Meanwhile, a grandfather clause protects the city’s eight medical marijuana dispensaries. That is, they don’t have to go through the application process. Although, in accordance with California’s legalization regulations, they will still need state licenses to operate as of January 1.

Oakland’s ordinance stipulates half of all permits must go to people who qualify under the city’s Equity Permit Program—aimed at addressing the issues of social and racial justice around the cannabis economy.

Here are those who qualify for “equity permits:” Those who have a conviction of a marijuana-related offense in Oakland. Those who earn an income less than 80 percent of the city average. Or have lived at least 10 years in an Oakland neighborhood that saw a high number of cannabis arrests.

Of the city’s 255 applications, 129 are from equity applicants.

But the equity program is meeting with some dissent from the industry. Robert Selna, an Oakland-based land-use attorney who represents cannabis enterprises, told the Chronicle: “The city is choosing winners and losers. If you are an equity applicant…you’re a winner.”

Sacramento councilmembers are also considering an equity project.

Affluent Marin County, where equity is less of a concern, has meanwhile bucked its hippie reputation and rejected all 10 applicants so far, leaving many to wonder if legal cannabis will now be allowed there at all.

Reefer Madness In San Francisco?

San Francisco has also seen an unlikely anti-cannabis backlash. Plans by Apothecarium company (with dispensaries in the city’s Castro, Marina and SoMa districts) to open an outlet in the Sunset neighborhood were scuttled in October when the Board of Supervisors upheld an appeal filed against the business.

“In the eyes of federal law, the Apothecarium is no different from a street-level crack dealer,” said Ray Hacke, a lawyer for the conservative Pacific Justice Institute, speaking to the Chronicle. Some have accused The Institute of playing on the fears of traditional residents in the heavily Asian American community. Their goal was alleged to mobilize them against the dispensary.

Supervisor Katy Tang, who represents the Sunset and ultimately voted with the 9-2 majority against the dispensary, also had some harsh words for the Pacific Justice Institute.

“I know you’ve latched onto many of the battles that have happened in the city, and particularly in the Sunset. Please stay out of it,” Tang said.

In another move that has disappointed the local industry, San Francisco’s Muni transit system has banned cannabis ads from its trains and stations.

Toxic Threat From Wildfires Seen

Finally, the countdown to legalization and California’s legalization regulations comes at an inauspicious moment, with many growers already hard hit by the wildfires that have devastated Northern California this fall.

In addition to much of the harvest being lost, Mendocino-based Project CBD is raising fears that much of what was saved may now be contaminated.

In a statement, Project CBD said it, “hopes that some lab in California will validate methods and offer tests to detect the major contaminants that result from the wildfires. We expect these will include benzene, toluene, benzopyrenes, and heavy metals, as well as some dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls.”

Not exactly favorable publicity for the nascent legal industry.

 

[ataxian]

A Look At The Fallout From California’s Legalization Regulations
California’s legalization regulations have been updated, outlined and released by state authorities. So why aren’t more people happy in the Golden State?

Authorities from the Golden State have outlined California’s legalization regulations. These new regulations governing the legal cannabis market are to be officially instated on January 1.


Jointly drawn up by the Department of Health, Department of Food & Agriculture and the new Bureau of Cannabis Control, the regulations are meeting with some trepidation from the Golden State’s traditional cannabis sector.

The most controversial issue?

The regulations include no limit on the number of licenses a single grower can hold. Or the total acreage that one can farm.

Spectre Of Corporate Cannabis

This has inflamed fears that agricultural business could quickly overwhelm local producers and dominate the market.

“Frankly, this could be a catastrophe,” Hezekiah Allen, executive director of the California Growers Association, told the San Francisco Chronicle. “It creates a clear cut-and-dried advantage based on how much money a business has.”


State Senator Scott Wiener echoed these concerns. “By not limiting the amount of land that can be cultivated by any one operation, we are basically inviting mega industrial-scale operations into the state,” the San Francisco Democrat told the Chronicle. “It will squeeze out the small farmers that have been at the forefront of the industry for many, many years.”

With a touch of cynicism, the Chronicle recalled Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom.

He was a big backer of the 2016 voter initiative for legalization. At the time, he said that there would be no “new gold rush” of corporate cannabis. But “Newsom, who is running for governor, appears to be fine now with allowing for big growers.”

California’s Legalization Regulations and Equity

Then there are other controversies about California’s legalization regulations. Specifically, about permits.

Oakland city officials are reviewing 255 applications from individuals seeking permits to operate cannabis cultivation, distribution or sales outlets. Meanwhile, a grandfather clause protects the city’s eight medical marijuana dispensaries. That is, they don’t have to go through the application process. Although, in accordance with California’s legalization regulations, they will still need state licenses to operate as of January 1.

Oakland’s ordinance stipulates half of all permits must go to people who qualify under the city’s Equity Permit Program—aimed at addressing the issues of social and racial justice around the cannabis economy.

Here are those who qualify for “equity permits:” Those who have a conviction of a marijuana-related offense in Oakland. Those who earn an income less than 80 percent of the city average. Or have lived at least 10 years in an Oakland neighborhood that saw a high number of cannabis arrests.

Of the city’s 255 applications, 129 are from equity applicants.

But the equity program is meeting with some dissent from the industry. Robert Selna, an Oakland-based land-use attorney who represents cannabis enterprises, told the Chronicle: “The city is choosing winners and losers. If you are an equity applicant…you’re a winner.”

Sacramento councilmembers are also considering an equity project.

Affluent Marin County, where equity is less of a concern, has meanwhile bucked its hippie reputation and rejected all 10 applicants so far, leaving many to wonder if legal cannabis will now be allowed there at all.

