Get a Rec

Get Delivery

Subscribe

Author Archives: Deb Tharp

About Deb Tharp

• 2018 Brings New Challenges to the Federal Government’s Cannabis Law

  December 27, 2017 12:00 am Leave a Comment

   

  Since the passage of Prop 64, it’s hard to keep up with the changes to our state’s cannabis rules. California’s scrambling to catch up with legalization deadlines while different groups lobby for their own interests. There’s so much occurring it’s easy to forget massive changes are also happening at the federal level–that’s why we’re tracking them for you!

   

  Federal alterations cause huge impacts on the local level. A great example: the recent court ruling restraining the feds from enforcing federal cannabis laws in legal states.

   

  These limits imposed by the ruling are completely dependent on the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment passage with the budget each year. If it isn’t continued, the court’s ruling is unenforceable. You’ll read more about that later.

   

  What you'll learn in this post:

  [Click any of the section titles below to jump there]

  • Good News for CBD Patients
  • The Federal Lawsuit Against Jeff Sessions Still in Limbo
  • Is the Federal Government Intentionally Keeping Cannabis Illegal?
  • The Rohrabacher–Farr/Rohrabacher–Blumenauer Amendment Also Hangs in the Balance
  • Meanwhile, Across the Northern Border
  • And Here at Home
  • Further Reading

   

  Good News for CBD Patients

   

  

   

  The World Health Organization (WHO) has issued a preliminary report stating that, as far as they can tell, CBD has no significant negative side effects or addictive potential.

   

  The report also states there’s substantial evidence that CBD is an effective seizure treatment; plus there’s “preliminary evidence that CBD may be a useful treatment for a number of other medical conditions. However, this research is considerably less advanced than for treatment of epilepsy.”

   

  This report doesn’t include the same glowing conclusions for other cannabinoids like THC. In fact, it seems to emphasize their opinion of THC’s addictive dangers and includes a detailed analysis of possible manufacturing methods for converting CBD to delta-9-THC and delta-8-THC  (see page 10 of the report). It should be noted that the possible process to manufacture THC from CBD is much more complicated than simply growing it.

   

  Still, the WHO’s report shows profound progress towards accepting cannabis as medicine despite our federal government’s recent backsliding toward CBD. Technically, the federal government passed a law leaving legislation and control of CBD in the hands of the states (see Section 7606 of the 2013 Farm Bill).

   

  However, they’ve recently been broadcasting a rather jaundiced view of CBD providers and products, including Charlotte’s Web producer, CW Hemp. In fact, Target removed CW Hemp’s cannabis oil products shortly after the feds issued a statement reiterating their stance on CBD’s status as a Schedule 1 drug, right along with cannabis’ psychoactive components.  

   

  The Federal Lawsuit Against Jeff Sessions Still in Limbo

   

  

   

  The federal lawsuit challenging the legality of cannabis as a Schedule 1 drug (Washington et al v. Sessions et al 1:17-cv-0562) still hangs in the balance. It’s standard procedure for defendants to make a motion to dismiss as their first course of action, and this motion hasn’t been decided.

   

  These days it’s difficult to understand why a lawsuit is even necessary; even the World Health Organization admits cannabis doesn’t meet the standards for such a classification.

   

  But it’s well-known that our legislative system’s design takes our laws years or decades to catch up to common sense. For example:

   

  • In Louisiana, this crawfish theft law imposes up to ten years in prison with or without hard labor.
  • In Walnut, CA, “No man or boy shall dress as a girl or woman without a permit from the sheriff, except for the purpose of amusement, show or drama.”
  • In Illinois, you must ride a bicycle with at least one hand on the handlebars at all times. 

   

  It’s no surprise our drug laws must face decades of lobbying and lawsuits to catch up as well. Thus far, the federal government has filed a motion to dismiss, and the plaintiffs have filed an objection to the motion.

   

  The judge in the case, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, has also denied a motion for a temporary restraining order based on his assessment. To him, the request doesn’t meet the standards for such an order: likelihood of success on the merits; a likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; the balance of equities tips in the party’s favor; and an injunction is in the public interest.

   

  This doesn’t bode well for swift movement in the case. Most lawsuits challenging cannabis’ illegal status take several years.

   

  Is the Federal Government Intentionally Keeping Cannabis Illegal?

   

  

   

  Of course, if the federal government decides losing is possible, it could simply move cannabis to a Schedule 2 or 3 drug rather than deschedule. In fact, a bill was submitted to do just that. Yet that doesn’t mean cannabis will become easier to legally access; it could actually become harder. To test that theory, attempt to buy an asthma inhaler without a prescription.

   

  One could argue a drug’s listing in the Controlled Substances Act only affects its street price, not its availability. If making a substance illegal really did make it less available, would we have a massive opiate crisis? The only thing scheduling likely affects is who’s profiting and if taxes are being paid.

   

  So the federal government’s convoluted reasoning behind maintaining cannabis as a Schedule 1 drug is becoming incomprehensible. The only motivation that seems to make sense: it’s simply more profitable to keep marijuana illegal. Or, maybe the feds simply aren’t ready to cash in on Patent US6630507.

   

  For those doubting the federal government’s motivation to control the trade of scheduled substances, here’s a not-so-subtle reminder from the Afghanistan war.

   

  This fluffy Fox News piece attempts to explain why the government allocates our federal taxes and defense budget to patrol and protect Afghani poppy fields. What it attempts to skim over is that Afghanistan is responsible for producing 90% of the world’s heroin–which ends up on our streets.

   

  Of course, in the case of weed, some of those involved in its illegal trade are possibly saving people from opiate addiction, in addition to reducing seizures due to epilepsy, nausea and vomiting relief during chemo and dialysis, and relief from PTSD (some sufferers being veterans from the war in Afghanistan). It’s the very definition of irony.

