CVIndependent

Sat05272017

Last updateFri, 16 Sep 2016 12pm

The California Department of Public Health has issued proposed rules for the cannabis industry in anticipation of the Proposition 64 provisions that will take effect next year.

Voters legalized the adult use of marijuana via Prop 64 last year.

The proposed rules require applicants who wish to grow, transport or sell marijuana for medical use to get a license from the state’s Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation, and pass a background check. People who transport marijuana between farms and dispensaries would be prohibited from owning said marijuana, and must be at least 21.

The rules establish a track-and-trace system that would monitor cannabis products through the supply chain. Individual plants would be tracked from seeds and buds to processing facilities. Dispensaries would no longer be able to package products in-house or be allowed to give out free samples. Delivery service would be an option if abiding by strict rules—governing everything from volume to the types of vehicles used.

One proposed rule that will surely meet with opposition from the industry is a provision that edibles have no more than 10 milligrams of THC per serving, and no more than 100 milligrams of THC in the total package. There currently is no such limit, and some companies are specializing in ultra-potent edibles; consumers are eating them up. Many would argue that this per-serving limit is impractically small, especially for those with medical needs for higher doses. These complaints, however, will most likely lead to no changes in the rules. Colorado and Washington both limit edibles to 10 mg per serving and 100 mg per package.

Other proposed rules include:

• Packaging must not appeal to children.

• Cannabis may not be infused into alcohol, nicotine or caffeine products.

• Dispensary hours of operation will be limited to the hours between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m.

• 42 percent of electricity for indoor commercial cultivation must come from renewable sources.

• Concentrated products like extracts and tinctures could contain up to 1,000 milligrams per package.

• All cannabis business would need to be at least 600 feet away from schools.

• All products would be required to leave sales points in child-resistant containers.

• Cannabis farms would be limited to 4 acres.

• Licenses for veterans and cannabis businesses in good standing as of Jan. 1, 2016, would receive priority consideration.

Tuesday, June 13, is the last day for the public to submit written comments. More information can be found at cannabis.ca.gov.


California AG Ready to Fight for Cannabis in Jeff Sessions’ Drug War

Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a memo to federal prosecutors calling on them to push for prosecution of the most-serious charges possible in drug cases—especially those with mandatory minimum sentences.

Vanita Gupta, the former head of the U.S. Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, told Yahoo! News that the memo was a “resounding step backwards into the 1980s of failed policies in our criminal justice system that resulted in us having the highest incarceration rate of industrialized nations in the world. It’s a real throwback in a lot of ways, and very troubling.”

Former Attorney General Eric Holder was unrestrained in his contempt for Sessions’ new directive. “The policy announced today is not tough on crime. It is dumb on crime. It is an ideologically motivated, cookie-cutter approach that has only been proven to generate unfairly long sentences that are often applied indiscriminately and do little to achieve long-term public safety,” Holder said in a statement.

Sessions has repeatedly claimed that drug use—including cannabis—is behind a violent crime epidemic sweeping the nation. (For the record, crime rates nationwide remain dramatically lower than they were in the ’80s and ’90s.)

Congress has already limited Sessions’ ability to extend his renewed drug war to legal weed, and has denied federal funding of any efforts to prosecute cannabis businesses that are legal according to state laws, thanks to a rider to the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017. Section 537 states: “None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used” with respect to states with legal medical weed “to prevent any of them from implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession or cultivation of medical marijuana.”

However, President Trump has the industry and its proponents worried a bit by his signing statement attached to the bill. Among the points of disagreement highlighted by the president was the provision that prohibits the feds from interfering with state-legal medical-marijuana programs. While signing statements are not policy, some worry it could signal future changes in policy where federal enforcement is concerned. This budget bill will be in effect through Sept. 30.

In an interview with Politico California, state Attorney General Xavier Becerra indicated that California is unwilling to yield on its marijuana laws, and would not back down from a battle in the face of a federal crackdown.

“I would love to see Jeff Sessions come to California and tell us we’re not going to move forward on cannabis. Something tells me that it’s not gonna happen,” Becerra said. “I’ll probably be the 1 millionth person in line to fight Jeff Sessions on that.”

He continued: “Cannabis is last century’s argument. We’re beyond that.”