Reefer Madness In San Francisco?

San Francisco has also seen an unlikely anti-cannabis backlash. Plans by Apothecarium company (with dispensaries in the city’s Castro, Marina and SoMa districts) to open an outlet in the Sunset neighborhood were scuttled in October when the Board of Supervisors upheld an appeal filed against the business.

“In the eyes of federal law, the Apothecarium is no different from a street-level crack dealer,” said Ray Hacke, a lawyer for the conservative Pacific Justice Institute, speaking to the Chronicle. Some have accused The Institute of playing on the fears of traditional residents in the heavily Asian American community. Their goal was alleged to mobilize them against the dispensary.

Supervisor Katy Tang, who represents the Sunset and ultimately voted with the 9-2 majority against the dispensary, also had some harsh words for the Pacific Justice Institute.

“I know you’ve latched onto many of the battles that have happened in the city, and particularly in the Sunset. Please stay out of it,” Tang said.

In another move that has disappointed the local industry, San Francisco’s Muni transit system has banned cannabis ads from its trains and stations.

Toxic Threat From Wildfires Seen

Finally, the countdown to legalization and California’s legalization regulations comes at an inauspicious moment, with many growers already hard hit by the wildfires that have devastated Northern California this fall.

In addition to much of the harvest being lost, Mendocino-based Project CBD is raising fears that much of what was saved may now be contaminated.

In a statement, Project CBD said it, “hopes that some lab in California will validate methods and offer tests to detect the major contaminants that result from the wildfires. We expect these will include benzene, toluene, benzopyrenes, and heavy metals, as well as some dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls.”

Not exactly favorable publicity for the nascent legal industry.

If they screw it up the street vendor will thrive.
MEXICO will thrive.
This spring time to grow again. (outside)

 

[CarolKing]

LOCAL

The Los Angeles County, California District Attorney’s Office is training police officers and prosecutors about investigating and prosecuting driving under the influence of marijuana and other drugs.
http://da.lacounty.gov/media/news/l...officials-aid-prosecution-dui-cases-involving

 

[Baron23]

Chart: How California’s largest cities are regulating recreational marijuana

California’s recreational marijuana program is set to launch Jan. 1, and lawmakers have laid the regulatory foundation to govern the new industry at the state level.

But at the local level – where municipalities can further regulate or even outright ban marijuana businesses – California’s largest cities are in varying stages of the rulemaking process.

California is implementing a dual-licensing system between state and local governments, meaning cannabis businesses will be required to obtain some sort of local authorization from the city and/or the county in which they’ll operate before they can apply for a state license.

Therefore, both state and local regulations need to be in place before adult-use sales can begin.

And the stakes are high, as The Golden State is expected to generate $4.5 billion-$5 billion in annual adult-use cannabis sales within a few years of the program’s launch, according to Marijuana Business Daily estimates.

Here’s a quick look at where California’s largest cities – which account for over 35% of the state’s total population – stand in the rulemaking process:

• Los Angeles: The City Council passed a lengthy and complex package of proposed rules to govern the licensing and operations of marijuana businesses in October, moving it over to the city’s lawyers who are currently drafting the legal language to implement the proposed regulations.

Among many other issues, the draft ordinance proposes a social equity program and attempts to address the many “gray market” operators in the city without disrupting the medical supply chain or giving advantages to those that have been operating in violation of the law.

The council may take further action on the regulations this week, but it’s unclear whether final rules will be in place by Jan. 1.

• San Diego: In an effort to create a legal, local supply chain, the City Council agreed to license all types of marijuana businesses in the city, including retailers, cultivators, infused product manufacturers and testing labs.

A maximum of 40 marijuana production facilities (businesses that grow and/or process marijuana) and 36 retailers will be allowed in the city. The approximately 17 existing dispensaries in San Diego will be allowed to sell to rec customers once adult-use sales begin on Jan. 1.

• San Jose: In a unanimous decision, the City Council passed an ordinance to allow the city’s 16 medical dispensaries to sell to the rec market at the start of the new year. However, no other types of cannabis businesses are allowed, and no new applications for dispensaries/rec stores are being accepted at this time.

• San Francisco: The City Council passed rules in late November to govern adult-use cannabis businesses, finally reaching an agreement over a social equity component of the legislation.

Temporary permits will allow existing medical dispensaries to sell recreational marijuana starting Jan. 5, though these businesses must reapply for permanent permits by April 1.

The city will issue licenses for cultivators, infused product manufacturers, retailers, delivery services, testing labs and distributors. No limits on the number of cannabis businesses allowed to operate in the city have been established, though this will be re-examined within one year.

• Fresno: With a 4-3 vote, the City Council decided to bar all types of recreational marijuana businesses from operating within city limits. Medical cannabis dispensaries are also banned in Fresno, though some expect the council to revisit the city’s position on MMJ in the coming months.

Eli McVey can be reached at elim@mjbizdaily.com

 

[ataxian]

Chart: How California’s largest cities are regulating recreational marijuana

to revisit the city’s position on MMJ in the coming months.

Eli McVey can be reached at elim@mjbizdaily.com

Let us be patient!

Bob DILLON sang: "EVERYBODY must MEDICATE"! (I messed with the name?)

 

[Baron23]

L.A. to become largest U.S. city with legal recreational marijuana

Los Angeles will become the nation’s largest city with recreational pot after the City Council voted Wednesday to license sales next year.

After months of debate and political snags, the council approved rules to usher in commercial sales and cultivation set to begin in less than a month under an initiative approved by state voters.

Under the Los Angeles regulations, residential neighborhoods would be largely off-limits to pot businesses, and buffer zones would be set up around schools, libraries and parks.