   

  The Rohrabacher–Farr/Rohrabacher–Blumenauer Amendment Also Hangs in the Balance

   

  

   

  The Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment, now known as the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment, must be renewed with every new budget to remain in effect. It’s been in effect since 2014, with each new vote carrying a bit of its own drama. But this year, things are getting particularly dicey.

   

  If the amendment isn’t re-approved in the new 2018 budget, the federal government will once again be free to allocate federal funds toward enforcing federal marijuana laws in states where medical use, or even recreational use, is allowed.

   

  As Congress continues to dicker over the budget, the amendment only has a reprieve until December 22, 2017, meaning those who could face federal prosecution, despite their compliance with state law, are sitting on pins and needles.

   

  After all, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has consistently made it clear he has no respect for the plant’s medical value. To make matters worse, the House Rules Committee has blocked several different amendments that would ease federal restrictions.

   

  What does this mean for California cannabis patients and recreational users? If the amendment dies, the federal government could ramp up its war on marijuana again, placing a chilling effect on state access. Lawmakers in most jurisdictions choosing to ban cannabis activity often site that the plant remains illegal at the federal level.

   

  One must also consider there may be another motive for legislators and enforcers pushing back against our progressive cannabis victories. According to a recent Sacramento Bee article, many of the illegal grows employ Chinese, Russian, or Mexican nationals. Considering our nation’s current xenophobic state, such resistance to the amendment could be aimed more at “sanctuary states” than cannabis.

   

  Meanwhile, Across the Northern Border

   

  

   

  It looks like Canada will be beating us to the nationwide legalization punch. Following a disagreement in which the provinces refused to accept a 50/50 tax split with their federal government, the provinces agreed to accept a 75/25 split–their logic being they’d be forced to bear the brunt of enforcement costs. They expect to be ready to legalize the plant by June 2018.  

   

  And Here at Home

   

  California has issued their first batch of temporary cannabis licenses, though they won’t be active until January 2, 2018. Here’s a list of some of the businesses already issued a temporary license:

   

  • 530 CANNABIS: medicinal, retailer temporary license, Shasta Lake
  • 530 CANNABIS: adult use, retailer temporary license, Shasta Lake
  • Hueneme Patient Consumer Coop: medicinal, retailer temporary license, Port Hueneme
  • KindPeoples (formerly KindPeoples Collective): both Adult use and Medical, microbusiness, retailer and distributor, Santa Cruz
  • Torrey Holistics: medicinal, retailer temporary license, San Diego
  • pH Solutions (aka Yes Cannabis): laboratory testing, temporary License, Monrovia
  • Golden State Sciences: medicinal, distributor temporary license, King City
  • Buddy’s Cannabis: adult use, microbusiness temporary license, San Jose
  • HERBL Distribution Solutions: medicinal, distributor temporary license, Santa Rosa
  • Pure CA: medicinal, distributor temporary license, Lynwood

   

  As you can see, these changes are taking place at an amazing pace. It almost feels like if we take the time to blink, we could miss an important piece of news. We’ll keep track of this crazy hurricane of change so you don’t have to. Check back with us often to see what’s new.  

   

  Further Reading

   

  As you can see, the federal government is rapidly changing its stance on marijuana. While this isn’t a surprise coming from the fickle Trump administration, you should be prepared for any more stalls and surprises that sprouts up:

   

  1. How to Get a Medical Marijuana Card in 2018
  2. The Always Updated Guide to California Cannabis Regulations by County in 2018
  3. Jeff Sessions rescinds Cole Memo
  4. The Complete Q&A List for California’s 2018 Cannabis Regulations

   

• Cannabis Business Applicant’s Introduction to Proposed Emergency Regulations

  December 6, 2017 3:31 am Leave a Comment

   

  This article serves merely as an introduction to the new proposed cannabis regulations; it’s not intended to offer any legal advice or serve as a replacement for legal counsel. Additionally, the information pertains to emergency regulations that are still developing and could change over the next few weeks. Anybody seeking to start a cannabis businesses or has questions about personal consumption and/or cultivation should seek a licensed attorney.

   

  On Tuesday, November 28, the Bureau of Cannabis Control submitted its proposed emergency cannabis regulations to the Office of Administrative Law. These are the regulations necessary to implement Prop 64, which legalizes the public sale, possession and cultivation of cannabis products.

   

  Below is a basic breakdown of the Bureau’s 115 page set of proposed regulations, along with where to find some of the more detailed information in the text. There are also several information sheets available.

   

  There are separate proposed regulations for manufacturing and cultivation, so it’ll be important to become familiar with the following:

   

  • The MAUCRSA (All the laws passed so far, including Prop 64)
  • The emergency proposed manufacturing regulations
  • New manufacturing instructions and fact sheets
  • The emergency proposed cultivation regulations (including the track and trace requirements)
  • New cultivation instructions and fact sheets
  • Licensing information for all other business types (bottom of the page)

   

  What you'll learn in this post:

  [Click any of the section titles below to jump there]

  • Where to Apply for a License
  • Can I Have Both a Medical and Recreational License at the Same Location?
  • What If I Want to Run a Microbusiness?
  • Applying for the Permanent License
  • What Do I Need to Apply for a Regular License?
  • How Soon Will They Process My Application?
  • Insurance Requirements for Distributors
  • Breakdown of Manufacturing Licenses
  • A Note About Manufacturing Licenses Cost
  • A Note on ''Excessive Concentration''
  • Testing Laboratories
  • What Should I Do with My Current, Non-Compliant Inventory?
  • Some Clarification on Points That Might Confuse Applicants
  • What If an Owner Quits the Cannabis Business?
  • New Dispensary Requirements
  • What Happens If I Violate One of These Regulations?
  • Final Note

   

  Where to Apply for a License

   

  First, you’ll need to apply for a temporary license in order to begin legal operations on Jan. 1, 2018. There will be two license categories issued by this branch: an “A license” for recreational cannabis businesses and an “M license” for medical cannabis businesses. You can hold both, but you must make a separate application for each type.