Published in Cannabis in the CV

The different reactions to marijuana legalization by Coachella Valley’s cities have been varied … to say the least.

Palm Springs has always been forward-thinking where cannabis is concerned, and Desert Hot Springs, Cathedral City and Coachella are now wisely looking to cash in on the green rush. Meanwhile, Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage are going in the other direction by doing their best to slow access—or ban weed altogether.

Now Indian Wells has enacted the most draconian policies yet in the wake of Proposition 64’s November voter approval.

Indian Wells recently passed an ordinance that requires residents who wish to grow marijuana at home for personal use, as allowed by Prop 64, to register with City Hall for a permit—and pay a $141-per-year fee.

Marijuana activists and legal experts alike are attacking the law as unconstitutional, but that didn’t prevent the City Council from passing the ordinance in a 4-1 vote.

Councilman Ty Peabody abstained. Later, according to The Desert Sun, he commented: “I just don’t believe in marijuana,” citing the continuing federal ban.

(What does that even mean? Has he been under a rock the last couple decades?)

In addition to the yearly fee attached to the permit, Indian Wells residents would be required by law to allow city employees to inspect their homes to determine compliance with state and local laws.

While Prop 64 does allow jurisdictions to enact reasonable regulations on a local level, the Indian Wells’ requirements represent a vast overreach, according to multiple experts on the law. In fact, Paul Armentano, deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), said this may the tightest regulation passed in California to date.

“Proposition 64 states: ‘A city, county, or city and county may enact and enforce reasonable regulations to reasonably regulate’ the indoor cultivation of marijuana by adults,” Armentano told the Independent via e-mail. “However, this proposal clearly stretches the idea of what would be considered ‘reasonable.’ We would not expect adults to register with the city or to submit to inspections of their home if they were brewing their own alcohol, and we should not expect adults to give up their civil liberties and privacy rights to engage in indoor marijuana gardening—activity that is now perfectly legal under state law.”

Dale Gieringer, the director of California NORML, also compared home growers of marijuana to home brewers, and questioned the usefulness of such a law.

“We believe the Indian Wells ordinance violates Prop 64,” he said. “Prop 64 authorizes ‘reasonable’ regulations of personal-use cultivation. Why doesn’t it impose the same regulations on indoor growing of all plants, or on home brewing of beer and wine? This is an obnoxious exercise in over-regulation and an affront to personal privacy. Don’t Indian Wells officials have anything better to do?”

“Unconstitutional” and “crazy” are words used to describe the ordinance by attorney and cannabis law expert Omar Figueroa of Sonoma County. In a conversation with The Desert Sun, he cited the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court Case Leary v. United States, which ruled that “self-incrimination” can’t be required by state or local agencies, due to the Fifth Amendment.

“It’s not a constitutionally enforceable law,” he told The Desert Sun. “It would be foolish of them to enforce it.”

Joy Brown Meredith, the founder and president of Joy of Life Wellness Center, Palm Springs’ sixth licensed dispensary, said she’s happy to be located in a less-restrictive Coachella Valley city.

“I’m glad Palm Springs is more progressive than Indian Wells,” she said. “What is the purpose of the permit and all the identification requirements if not to intimidate people to feel uneasy about growing this amazing plant?”

Indian Wells, Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, Indio and La Quinta have banned dispensaries and cultivation. The city of Coachella allows manufacturing and cultivation in a specific zone of the city, but not dispensaries or delivery.

Rancho Mirage and Indian Wells recently amended their respective bans to include recreational marijuana businesses in the wake of Prop 64.


DEA: CBD and all other cannabis extracts are on Schedule I

Continuing its steady march backward, the Drug Enforcement Administration has lumped all marijuana extracts—including CBD—into marijuana’s Schedule I classification, making every form of the cannabis plant illegal under federal law.

The new code defines extracts as “containing one or more cannabinoids that (have) been derived from any plant of the genus Cannabis, other than the separated resin (whether crude or purified) obtained from the plant.”

The DEA says it’s merely a way to keep better track of research and shipments of extracts versus flowers, by assigning extracts their own code. But the new rule states clearly: “For practical purposes, all extracts that contain CBD will also contain at least small amounts of other cannabinoids. … However, if it were possible to produce from the cannabis plant an extract that contained only CBD and no other cannabinoids, such an extract would fall within the new drug code.”