Marijuana hangs on a line while drying at a growing operation in unincorporated Calaveras County, California on Sept. 29, 2017. Noah Berger / AP file
However, with the new year just weeks away — and the holidays coming — industry experts say it’s not clear how many businesses, if any, will be ready to open their doors on Jan. 1 to hordes of anxious customers.

Related: California has approved legal pot, but black market growers thrive

If demand is not satisfied in the legal market then “you are just giving oxygen to the black market we all want to eradicate,” said Adam Spiker, executive director of the Southern California Coalition, a cannabis industry group.

Medical marijuana has been legal in the state for two decades.

The dense set of regulations passed Wednesday dictate where pot can be grown and sold in the new marketplace, along with how businesses will be licensed.


A man rolls a marijuana joint is in San Francisco. Marcio Jose Sanchez / AP file
Businesses that want to participate in the marketplace need local permits before they can apply for state licenses required to operate in 2018.

“As lawmakers we have a responsibility to reasonably regulate this industry in a manner that is safe, inclusive, and practical,” Los Angeles City Council President Herb J. Wesson Jr. said Wednesday.

The state and hundreds of cities are faced with the challenging task of trying to govern the vast, emerging industry with a projected value of $7 billion. Some places have banned all commercial pot activity, while other are embracing it.

California is among 29 states where pot is legal, either for medical or recreational use.

Los Angeles, home to 4 million people, has long been an unruly frontier in the pot industry, where hundreds of illegal dispensaries and cultivators proliferated.

Marijuana black market thrives in California 6:05
Earlier this year, city voters endorsed another attempt to regulate the local pot businesses, leading to the new rules.

The legal marketplace is seen as a way to impose order, hopefully squeezing out illegal operators while raising a cascade of new taxes for City Hall.

In the background is widespread uncertainty about whether the Trump administration will attempt to intervene in states where marijuana is legal.

And because marijuana is illegal in the eyes of the federal government, many major banks are leery to do business with dispensaries and growers, so much of the business is conducted in cash.

 

[ataxian]

L.A. to become largest U.S. city with legal recreational marijuana

Los Angeles will become the nation’s largest city with recreational pot after the City Council voted Wednesday to license sales next year.

After months of debate and political snags, the council approved rules to usher in commercial sales and cultivation set to begin in less than a month under an initiative approved by state voters.

Under the Los Angeles regulations, residential neighborhoods would be largely off-limits to pot businesses, and buffer zones would be set up around schools, libraries and parks.


Marijuana hangs on a line while drying at a growing operation in unincorporated Calaveras County, California on Sept. 29, 2017. Noah Berger / AP file
However, with the new year just weeks away — and the holidays coming — industry experts say it’s not clear how many businesses, if any, will be ready to open their doors on Jan. 1 to hordes of anxious customers.

Related: California has approved legal pot, but black market growers thrive

If demand is not satisfied in the legal market then “you are just giving oxygen to the black market we all want to eradicate,” said Adam Spiker, executive director of the Southern California Coalition, a cannabis industry group.

Medical marijuana has been legal in the state for two decades.

The dense set of regulations passed Wednesday dictate where pot can be grown and sold in the new marketplace, along with how businesses will be licensed.


A man rolls a marijuana joint is in San Francisco. Marcio Jose Sanchez / AP file
Businesses that want to participate in the marketplace need local permits before they can apply for state licenses required to operate in 2018.

“As lawmakers we have a responsibility to reasonably regulate this industry in a manner that is safe, inclusive, and practical,” Los Angeles City Council President Herb J. Wesson Jr. said Wednesday.

The state and hundreds of cities are faced with the challenging task of trying to govern the vast, emerging industry with a projected value of $7 billion. Some places have banned all commercial pot activity, while other are embracing it.

California is among 29 states where pot is legal, either for medical or recreational use.

Los Angeles, home to 4 million people, has long been an unruly frontier in the pot industry, where hundreds of illegal dispensaries and cultivators proliferated.

Marijuana black market thrives in California 6:05
Earlier this year, city voters endorsed another attempt to regulate the local pot businesses, leading to the new rules.

The legal marketplace is seen as a way to impose order, hopefully squeezing out illegal operators while raising a cascade of new taxes for City Hall.

In the background is widespread uncertainty about whether the Trump administration will attempt to intervene in states where marijuana is legal.

And because marijuana is illegal in the eyes of the federal government, many major banks are leery to do business with dispensaries and growers, so much of the business is conducted in cash.

The BLACK MARKET will actually do better with the new law's!
The price is to high for today's economy.
MEXICO will benefit!

Look's like this one is messed up!!

$100/OZ at a dispensery
$50/OZ STREET

DUMB politician's
CONSUMER's win this battle!

 

[Baron23]

More lawyers...sigh.

Long, Strange Marijuana Case Takes Another Turn in Pot Entrepreneur's Favor
District Attorney Summer Stephan has agreed to return to medical marijuana pioneer James Slatic and his business, Med-West Distribution, $289,979 — plus $5,484 in interest — that authorities confiscated in a 2016 raid on his Kearny Mesa facility. So ends a nearly two-year case with sudden and suspenseful turns.



James Slatic has turned a leaf.

San Diego District Attorney Summer Stephan agreed on Friday to return to the medical marijuana pioneer and his business, Med-West Distribution, $289,979 — plus $5,484 in interest — that authorities confiscated in a January 2016 raid on his Kearny Mesa facility. So ends a nearly two-year case with sudden and suspenseful turns.

Friday was, in fact, the second time that prosecutors have returned money to Slatic. The first came in May, when a judge ordered the release of more than $100,000 worth of family funds.

At the time, he hadn’t been charged with a crime.