   

  The Bureau doesn’t have the license application available online yet, but it does anticipate accepting applications shortly. When ready, you’ll find the application for a temporary license at www.bcc.ca.gov. You can submit your application electronically or mail a paper copy to:

   

  Department of Consumer Affairs – Bureau of Cannabis Control
  P.O. Box 138200
  Sacramento, CA 95813-8200
  CalCannabis@cdfa.ca.gov

   

  So far, there’s no listed fee for the temporary application.

   

  Can I Have Both a Medical and Recreational License at the Same Location?

   

  You can apply for both a medical and recreational license at the same location if they’re for an identical type of commercial activity. Find the continued stipulations on holding two licenses for the same locale on page 24.

   

  What If I Want to Run a Microbusiness?

   

  Small cannabis providers were disturbed by the MMRSA’s licensing requirements that could potentially drive “mom and pops” out of business. In response, the Prop 64 allowed for specific Type 12-Microbusiness licensing if the applicant wants to distribute their own product.

   

  In order to hold a microbusiness license, the business will need to engage in at least three of the following activities: cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, or retail.

   

  Depending on the type of activities the microbusiness intends to engage in, the applicant will need to provide the same info as a regular cannabis business license, including a map of the facility showing all business activities taking place. This includes cultivation and manufacturing, which may make it difficult to find suitable physical locations due to local zoning laws. It should be possible if local authorities cooperate.

   

  Microbusinesses will also be held to the same environmental protection standards and documentation requirements that all other cultivation and manufacturing licenses are held. The requirements are extensive, so applicants should consider the cost and feasibility of complying before beginning the licensing process.

   

  Applying for the Permanent License

   

  Once you’ve received your temporary license, you need to immediately fill out an annual license application. This is because your temporary license will only be valid for 120 days and can only be extended for another 90 days, if the state has received your annual license application.

   

  What Do I Need to Apply for a Regular License?

   

  First, you need to be compliant with your local jurisdiction to be approved. The state realizes locals are still setting up their own ordinances, so they’ve developed a system for approving licenses in the event of contingencies.

   

  In some cases, like Long Beach, the jurisdiction isn’t handing out operating licenses just yet; the rules are still being drafted. Instead, they’re handing out authorization letters that only serve to continue the licensing process in a timely manner. They won’t allow a business to start operating, so find out whether your jurisdiction is allowing business to begin on January first, or merely helping to move the process along.

   

  The Bureau will contact your local authorities once it’s processed your application. If you don’t  provide a copy of your local ordinances with it, your local jurisdiction will have 60 days to respond to the state’s request for information.

   

  Your jurisdiction will only have 10 days to respond if you do submit a copy; if they don’t, the state will deem all is in order and the application process will continue.

   

  You’ll also be required to show a list of funds in savings, checking, and other accounts–including account numbers. They’ll need to list all loans in the applicant’s name and whatever security was provided for said loan. A list of investments made to the commercial cannabis business are required, along with a list of gifts made to the applicant for use in conducting commercial cannabis activity.

   

  You’ll need to supply certain information about your business, including:

   

  • Who the owners and financial interest holders are
  • Where the business will operate
  • What are the waste disposal procedures (tracked closely to prevent black market sales of “waste products”)
  • Inventory and quality control methods
  • Transportation plans
  • Security plans

   

  How Soon Will They Process My Application?

   

  If your business has already been in operation under the Prop 215 before September 1, 2016, your application will be given priority review status. Also, if you’ve been honorably discharged from the Armed Forces, your application will be expedited (Sec. 5014, page 15).

   

  Insurance Requirements for Distributors

   

  Distributors will need to have a minimum of $2,000,000 worth of insurance, and a minimum of $1,000,000 for each loss. Specific requirements for the insured and insurers are listed on page 42.

   

  Breakdown of Manufacturing Licenses

   

  If you plan on manufacturing cannabis products, you should know the Manufactured Cannabis Safety Branch of the California Department of Public Health.

   

  In addition to “A” and “M” type licenses, there’ll be four specific license types issued for manufacturing:

   

  • 7: Extraction with volatile solvents
  • 6: Non-volatile solvent or mechanical extraction (rosin press, making butter and oil, water and ethanol or carbon dioxide extraction)
  • N: Infusions using pre-extracted cannabis oil
  • P: Packaging and labeling

   

  Whether the application is for a type 7 or type 6 license, any extracts created using CO2 or volatile solvents must use a closed loop system, which must be certified by a licensed California engineer and by the local fire code official. Hydrocarbon-based solvents must be at least 99% pure.

   

  Production will be further limited to the amount of THC (10mg per serving/100mg per package) foods that can be infused with, and shape; nothing that’ll attract children. You’ll find more about on page 78 of the proposed manufacturing regulations.

   

  A Note About Manufacturing Licenses Cost

   

  The licensing restrictions for manufacturers may prove particularly onerous for smaller, non-microbusiness manufacturing establishments since each annual application costs $1,000, not including the licensing fee. If you need all eight licenses, the fees alone will be $8,000.

   

  Each will carry an annual licensing fee based on gross sales. It’ll be at least $2,000 per license and at most $75,000. So the total for a very small edibles manufacturer who employs all methods for both adult and medical use would be, at minimum, $16,000; PLUS the application fee for all eight licenses, totaling $24,000.

   

  Even a manufacturer who wishes to use one method of extraction but still wants to make and package their own product will face a minimum of $18,000 for the six required licenses. This doesn’t include local fees, inspection fees, CEQA compliance, etc. These costs are much higher at higher levels of operation.

   

  A list of the other licensing fees for other cannabis businesses starts on page 16. Some of the amounts are surprising.

   

  A Note on “Excessive Concentration

   

  The Bureau can actually reject a license application for a retail license or microbusiness, even if it’s compliant in every other way, if it believes there’s an excessive concentration of these businesses in the area.