But two weeks later, then-District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis alleged that Slatic and his business partners had sought to illegally manufacture and sell hash oil across the country. He faced 15 felony charges, and it wasn’t until last month that a plea deal was reached in which Slatic instead pleaded guilty to two misdemeanors.

He got a fine and one-year probation.

The additional money that is now being returned to Slatic comes from a civil asset forfeiture settlement that was agreed to Friday, according to a statement released by Stephan. Slatic, in the process, agreed to forfeit $35,000 of the total amount seized. Stephan said $3,500 of that amount will be donated to the Community Alliances for Drug Free Youth, a nonprofit that provides adult and family prevention and treatment services.

Slatic’s case attracted national attention and alarmed many in the legal community after the DA’s office alleged that Slatic’s attorney, Jessica McElfresh, was involved in the scheme and sought to make public communications from clients that would ordinarily be protected by attorney-client privilege. Prosecutors accused her of helping to hide evidence of the hash oil from city inspectors during an April 2015 inspection of Slatic’s facility.

In September, a Slate article contended “The San Diego DA’s office, once under the famously anti-pot leadership of Bonnie Dumanis and now under her anointed successor, Summer Stephan, has taken the narrowest possible construction of marijuana laws and seems poised to challenge the will of the people who overwhelmingly voted in favor of legal marijuana.”

But Stephan’s willingness to cut a deal in which Slatic pleaded only to two misdemeanors, and her move to return the lion’s share of the money seized from Slatic, appears to mark a sharp departure from Dumanis’ approach.

There was no word in Friday’s statement on the pending case against McElfresh.

In a July episode of Voice of San Diego’s “I Made it in San Diego” podcast, Slatic talked about the dramatic ups and downs he’s experienced while building his many businesses.

 

[Baron23]

This is pretty f'd up, IMO. So much for that bastion of liberalism and personal freedom, SF Bay area, yeah?


A Bay Area community will require home growers to register with police
City codes also prohibit more than 1,200 watts of lighting from being used, and limit the growing area to 32 square feet, with plants no higher than 10 feet.


By Joseph Geha, Mercury News

A law California voters approved in November 2016 allows state residents to grow up to six marijuana plants for recreational use, but Fremont residents wishing to do just that under Proposition 64 will find things a little more complicated.

Besides having to comply with several local regulations, they’ll also need to add their names and addresses to a police database every year.

And while Prop. 64 says pot plants must be grown “within the person’s private residence, or upon the grounds of that private residence,” such as inside an outdoor garden area, Fremont has banned growing them outside, period. It can do that because Prop. 64 allows local jurisdictions to prohibit outdoor growing and to enact “reasonable regulations” around personal cultivation.

Plus, where the state also requires plants to be grown “in a locked space” so they “are not visible…from a public place,” Fremont’s municipal code — updated in June by unanimous City Council vote — places further restrictions on the growing space.

Whether inside the home, an attached garage or an accessory building, the structure where marijuana plants are grown must be “secure, locked, and fully enclosed, with a ceiling, roof or top, and shall be entirely opaque from all sides, including the top,” according to the city’s code.

Also, any such structure would need to be equipped with “a fully permitted burglar alarm monitored by an alarm company or private security company,” which could make growing plants for personal use somewhat expensive.

Fremont Deputy City Attorney Erik Kaeding said in an interview the additional restrictions are intended for the safety of residents.

“If the state’s going to require us to allow indoor grows, we feel this is what we need to do to protect our citizens,” he said. He added that police department input and experiences “definitely influenced” the way the codes were written.

“We’ve had crime in our city, we’ve seen crime in neighboring cities where there are indoor grows, and other people know about them and burglarize them, and it’s often not pretty,” he said.

“There’s nothing in (the code) that’s not based on our experience,” Kaeding said. “We’re aware of what health and safety concerns can arise related to marijuana growth, and this is all directed at addressing those concerns.”

Related stories

• Cheech Marin will help you register a California marijuana business
• 10 steps to starting a marijuana business in California
• California’s cannabis industry licensing system is now open for business
• America’s biggest marijuana market finalizes rules for recreational weed
• San Francisco finalizes regs for recreational marijuana, but not in time for Jan. 1 sales debut

Fremont police spokeswoman Geneva Bosques said the department plans to add a new section to its Web page where residents must register annually if they want to grow marijuana plants at their residence.

She said the new page is still being finalized and should go live before the start of the new year.

Those registering “will either have to show proof of residency if they own a home, and if they are not the homeowner they will have to show proof of notification to a property owner,” Bosques said.

The registration form will also ask residents to verify they are 21 or older — the state’s legal age for growing plants or possessing marijuana — and provide contact information.

“We’re not really sure what to expect,” Bosques said, referring to the number of registrations the Web site may receive. She said out of concern for “safety and privacy,” the database of residences registered with the city will not be shared outside the department.

While Fremont’s code allows the City Council to set a fee for registration, Bosques said there isn’t one yet.

City codes also require marijuana growers to comply with other rules, such as one prohibiting more than 1,200 watts of lighting from being used to grow plants and another limiting the growing area to 32 square feet, with plants no higher than 10 feet.

Growers also would potentially have to install adequate ventilation and filtration systems, meet a list of standard building and fire codes, and comply with chemical storage and use regulations.

Fremont has banned all marijuana businesses in the city since 2006. In January 2016, before the passage of Prop. 64, the council unanimously voted to prohibit all cultivation and commercial delivery of marijuana within city limits.

You can view the full text of Fremont’s marijuana regulations here.

 

[momofthegoons]

This is pretty f'd up, IMO. So much for that bastion of liberalism and personal freedom, SF Bay area, yeah?

Unreal. So... are farmer's going to have to register to grow corn? Soy?

The real problem lies with the fact that reefer madness is still alive and well. Until we get the point across that cannabis isn't a dangerous 'drug' we're going to continue to have these types of problems and restrictions.

It's a fucking plant FFS......

 

[Baron23]

"It's worrisome to see state regulators backtracking on the intent and spirit of the initiative so quickly and with so little public discussion."

This is a never ending story line in the USA of the new millenium. Professional politicians and career government bureaucrats trampling on the will of the electorate clearly indicated by a direct democratic vote at the polls.

So, who is going to suit these pricks at the California Department of Food and Agriculture?


California's new pot rules violate the promise to small farmers

During last year’s campaign for Proposition 64, which made recreational marijuana legal for adults under California law, proponents of the measure repeatedly argued that it would protect small marijuana farms and mom-and-pop cultivators, many of whom have operated illegally for decades.

That's because the initiative barred the state from licensing any marijuana farm larger than one acre until 2023 — or at least that's what voters were led to believe when they passed Proposition 64 overwhelmingly. Nevertheless, a state agency has quietly, mystifyingly issued a rule that could circumvent the proposition and open the new state market to Big Weed.

The five-year head start for small farmers was a concession specifically designed to win support — or at least quell some of the opposition — from growers in Northern California's Emerald Triangle, who worried that well-funded corporate cannabis interests would crush them right out of the gate.

The delay in Proposition 64 would give them time to get licensed under the new state regulatory regime and carve a toehold in the new legal marketplace for recreational pot.

But it wasn't just farmers pushing for limits on the size and scale of the marijuana growing sites. A Blue Ribbon Commission on Marijuana Policy created by Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom recommended in 2015 that the state limit the size and power of marijuana businesses and offer incentives for smaller operations.

"The goal," the commission's report said, "should be to prevent the growth of a large, corporate marijuana industry dominated by a small number of players, as we see with Big Tobacco or the alcohol industry." The fear was that a multi-billion-dollar Big Weed industry would have the lobbying and political power to bend regulators to its will and undermine public protections.

Voters were told that the new legal and regulated marijuana market would be built around small- and medium-sized farms, at least in the early years.

It appeared that state regulators shared that goal. The California Department of Food and Agriculture released an environmental impact report on the new licensing program for marijuana growers in early November that indicated the state would limit license holders to farming one acre or less.

So growers and other industry watchers were shocked last month when the emergency regulations issued by the department did not limit the size of marijuana farms as expected. Instead, the rules allow applicants to seek an unlimited number of small-farm licenses, each of which allows up to 10,000 square feet, or roughly one quarter-acre, of pot cultivation.

The department has said that cities and counties are welcome to set their own limits on farm size based on community needs. But there's nothing in the state regulations to stop businesses from applying for multiple small-farm licenses and amassing far more than an acre for cultivation.

The emergency rules are meant as a stop-gap until permanent regulations are adopted in six to 12 months. Still, they open the door to large-scale pot farming operations immediately, not five years later as Proposition 64 stated.

Sen. Mike McGuire and Assemblyman Jim Wood, two Democrats who represent much of the Emerald Triangle, have pressed the Department of Food and Agriculture to cap commercial marijuana cultivation at one acre per applicant.

They worry corporate interests will snap up land, mass produce marijuana more cheaply and drive long established cannabis farmers out of the business — or back underground to perpetuate the black market that Proposition 64 was supposed to reduce.

This is a troubling loophole. Voters were told that the new legal and regulated marijuana market would be built around small- and medium-sized farms, at least in the early years. There may be legitimate arguments over whether such protectionism is effective, necessary or good public policy.

If critics don't like limits on farm size, however, they ought to take those concerns to the Legislature. Proposition 64 gave lawmakers, not state agencies, the authority to change the regulations. It's worrisome to see state regulators backtracking on the intent and spirit of the initiative so quickly and with so little public discussion.

 

[Baron23]

In MD, we have no small growers. Only 15 licenses issued and table stakes are about $10M and up to be a cultivator. I expect to see this change over time as the large production houses have, so far, not impressed with quality.

I think CA will be ok as there seems to be room for Gallo Wines and small botique wineries. Seems like the same model may work for MJ. If small operators can produce high quality product, there will be a market for it (even at a premium) among aficionados, I believe.

Will small businesses survive in California’s new cannabis market?


By Michael R. Blood, The Associated Press

ADELANTO, Calif. — Drive by the High Desert Truck Stop, turn down a rutted road by the bail bond signs, slip behind a steel fence edged with barbed wire, and you can glimpse the future of California’s emerging legal pot industry.

In a boxy warehouse marked only by a street number, an $8 million marijuana production plant — a farm, laboratory and factory all in one — is rising inside cavernous rooms crisscrossed by electrical cables.

Not far off, a retail shop is planned to sell edible, thin strips infused with cannabis extract and powerful concentrates known as resins that also will be shipped to stores around the state.

California has long been known for its boutique pot market, producing world-famous buds on small plots in the so-called Emerald Triangle, north of San Francisco.

Broad legalization starts Jan. 1, and this will be a test of whether bigger is better.

“It’s not going to be a cottage industry. We’re not doing it at a craft beer level,” says Brad Eckenweiler, chief executive of Lifestyle Delivery Systems, the Canada-based company behind the venture on a dusty industrial strip 90 miles (145 kilometers) from Los Angeles.

In the new marketplace, Lifestyle is what’s known as a “vertically integrated company,” with a hand in virtually every aspect of the business, from producing organic seeds to over-the-counter sales.