   

  The problem is, “excessive concentration” isn’t firmly defined.

   

  “(1) The ratio of licensees to population within the census tract or census division in which the applicant premises is located exceeds the ratio of licensees to population in the county in which the applicant premises is located, unless denial of the application would unduly limit the development of the legal market so as to perpetuate the illegal market for cannabis or cannabis products.

   

  (2) The ratio of retail licenses or microbusiness licenses to the population within the census tract, census division, or jurisdiction exceeds that allowable by local ordinance adopted under section 26200.”

   

  The only way to fight such a denial would be to prove that it said denial would “unduly limit the development of the legal market so as to perpetuate the illegal market for cannabis.”

   

  Unfortunately, this isn’t the only arbitrary reason the Bureau can deny a license. It can also deny for “any reason specified in section 26057 in the Business and Professions Code, and on any additional grounds including, grounds for denial under section 5018 of this division, and grounds for discipline under the Act or this division.” The process for appealing a denial is listed on page 22.

   

  Testing Laboratories

   

  Licensed testing labs will need ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation to operate. However, they can get a provisional license while they seek this accreditation, so long as they meet the other standards. Laboratory license requirements are on pages 77-105, including testing requirements, which are very complex.

   

  What Should I Do with My Current, Non-Compliant Inventory?

   

  The department recognized that there will be product remaining on the market produced before these regulations come into effect. The proposed rules suggest these products can be sold with certain packaging and labeling restrictions until July 1, 2018 through both “A” and “M” licensees.

   

  Anything produced after Jan. 1, 2018, must be extracted, produced and labeled according to the new standards. You can find out more about dealing with existing inventory on page 25.

   

  Some Clarification on Points That Might Confuse Applicants

   

  They’ll ask for information on “each owner who meets the criteria of Business and Professions Code section 26001(al).” Here’s what that section of the code says:

   

  1. The owner or owners of a proposed licensee. Owner means all persons having (A) an aggregate ownership interest (other than a security interest, lien, or encumbrance) of 20 percent or more in the licensee and (B) the power to direct or cause to be directed, the management or control of the licensee.
  2. If the applicant is a publicly traded company, owner includes the chief executive officer and any member of the board of directors and any person or entity with an aggregate ownership interest in the company of 20 percent or more. If the applicant is a nonprofit entity, owner means both the chief executive officer and any member of the board of directors.”

   

  What If an Owner Quits the Cannabis Business?

   

  A new license application must be submitted within 10 business days of ownership change. Info regarding notification and licensing requirements for ownership, financier and location changes begin on page 22.

   

  New Dispensary Requirements

   

  All commercial retailers are required to create a limited access area only for employees. They must keep logs of anyone else who enters this area and visitors must be escorted by an employee.

   

  The Bureau is also establishing daily limits on the amount of cannabis sold to one customer at a time. This may seem reasonable, but not to patients who must travel hundreds of miles to obtain their medication. So medical patients can purchase up to eight ounces of flower at a time to alleviate this problem. If a patient has a physician’s recommendation stating he or she needs more, the dispensary can oblige.

   

  There’s a nasty sticking point on page 51 regarding the provision of free cannabis goods. They’re  just not allowed. If a facility has a type 10 retailer M license, type 9 retailer non-storefront M license or a microbusiness M license, they may provide free cannabis to needy patients if they meet certain criteria. In these situations, the provider still remains limited to giving away no more than they’d otherwise be allowed to sell in one day.

   

  What Happens If I Violate One of These Regulations?

   

  The Bureau claims full rights to search your business, records, books, equipment and vehicles. This includes your required videotape records. Even though you have the constitutional right to refuse self-incrimination and warrantless searches, doing so may result in an administrative violation and loss of your licensing right, along with fines.  

   

  If it does findsa minor violation, they will likely send you a notice to comply (page 106).

   

  The Bureau reserves the right to revoke a license. It can also issue citations containing fines up to $5,000 and abatement orders for more serious violations. Fines must be paid within 30 days unless contested; a license cannot be reinstated until they’re resolved.

   

  You can contest a citation within 30 days of receipt by requesting a hearing in writing. You can also request an informal hearing within 15 days. If you choose this option, the Bureau has 15 days to provide the hearing. It may decide to withdraw, modify or affirm the citation. At this point, the licensee can request for a hearing to proceed if filed.

   

  The Bureau has a lot of leeway for modification of citations, or extending time for abatement or correction of a violation if there is good cause, so there are administrative options available to a licensee facing compliance difficulties. They may also be responsible for paying enforcement fees as decided by the administrative court. The details of disciplinary actions and some of the potential defenses are on page 105.

   

  Final Note

   

  Remember, if any of these proposed cannabis business regulations give you cause for concern, take a minute to contact the Bureau and profess your thoughts. Proposition 64 was submitted and adopted by the people, and the people own the licensing process as well.

• Consumer’s Introduction to the New Proposed Cannabis Regulations

  December 5, 2017 10:42 am 24 Comments

  This article serves merely as an introduction to the new proposed cannabis regulations; it’s not intended to offer any legal advice or serve as a replacement for legal counsel. Additionally, the information pertains to emergency regulations that are still developing and could change over the next few weeks. Anyone seeking to start a cannabis businesses or has questions about personal consumption and/or cultivation should seek a licensed attorney.

   

  If you’re wondering where you can buy weed legally on January 1, 2018, you aren’t alone. It turns out that very few California areas are choosing to allow legal cannabis sales, so it may be harder than you thought to find a recreational shop. Even if you’re lucky enough to live near one, you’ll find the weed will be more expensive.

   

  So how will the new proposed regulations (beware they’re long) affect you and your wallet?