More California

• California offers second chance to people convicted of marijuana crimes
• Buyers beware: California cannabis sold Jan. 1 could be tainted
• California issues first licenses to get new era of cannabis market off the ground
• San Diego County agrees to return $290,000 to raided cannabis businessman
• “The biggest grow I’ve ever seen”: California cops bust multimillion-dollar weed “fortress”

The company’s ambition also points to an unfolding rivalry: a battle of size.

Some fear corporate-level businesses will eventually doom mom-and-pop growers and sellers, much as Big Tobacco dominated its market.

“As we have a lot of the Wall Street and the other big money bearing down on the No. 1 marketplace in the world right here, I think the only way the small operators are really going to have a chance is if we really do kind of band together,” said Erik Hultstrom, a Los Angeles cultivator.

For now, the shape of California’s new market remains largely unknown.

An illegal industry that operated in the shadows and the loosely regulated medical one are facing rapid change now that the legalization of recreational pot is arriving, with new government rules and taxes and a flood of investment dollars. Lifestyle Delivery Systems Inc. is a publicly traded company in Canada, valued at about $45 million.

Two years ago, a state commission recognized that small operators could be vulnerable once the doorway opened to legal sales. But temporary state rules issued last month placed no limit on most cultivator licenses, potentially opening the way for vast cannabis farms. State regulators say local governments are free to impose restrictions, however.

Last week, California issued its first commercial licenses, and they show others intend to get a foothold in various sectors of the market, picking off multiple permits for transportation, manufacturing and retailing.

Helena Yli-Renko, director of the Lloyd Greif Center for Entrepreneurial Studies at the University of Southern California, said size might be an advantage but she sees opportunity for specialists, such as companies that develop new extraction technologies or provide monthly subscriptions, like wine clubs.

But Hezekiah Allen, executive director of the California Growers Association, an industry group, said corporate-scale companies with a lock on the supply chain have the potential to tilt the market in their favor.

“The more steps in the supply chain you control, you can control pricing,” he said. “It’s artificial.”

To Eckenweiler, size is strength.

While manufacturers buying pot on the open market will have to contend with inevitable price swings, growing in-house will buffer the company from those ups and downs, he said.

The same is true for transportation — doing it yourself saves money. And having a stake in a dispensary, to be run through a contractual relationship, would provide access to shelf space.

On a tour of the partially completed site, he points to rooms that will one day house multi-tier platforms of pot plants, and pulls open a freezer where stacks of packaged pot buds are ready for production.

“I’m not saying you couldn’t have a good business model as a cultivator, as a manufacturer, as a transport distributor or a dispensary. But we’re going to have the benefit of being all of those,” Eckenweiler said.

A freeway ride and a world away in Los Angeles’ San Fernando Valley, in a small, gated warehouse amid scrapyards and garages, Hultstrom tends his crop.

Organic plants at different stages are arranged in regimental rows in several rooms, fed by water circulated through plastic piping. Powerful lights warm the seedlings, and a ventilation system keeps the pungent aroma from wafting into nearby lots.

At Lifestyle Delivery Systems, Eckenweiler said his machine can produce 50,000 edible strips an hour. Hultstrom’s nursery, Legacy Strains, moves at a slower pace.

An employee sits at a desk, patiently snipping leaves from plant buds, one at a time, while an adopted stray dog collapses into a weathered couch.

Lifestyle has plans for a 202,000-square-foot (18,770-square-meter) cultivation facility. Hultstrom watches over a fraction of that — 2,100 square feet (195 square meters) of pot plants.

He’s confident in his ability to produce top-shelf cannabis, and he knows his market: He’s been in the business in various jobs since 2005.

But Hultstrom wonders if licensing and compliance costs that experts say will run $100,000 or more, as well as taxes, distribution and other markups, will slant the market toward big producers with more financial muscle.

Increasing costs could present a barrier to entering the legal market, Hultstrom said, or force smaller growers to take on new investors. At risk, as well, is the communal spirit of a business that has seen years of shifting laws and enforcement, he said.

As legal sales approach, many questions remain.

It’s unclear if the black market will persist or fade away. Few major banks want to do business with pot shops or growers, since cannabis remains illegal in the federal government’s eyes.

As a small grower, Hultstrom knows he can’t compete toe-to-toe against large operators, an acknowledgement that recalls how big-box stores emptied local shopping strips.

The strategy is to find an angle they can’t cover.

“Usually, the smaller the operation, the better quality you tend to have,” he said. “It’s just finding that niche.”

 

[Baron23]

CA Dept of Agriculture.....bought and paid for. HATE government. Its always on the sleazy, fucked it up royally, side of things.


Lawmakers, pot growers say California's marijuana cultivation rules favor big corporate farms

California’s new rules allowing marijuana cultivation favor large corporate farms despite a promise in Proposition 64 that small growers would be protected, according to a group of state lawmakers and marijuana industry leaders who called Monday for the policy to be changed.

The California Department of Food and Agriculture issued emergency rules last month that allow for small and medium-sized farms of up to a quarter acre and one acre, respectively, to get licenses for the first five years. That five-year head start for small farms was promised in Proposition 64, the initiative approved last year by voters that legalized growing and selling marijuana for recreational use.

Individuals and businesses can get only one license for a medium-sized farm, but the new rules do not set a limit on how many small-farm licenses can be obtained by one person or business.

That could allow a corporation to assemble a 20-acre farm by obtaining 80 licenses for a quarter-acre each, opponents worry.

Democratic state Sens. Scott Wiener of San Francisco and Mike McGuire of Healdsburg, Assemblyman Jim Wood (D-Healdsburg) and the California Growers Assn. asked for swift action by the state agricultural department to change the rule.

"This is clearly a broken promise,” McGuire said. "For two years, every discussion has included a cap on cannabis grows and the Department of Food and Agriculture needs to fix this massive loophole they have created. This last-minute revision rolls out the red carpet for large corporations to crush the livelihood of small family farmers.”

With cultivation licenses set to take effect next month, the lawmakers also promised legislative hearings on why the rules were drafted to disadvantage small, mom-and-pop farms.

“California only has one chance to get this right, and it is already on the wrong path with this last-minute change that flies in the face of what the backers of Prop. 64 promised,” said Hezekiah Allen, executive director of the California Growers Assn. “This single decision will hand over the California marketplace to multinational corporations and a wealthy few at the expense of thousands of growers who are ready to play by the rules and provide economic opportunity in communities that until recently were criminalized or — at the very least — marginalized.”

The industry estimates there are about 3,500 independent growers on track to get a state license in the first half of 2018. Allen’s group estimates that number could grow to as many as 10,000 or 15,000 by the end of 2020, but not if large corporate farms are allowed in early.

The agricultural agency issued a response later: “A one-acre canopy limit has not been in proposed regulations at any point and was not included in the emergency regulations due to the fact that Proposition 64, the law guiding the process, did not provide authority to include it. However, local jurisdictions may impose that limitation on their own if it meets the needs of their constituents.”

 

[ataxian]

CA Dept of Agriculture.....bought and paid for. HATE government. Its always on the sleazy, fucked it up royally, side of things.


Lawmakers, pot growers say California's marijuana cultivation rules favor big corporate farms

California’s new rules allowing marijuana cultivation favor large corporate farms despite a promise in Proposition 64 that small growers would be protected, according to a group of state lawmakers and marijuana industry leaders who called Monday for the policy to be changed.

The California Department of Food and Agriculture issued emergency rules last month that allow for small and medium-sized farms of up to a quarter acre and one acre, respectively, to get licenses for the first five years. That five-year head start for small farms was promised in Proposition 64, the initiative approved last year by voters that legalized growing and selling marijuana for recreational use.

Individuals and businesses can get only one license for a medium-sized farm, but the new rules do not set a limit on how many small-farm licenses can be obtained by one person or business.

That could allow a corporation to assemble a 20-acre farm by obtaining 80 licenses for a quarter-acre each, opponents worry.

Democratic state Sens. Scott Wiener of San Francisco and Mike McGuire of Healdsburg, Assemblyman Jim Wood (D-Healdsburg) and the California Growers Assn. asked for swift action by the state agricultural department to change the rule.

"This is clearly a broken promise,” McGuire said. "For two years, every discussion has included a cap on cannabis grows and the Department of Food and Agriculture needs to fix this massive loophole they have created. This last-minute revision rolls out the red carpet for large corporations to crush the livelihood of small family farmers.”

With cultivation licenses set to take effect next month, the lawmakers also promised legislative hearings on why the rules were drafted to disadvantage small, mom-and-pop farms.

“California only has one chance to get this right, and it is already on the wrong path with this last-minute change that flies in the face of what the backers of Prop. 64 promised,” said Hezekiah Allen, executive director of the California Growers Assn. “This single decision will hand over the California marketplace to multinational corporations and a wealthy few at the expense of thousands of growers who are ready to play by the rules and provide economic opportunity in communities that until recently were criminalized or — at the very least — marginalized.”

The industry estimates there are about 3,500 independent growers on track to get a state license in the first half of 2018. Allen’s group estimates that number could grow to as many as 10,000 or 15,000 by the end of 2020, but not if large corporate farms are allowed in early.

The agricultural agency issued a response later: “A one-acre canopy limit has not been in proposed regulations at any point and was not included in the emergency regulations due to the fact that Proposition 64, the law guiding the process, did not provide authority to include it. However, local jurisdictions may impose that limitation on their own if it meets the needs of their constituents.”

I need to rant on this one!

CAREFUL!
BONE-HEAD's?
MEXICO is growing MEDICAL GRADE COLAS!
Let's not forget NAFTA?
Mexico has the land & Man Power for CHEAP?
The whole west coast of USA & CANADA better not lose the battle?

 

[Baron23]

I need to rant on this one!

@ataxian - well then, here is another for you to rant upon
https://www.leafly.com/news/industry/guest-opinion-dont-let-big-business-shape-california-cannabis

"That five-year transition was clearly spelled out in Proposition 64, which California voters passed in November 2016. But a few weeks ago that phasing-in period was effectively eliminated by regulators in Sacramento."
​

So, why isn't anybody suing the shit out of the Department of Agriculture?


Guest Opinion: Don’t Let Big Business Shape California Cannabis
Guest Opinion
Hezekiah Allen is the executive director of the California Growers Association, which consists of more than 1,200 cannabis growers and business owners. Leafly welcomes op-ed contributions from industry and political leaders on a range of topics related to cannabis.

Let’s get some clarity on this issue: big cannabis. Some leaders in our community think this is “noise.” Most see it as a critical component of a discussion about our future—a future that we are building with intention and a future that deserves honest, clear, and transparent dialog.


RELATED STORY
California’s Limit on Big Growers Just Vanished. Here’s Why
Big isn’t inherently bad. Small isn’t inherently good. But both can be—and often are—self-interested. When a business becomes big enough, amasses enough resources, and/or enjoys enough of a regulatory advantage to bend public policy to its interests, there is a problem. And that is exactly the problem we are observing now.

When small businesses work together to shape public policy, there is an intrinsic element of “the greater good” embedded in their work, because their interests reflect shared goals and common ground. Small businesses—small farms particularly—provide an irreplaceable cultural and economic value to our community.