   

  What you'll learn in this post:

  [Click any of the section titles below to jump there]

  • What Records Will Be Kept When I Purchase Cannabis Legally?
  • How Much Cannabis Can I Buy?
  • Why You Want to Keep or Get Your Medical Recommendation
  • Can I Still Get Delivery?
  • Can I Smoke Cannabis in Public?
  • Can I Grow My Own Cannabis?
  • Can I Give Away My Personal Cannabis?
  • What About Cannabis Cups?
  • Will I Still Be Able to Find My Favorite Cannabis Products?
  • Stay Informed on All New Regulations

   

  What Records Will Be Kept When I Purchase Cannabis Legally?

   

  Record keeping requirements (defined on page 57) involve:

   

  • The first name of the customer.
  • A special number assigned to the customer.
  • What he/she bought.
  • When he/she bought.
  • How much he/she bought.
  • How much he/she paid.

   

  The assumption is this info will be used to track whether you’re buying or carrying more than the legally allowed amount. By doing so the government can prevent the criminal sale of cannabis, a likely scenario considering the vast areas banning legal sales.

   

  How Much Cannabis Can I Buy?

   

  

   

  There are very strict limits on how much recreational weed users can obtain. You can purchase and transport up to 28.5 grams (an ounce) of flower or 8 grams of concentrate at a time for personal use. Larger amounts will be subject to criminal penalty.

   

  This probably won’t affect the casual user. It won’t prove to be much of a hardship, even for those who must drive long distances because of local bans. On the other hand, this could prove rough on some medical users attempting to fly under the radar to avoid potentially negative consequences of being a cannabis patient.

   

  Why You Want to Keep or Get Your Medical Recommendation

   

  

   

  There are numerous benefits to having your medical marijuana recommendation in 2018. 

   

  • A lower age limit of 18, not 21 like all recreational users.
  • MMJ patients can walk-in and/or order from more than 1,000 dispensaries now; plus there’s a wider array of quality cannabis products to enjoy.
  • A recommendation permits the possession and transportation of medical cannabis without fear of legal reprisal.
  • Recreational users will pay up to a 45% tax in state and local fees. Medical cannabis patients are exempt, though they’ll pay a small tax come January. Until then, medical cannabis is tax-free.
  • Cannabis patients are allowed to carry up to eight ounces at a time. Otherwise, it’d be more likely authorities would assume you’re engaging in illegal sales, even with a rec.

   

  Get your medical recommendation and/or ID card quickly, easily and professionally with NuggMD, the leading telemedicine platform. The process is fast, affordable, and easy to use. Sign up online and in about fifteen minutes you can become a cannabis patient. Your medical recommendation is only $49.

   

  After getting your NuggMD recommendation, you’ll need to go through the state’s medical marijuana program to receive your official ID card. It’ll cost about $100 and $50 for Medi-Cal patients. You’ll have to submit your application in-person at your local county program location, which has 30 days to validate it.

   

  If you spend more than $100 a month on cannabis, it makes fiscal sense to spend the $139 to renew your existing MMJ rec and get a state-issued ID card instead of paying the sales tax. 

   

  Can I Still Get Delivery?

   

  

   

  Some jurisdictions are choosing to ban medical marijuana deliveries. Prop 64 permits them, though it doesn’t allow local roads to be closed off to delivery drivers. This means delivery drivers can use these roads, but only for traveling through a city or county with a delivery ban. They can’t deliver in the city or county itself.

   

  Unfortunately, a backlash has been taking place in several conservative districts, citing concerns over crime and child use. The lack of delivery leaves traveling to a storefront dispensary as the only option for patients or their caregivers if they’re unable to grow their own medical cannabis.

   

  Fortunately, very few districts are choosing ban MMJ delivery; however it’s still a good idea to check your local ordinances and see what’ll be allowed. Your local city council, planning department or county board should be able to answer this question quickly.

   

  Nugg, California’s largest online cannabis marketplace, provides medical cannabis delivery across the state. Just enter your address to get a list of local dispensaries that’ll deliver MMJ products to your door in about an hour. Even compare prices, discover new products, and read reviews before ordering. 

   

  Remember, if a delivery service like Nugg is prohibited in your area, don’t try to entice anyone to illegally deliver your product or ask a friend to get it. That might be tempting, especially if you’re in medical need, but the penalties are steep fines and possible criminal charges. Ultimately, local governments must be forced to consider the situation reasonably and compassionately—or be replaced.

   

  Can I Smoke Cannabis in Public?

   

  

   

  Simply lighting up on the street will likely result in a fine. Most local zoning ordinances control where you can smoke marijuana, and most will forbid public consumption (see Health and Safety Code 11362.3). If cigarettes are banned, joints are definitely out too. You can’t smoke near daycares, schools or other public areas where children gather.

   

  You’re better off lighting up in the privacy of home or at a cannabis bar that allows on-site consumption. And don’t even think of lighting up in your car. You can and will get stopped for driving under the influence, and passengers who light up can land you in the hot seat too.

   

  Can I Grow My Own Cannabis?

   

  

   

  Absolutely; but whether you can grow it outdoors or only indoors is up to your local jurisdiction. The new proposed regulations don’t really address growing for personal use. But almost all local governments have developed or are developing local rules for personal cultivation.

   

  These rules range from simple, allowing growing six plants outdoors with little regulation, to complex, requiring construction of separate, secure buildings with special fencing, locks, and strict environmental controls.

   

  On the bright side, you won’t need a grower’s rec if you’re only planning to grow your legally allowed six plants. If you want more, you must sign up for a cultivator’s license or a microbusiness license. You could grow more if a doctor recommends it, but the new laws have closed many pre-Prop 64 loopholes. You should seek legal counsel before growing a significant amount (see Health and Safety Code 11362.77).

   

  Can I Give Away My Personal Cannabis?

   

  

   

  New proposed regulations don’t affect your ability to give away up to 28.5 grams of flower or up to eight grams of concentrate to adults 21 or older. There can be absolutely no compensation. However, don’t expect freebies from retailers anymore; giving away product to recreational users is strictly forbidden.