Emerging From the Shadows
For more than a decade, most businesses in the cannabis industry in California have had little opportunity to come out of the shadows. A policy vacuum at the state level left most localities with few good options. Many cities and counties chose to put their heads in the sand, deferring to local law enforcement. This left most businesses in hiding, unable to engage with policymakers, and unable to build businesses and brands.

As we emerge from more than a century of cannabis criminalization in California, it is wise and prudent to take our time.
In the midst of this environment, a few municipalities moved forward and adopted local medical cannabis regulations. As a result, a handful of businesses in those cities got a head start. They were able to build their businesses while thousands of others around the state were left behind. This phenomenon most severely impacted the marginal and criminalized communities where cannabis commerce was most present.

So, as we emerge from more than a century of cannabis criminalization in California, it is wise and prudent to take our time. We won’t miss the opportunity to scale up just because we take a few years to get there. On the other hand, if we allow a finite, inelastic marketplace to be dominated by a few large players and close the door to others, we may lose the opportunity to establish a diverse marketplace, built around small and mid-sized businesses, that has the capacity to restore social and economic justice to our communities.


RELATED STORY
Emerald Triangle Growers Scale Up Together in Co-Ops
A Long Road to Normalization
Cannabis consumers deserve the same choices as grocery shoppers, and California’s cannabis growers deserve the same opportunities as the state’s food producers. And yet they don’t. Where are the consumer champions calling for cannabis growers to have access to the privileges afforded to all other growers in the state through the Direct Marketing Act, which allows customers to buy directly from producers?

The Price Problem
Concerned about the price of cannabis? Ask your retailer what markup they are taking. Many California retailers state are striving to keep markups and prices reasonable. Others are not. Our experience as growers is that the big retailers are typically not the ones seeking to be balanced and fair. We have talked a lot about craft growers; it is probably time we start talking about small-scale retailers, cottage food makers, and all the other small businesses that have been excluded from the regulated market for years.

https://www.leafly.com/news/politic...nabis-tax-could-doom-legalization-heres-a-fix
A Controlled Market
Why do some cannabis retailers take a 100% (or more) markup when other, similar industries are closer to 30% or 40%? Because they can. California’s cannabis marketplace is one in which too few businesses control access to consumers. We lack the competitive forces that keep a market honest.

In the past 15 years, the wholesale price of cannabis flower (the price growers are getting) has decreased, first in half, then in half again. Meanwhile, the price to the consumer has remained relatively static. Where is the surplus revenue going? To the “keystone markup” that many retailers are taking—and, ultimately to the big-budget lobbying and PR efforts that are now seeking to shape public policy and public opinion to serve a few retailers’ own interests.


If you are concerned about cost to the consumer, we should create policies that protect against price gouging. Perhaps folks concerned about massive price increases would support a surplus markup tax? After all, if it’s price to the consumer that matters most, we all share an interest in ensuring reasonable, fair markups. Right?

Or, better yet, let’s support policies that would allow small farmers to market their products directly. Cut out a few steps in the supply chain, and California can have both low prices and small farms. This is the most direct way to ensure consumers have access to high quality products and fair prices.

The High Cost of Low Prices
While everybody would like to be able to afford heirloom tomatoes, meticulously tended in small patches and selling for $5.99 a pound, many families can’t afford them.

Many shoppers can only afford the lower-priced tomatoes grown by larger, more efficient farms that pay workers less; rely on unsustainable use of natural resources, synthetic fertilizers, and toxic pest management; and consolidate even more wealth in the hands of a select few.


RELATED STORY
California Farmers: Grow Big or Go Home?
Rather than crashing our economy so a few people can get wealthy, let’s rebuild it so everyone can afford healthy, high-quality produce.

A small handful of well capitalized, well positioned businesses will work to protect the comfortable position that regulatory advantage has provided them.
Giving California’s cannabis farmers a transition period of five years by enforcing regulations that protect against industrial-scale agriculture will maximize choice and competition. It may inflate wholesale prices—but that is uncertain. Regardless of wholesale pricing, the facts in the market tell us that the price to consumers will still be largely determined by retail markups.

That five-year transition was clearly spelled out in Proposition 64, which California voters passed in November 2016. But a few weeks ago that phasing-in period was effectively eliminated by regulators in Sacramento.

The need for healthy competition among California cannabis cultivators is clearer than ever. That is why it is critical to ensure that as many of those cultivators as possible have an opportunity to transition to a regulated system—rather than hand the market over to the well positioned few who happen to control market access.

Keep in mind, “healthy competition” does not mean a free-for-all. Imagine the difference between a civilized sporting match and a ruthless bloodsport. The difference? Rules.


RELATED STORY
California Releases Emergency Cannabis Regulations
The bottom line is this: There are a small handful of well capitalized, well positioned businesses that have benefited tremendously from a controlled, inequitable market during the last decade. They will work to protect the comfortable position that regulatory advantage has provided them.

California has one chance to get this right. In order to build the cannabis marketplace that so many activists, business owners, and consumers have long envisioned, we need to do two things. First, the state needs to implement the law as the voters passed it, with the five-year transition period included. Second, we need to keep pushing for policy reform so that cannabis consumers and growers have all the opportunities that are afforded to consumers and producers of other crops.

It is time we open up the market, reduce barriers to entry, disrupt the regulatory advantage enjoyed by a few, create opportunity for as many entrepreneurs as possible, and work to reform federal and global policies so that cannabis consumers can enjoy the same choices as everyone else. Then we can let the market decide.

advocacyCaliforniacultivationguest opinionlicensingopinionregulations

Hezekiah Allen
Hezekiah Allen is the executive director of the California Growers Association, which consists of more than 1,200 cannabis growers and business owners. Born and raised in rural Humboldt County, he works to protect the interests of the state’s cannabis cultivators and other small and mid-sized businesses.