   

  What About Cannabis Cups?

   

  

   

  Trade shows and cannabis events will still be permitted, but the record keeping requirements will be just as stringent as any cannabis business. This includes records for composting or destroying cannabis, and documentation of all tracking and financial records for at least seven years.

   

  Cannabis events will now be strictly limited to those 21 and over. A medical patient under this age is no exception. Alcohol and/or tobacco consumption will be strictly prohibited, so no cigarette breaks on show grounds. Free samples are also a no-go here, as they’d be subject to the same restrictions as all cannabis businesses.

   

  Will I Still Be Able to Find My Favorite Cannabis Products?

   

  

   

  In many cases, no. The Manufactured Cannabis Safety Branch created their own set of emergency regulations requiring specific limits on product concentrations and shapes. Some food products are strictly prohibited, like cannabis-infused seafood (probably wise) and edibles that look like commercially available, kid-friendly candies.

   

  The requirements for licensing certain types of products are so extensive that some businesses aren’t finding it financially feasible to continue (read more about them here).

   

  Stay Informed on All New Regulations

   

  These are by no means a summary of all the new regulations coming into effect. The three branches of California’s cannabis control are each proposing new regulations, along with environmental and water control agencies.

   

  Here’s a list of the new regulations California’s cannabis community will need to become familiar with over the upcoming months:

   

  • The MAUCRSA.
  • The emergency proposed manufacturing regulations.
  • New manufacturing instructions and fact sheets.
  • The emergency proposed cultivation regulations (including the track and trace requirements).
  • New cultivation instructions and fact sheets.
  • Licensing information for all other business types (bottom of the page).

• The NIMBY Chronicles Part 1: Prop 64 Encourages a Cannabis Ban?

  November 22, 2017 9:45 pm Leave a Comment

   

  Did California really legalize cannabis? Or did they just give more ammo to cities and counties that wish to continue their bans?

   

  Those who initially celebrated the Prop 64 victory are now facing a stark reality. The state may allow the establishment of legalized recreational and medical dispensaries; however, few local governments are choosing to take advantage of the state’s new permissive rules.

   

  And it’s not that they’re against cannabis access. Californian support for MMJ is now indisputably approved by the majority. Weed’s fine–just not anywhere near their own real estate. This collective group of people now bears the nickname NIMBY’s, and they’ve made legalization all but a moot point in the vast majority of California.

   

  What does NIMBY stand for? Not. In. My. Back. Yard.

   

  What you'll learn in this post:

  [Click any of the section titles below to jump there]

  • Not in MY Backyard!
  • What's the Reasoning for These Bans?
  • Laguna Beach
  • Laguna Woods
  • Orange County
  • San Luis Obispo
  • Santa Clara

   

  Not in MY Backyard!

   

  The problem with legalizing something socially sensitive? It has to be legal everywhere to work. Yet Prop 64 only protects those willing to grow their own in compliance with local law. A local jurisdiction is otherwise completely within its right to ban all commercial activity–including outdoor cultivation.

   

  To complicate matters, many local governments require enormous and expensive regulations be met before anyone can grow their own supply. In some areas like Yuba county, requirements are so onerous it was estimated a person would have to purchase over $50,000 worth of building and equipment just to grow their legally allowed six plants.

   

  Perhaps consumers could just get cannabis from areas where it’s legal; those places will benefit even more from their newfound revenue source. However, in many areas they’ll need to drive 200 miles or more to obtain it legally.

   

  This simply won’t be feasible, especially since consumers are only allowed to carry up to an ounce of recreational weed at a time. If medical cannabis isn’t also available, recreational consumers will likely just turn back to the black market–where they were getting it before Prop 64.

   

  What’s the Reasoning for These Bans?

   

  

   

  Most local governments are feeling enormous pressure from political and business-related groups like the League of Cities. These politicians feel it’d be too risky to vote in favor of reasonable regulations when an outright ban is allowed.

   

  Some activists also speculate that local bans will allow local police to continue profiting from their current asset forfeiture activities while fulfilling their contracts for required prisoner populations in corporate prisons.

   

  Those who campaigned for Prop 64 stated that Sec. 6 took care of that problem, saying:

   

  Q: “What does P64 do to stop Asset Seizures for businesses and persons? What specific section prohibits asset forfeiture?”

  A: “Prop 64 does that in Section 6, Regulation and Safety, codified as Business and Professions code § 26037.”

   

  However, a closer look at Section 6 reveals that only those who’re acting legally under state and local law are protected. There’s nothing to prevent asset forfeiture if the business is operating in a gray area or in opposition to a local ban.

   

  It makes interesting food for thought. Whether enforcement will continue in this manner remains to be seen, but you can always attend the California District Attorney’s Association’s Annual Asset Forfeiture Course to find out more about upcoming changes to forfeiture tactics. Prop 64 looks to be a big topic of discussion at next year’s conference in Monterey.  

   

  Whatever their reasoning, many of the bans are based on what some would call a very questionable thought process. Below are just a few examples of the stated logic behind these local bans. More examples will be addressed in future articles in this series.

   

  Laguna Beach

   

  

   

  In this case, it was the voters who made the decision to ban commercial cannabis sales after placing enough signatures to force the issue. The initiative’s loss came after fierce opposition from the city council itself.

   

  This came as a surprise to many, since Mayor Steven Dicterow seemed to take a favorable stance on the issue. Yet, he voted unanimously with the council on April 12th to “direct staff to return to the City Council by May 10th with an analysis and recommendations regarding a possible competing initiative.”

   

  Dicterow was later forced to recuse himself from subsequent council votes due to conflict of interest. Apparently, his business partner was attempting to purchase a property that might qualify as a dispensary–should the city choose to lift their ban.

   

  When explaining his reasoning for the recusal, Dicterow said:

   

  “I didn’t want anyone to perceive that I would be making a vote on this issue because I was hoping that a property I may own in the future may cause me to be the future landlord for a medical marijuana dispensary.”

   

  Dicterow then explained he’d been approached by one of Congressman Dana Rohrabacher’s consultants to run a pro-medical marijuana ballot initiative, an offer which he said he rejected.

   

  Shortly thereafter, the council voted to scrap the competing initiative altogether and oppose the voters’ initiative instead. After a slew of alarmist anti-dispensary propaganda and disturbing accusations by both sides, the voters decided that commercial cannabis was all well and good, just “not in their backyards.”

   

  Laguna Woods

   

  

   

  While Laguna Woods was the first city in Orange County to allow cannabis dispensaries, the council has now taken a 180 degree turn in their policy, opting to prohibit dispensaries within city limits. City Attorney David Cosgrove cited the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, saying cities that allow dispensaries tend to have increased crime rates.

   

  Of course, one must consider whether this is a causal relationship. Such a vague statement fails to take into account the cause or even type of pre-existing crime statistics in an area that chooses to legalize it.

   

  It’s entirely possible that those areas with higher crime rates due to economic depression are more likely to consider the tax benefits of legal dispensaries. Or, these areas may be considering the fact that ceasing marijuana prosecutions frees up law enforcement to handle dangerous and pressing criminal activity.

   

  In general, statistics have shown that crime decreases with legalized cannabis activity. But it’s reasonable to assume law enforcement costs will increase if dispensaries open since they’ll need to be regulated. This fact was taken into consideration by allowing local control over taxes and fees as well.

   

  Orange County

   

  

   

  Orange County has taken the preliminary steps to approve a ban, and once again a recent trip to Colorado was referenced by board member Lisa Bartlett in the decision making process.

   

  Her reasoning was identical to Chairman John Peschong’s complaints in San Luis Obispo. She noted the rising number of children hospital visits due to accidentally eating edibles while admitting that no one has ever died from a marijuana overdose.

   

  But again, the cognitive dissonance of the situation must be acknowledged. Dr. Genie E. Roosevelt, who was involved with an oft-cited study showing an increase in child exposure to cannabis, noted that parents are more willing to admit to possession in emergency situations, saying:

   

  “In 2009, we didn’t know what was wrong with these kids, and we did all kinds of work-ups, […] Now, after legalization, more people are saying, ‘Oops, I left my brownie out, and my child ate it.’ That’s not great, but it’s helping us to manage these patients.”

   

  So, the possibility must be considered that some of the increase in reported cases is due to willingness of parents to discuss the possibility of exposure. And again, the number of overdose cases for cannabis measure in the hundreds, with not one single resulting death, while the number of overdose cases for opioid measures in the thousands, with deaths in the hundreds.

   

  Supervisor Todd Spitzer noted that the Board was just following the trend of Orange County’s cities, since only two (Santa Ana and Costa Mesa) have decided to open their doors to the commercial cannabis industry.

   

  However, Supervisor Shawn Nelson said that the Board (and apparently the cities) were failing to acknowledge the will of the voters who approved of Prop 64 in every district in OC. He cast the only dissenting vote.

   

  San Luis Obispo

   

  

   

  Chairman John Peschong led his fellow county board members to consider banning edible manufacturing and dispensaries. His recommendation came as a shocking turnabout to the cannabis community since the county had been one of the most reasonable up to this point.

   

  And what was the reason for this sudden change of heart? Peschong said that he learned about a child who consumed an edible in Colorado and went to the hospital for treatment.

   

  These anecdotal stories can definitely have a powerful impact on our emotions, but it’s shocking how little actual evidence of real harm exists, and how outrageous the level of cognitive dissonance is surrounding the subject.

   

  What Peschong fails to see is that he drives past pharmacies every day–pharmacies that provide the doorways for deadly opiates that flood our streets. He also walks past liquor stores that sell the deadliest drug in our nation, killing 88,000 people a year. Incidentally, this is almost as many deaths caused by tobacco, which is also legally sold at the same liquor stores Peschong walks past.

   

  Meanwhile, cannabis saves the lives of veterans who suffer agonizing amputations, helps those on opiates to relieve their addictions, and saves the lives of cancer patients who would otherwise starve to death from nausea and vomiting.

   

  Yet we blow up at the headline: “Third Death in Colorado Linked to Edible Marijuana.” The sensationalism of this comment says it all. Of course, what the headline fails to mention is that the actual causes of these three deaths were suicide, murder, and that other factors.

   

  What level of cognitive dissonance is required for a politician to allow his county to renew the business licenses of pharmacies, liquor stores, and even fast food chains, then deny the sale of a product that’s never caused a single fatal overdose?

   

  Yes, keep edibles away from kids; it’d be a terrifying experience that no child deserves. But what happens when adults turn back to opiates for pain management because they can no longer obtain a safer alternative? What happens when a child finds and eats opiates because they’re pretty and look like candy?

   

  Santa Clara County

   

  

   

  Most of the cities in Santa Clara County have decided to ban both medical and recreational cannabis. The City of Campbell was outright hostile toward the idea of either business. In response to a voter initiative’s qualification for the ballot, Campbell put up a competing measure that won.

   

  This competing measure enforces a two year moratorium, allowing the city more time to see how the state’s rules pan out. Oddly, despite the ban, they passed a 7-15% cannabis tax that could garner up to a quarter million dollars–if they had any dispensaries to tax.

   

  Meanwhile, the city isn’t concerned about residents with MMJ recommendations since they’re allowing MMJ delivery (some cities aren’t even allowing that). However, one wonders how far delivery drivers will travel considering more cities and counties are banning rather than allowing.

   

  Saratoga also passed a ban and is now even more restrictive than they were before Prop 64–refusing to allow cultivation even by legitimate cannabis patients. Their reasoning? Public safety and crime prevention.

   

  Yet again, we’re forced to wonder about the logic behind this decision. It’s an age-old argument that crime decreases with legalization because the only reason cannabis is expensive is because it’s illegal. Now that cannabis is freely available in many areas, though not in others, wouldn’t this actually increase the incentive to illegally sell the plant?

   

  It looks like the gangs are back in business after all.

• Thought the Elections Were Over? Not if You Live in Los Angeles!

  March 6, 2017 10:43 pm Leave a Comment

   

  On March 7, 2017, Los Angeles City voters will be choosing new candidates to run their city and voting on several ballot measures. Two of these measures would allow the city to regulate cannabis businesses in response to the recent passage of Prop 64, which legalized the recreational use of marijuana in California.

   

  These two are Measure M and Measure N.

   

  What you'll learn in this post:

  [Click any of the section titles below to jump there]

  • Measure N: the Initiative That Sparked Measure M
  • A Two-Tiered Enforcement System?
  • Measure M: the Council's Counter-Initiative
  • Why Are These Measures Necessary? Isn't It Already Legal?
  • Why Didn't L.A. Offer Business Licenses in the First Place?
  • So, What Can You Do?

   

  Measure N: the Initiative That Sparked Measure M

   

  

   

  Measure N is a citizen’s initiative that was created and qualified by several of the cannabis business owners operating under L.A.’s current limited immunity rules.

   

  Measure N would establish specific rules for the commercial regulation and taxation of marijuana in L.A. and would prevent the council from making any additional changes to the regulations without specific approval from the voters. In short, Measure N would:

   

  • Give priority licensing to the current established medical marijuana dispensaries that are complying with existing law.
  • Maintain 135 dispensaries and allow the City Council to increase the number of dispensaries but not decrease them.
  • Allow the city to issue Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MCRSA) related permits including manufacturing, cultivation, and sale.
  • Limit enforcement options against permit holders who violate the operational standards and guidelines.
  • Allow sales of recreational marijuana by permit holders at an 8% tax rate.

   

  Because Measure N also takes power away from the city to make certain changes to these laws, a voter initiative would be required if changes became necessary.

   

  A Two-Tiered Enforcement System?

   

  

   

  Measure N also creates a two-tiered enforcement system for violators of the city’s regulations. This system would establish criminal penalties for those who don’t hold licenses, but only allow for a misdemeanor to be levied against permit holders who violate these same regulations after a series of other penalties are levied:

  • 1st violation: a correction letter
  • 2nd violation: a two year period of infraction
  • 3rd violation: a two year period of permit suspension
  • 4th violation: misdemeanor

   

  Therefore, the initiative would allow for criminal penalties to be levied against non-permit holders only. It’s possible this type of enforcement system would face legal review.

   

  The proponents of Measure N have now abandoned their support of the initiative in favor of the city’s counter-initiative—Measure M.

   

  Measure M: the Council’s Counter-Initiative

   

  

   

  Measure M was created by the City Council in response to the qualification of Measure N. Since the City Council’s countermeasure seems to strike a compromise that the proponents of Measure N found acceptable, they have abandoned Measure N and thrown their full support behind the City Council’s Measure M.

   

  Measure M will give the City Council the power to tax and regulate Los Angeles’s marijuana industry under the rules of Prop 64, which is now law.

   

  Unlike Measure N, with Measure M the City Council will retain the authority to amend existing regulations and adopt new ones. But there’s a catch—they must conduct public hearings with the citizens first.

   

  These public hearings will focus on commercialization of recreational and medical cannabis, and how license applications for current compliant businesses will be processed, among other topics.

   

  Measure M will also authorize:

  • New criminal penalties for violations.
  • New nuisance abatement rules.
  • Increase in fines for use of power and water with non-compliant cannabis activity.
  • Disconnection of power and water for non-compliant cannabis activity.
  • New business taxes which include:
    -A 10% tax on gross recreational sales.
    -A 5% tax on gross medical sales (this is a 1% reduction from the current level).
    -A 1% tax on transportation, testing or research sales.
    -A 2% tax on manufacturing, cultivation and other commercial activity.

   

  Why Are These Measures Necessary? Isn’t It Already Legal?

   

  With the passage of the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act by the state legislature and Prop 64 by the people, Los Angeles’s current rules under Proposition D are no longer compliant with state law.

   

  Measure D was a simple limited immunity measure. Basically it provides prosecution immunity to a select group of people who were legally operating cannabis dispensaries before a certain date—IF they followed a specific set of rules.

   

  Since the state now requires dispensary applicants to show proof of city licensing or other positive approval of operations, an agreement not to prosecute does not qualify L.A.’s current operators to apply for a state license. Additionally, specific licenses are necessary for cultivation, transport, testing, manufacturing and other activities.

   

  Los Angeles must pave the way for new business licensing if cannabis businesses are to survive in the city under the new state regulations.

   

  Why Didn’t L.A. Offer Business Licenses in the First Place?

   

  

   

  Los Angeles, like many other California cities and counties, was reticent to issue business licenses to dispensaries because marijuana is still considered illegal on a federal level. These attitudes are changing now as medical marijuana is legal in more than half the states in the U.S., and is fully legal in seven states and Washington D.C.

   

  Council president Herb Wesson spearheaded the effort to put the countermeasure on the ballot, which is now endorsed by Police Chief Beck and Police Union head, Craig Lally.

   

  With the passage of Prop 64, many local municipalities are jumping to ensure they have taken full control of their licensing authority before the state begins handing out official business licenses in 2018.

   

  Others are working just as hard to ensure that marijuana businesses will not be allowed at all in their communities. Long story short—Los Angeles wisely opted for regulation.

   

  So, What Can You Do?

   

  

   

  That’s easy, VOTE! Make sure that you’re registered to vote, that you know where your nearest voting location is, and that you vote YES on Measure M.