CBD occurs naturally in cannabis, but unlike THC, it doesn’t get the user high. CBD has been successful in the treatment of tumors, epilepsy, chronic pain and many other ailments. To date, CBD has been legalized in 20 states and Washington, D.C., for medicinal use. While these state laws will not be affected by the new code, those laws will now be more specifically in conflict with federal law.

Congress could still act to reschedule CBD and other extracts. The Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act was introduced in the Senate last year to ease research restrictions on CBD, but stalled—despite support from both sides of the aisle.

Currently, the federal government has a laissez-faire stance regarding state cannabis laws; in other words, the feds are letting states call the shots for their citizens. However, considering the anti-pot crusaders prevalent in the incoming Trump administration—including Vice President-elect Mike Pence and attorney general pick Ken “good people don’t smoke marijuana” Sessions—one must wonder how long that attitude will last.

Published in Cannabis in the CV

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair.

OK, sure, there are one or two issues more important than cannabis legalization. Maybe three. And while the idea of making America great again seems horribly ironic to many right now, cannabis legalization scored unprecedented victories across the country this November.

On the medicinal front: A stunning 63.8 percent of North Dakota voters legalized medicinal use. The state has 90 days from the election to implement the law statewide.

However, Arkansas was the big surprise, as it became the first Bible Belt state to legalize cannabis for medicinal use. Arkansas’ governor, former Drug Enforcement Administration chief and outspoken cannabis opponent Asa Hutchinson, has indicated he will accept the will of the people and allow the law to go into effect without interference.

After failing in 2014 (even though a majority of voters said yes; a 60 percent supermajority was required), Florida voted overwhelmingly to legalize medicinal weed: 71 percent of voters were in favor, but much remains to be seen regarding how Gov. Rick Scott’s administration will implement the law.

As for recreational marijuana, Nevada was a big question mark heading into Election Day, but despite casino mogul Sheldon Adelson’s best efforts (he supplied 97 percent of the opposition funding), 54 percent of Silver State voters ended up in favor of legalization. Nevada was already ahead of the cannabis-tourism game by accepting medical recommendations from other states, and recreational use will surely be a further boon for the travel industry. The personal use and possession components of the law go into effect on Jan. 1, 2017. However, lighting up in public will still get you a $600 fine. Also: Don’t expect pot shops to start popping up on The Strip anytime soon. The state is not expecting to start taking license applications until the beginning of 2018.

Some 54 percent of Massachusetts voters thought legalizing was a good idea, too. Once the law goes into effect in December of this year, adults 21 and older can possess up to 10 ounces of cannabis at home, and 1 ounce in public.

Maine approved legalization in a real nail-biter of an election. The measure passed by just more than 2,600 votes—less than 1 percent. Opponents of the law have already demanded a recount, and anti-pot crusader Gov. Paul LePage has indicated he may challenge the law.

Arizona’s failed Proposition 205 was the low point of the state elections; it was the only cannabis-related state initiative to fail, receiving just 48.5 percent of the vote.

Here in California, Proposition 64 passed by a comfortable margin—surprising no one. The home cultivation, possession and consumption components went into effect immediately.

What’s allowed:

  • Consumption of cannabis in private homes.
  • Possession of up to an ounce of flower and up to 8 grams of concentrate.
  • Growing up to six cannabis plants and keeping the harvested product in a private home. (Product harvested from your own grow is exempt from the one ounce limit.)
  • Giving up to an ounce of flower and up to eight grams of concentrate to another adult.

The first commercial-permit applications are expected around the beginning of 2018, with stores opening a couple of months later. If the Washington and Colorado examples hold true, demand will skyrocket, while newly licensed commercial growers get up and running, resulting in a temporary shortage.

Prop 64 removes virtually all penalties for those 21 and older, and replaces criminal charges with drug education for those younger than 18. You can get busted for smoking in public, and you can still get fired for failing a drug test. In a weird loophole … if you’re 18-20 years old, you got screwed: Possession of more than an ounce can now mean 6 months in jail. If an adult shares cannabis with someone younger than 21, he or she could face six months behind bars and a $500 fine. Something to think about the next time you’re passing a joint around at a concert …

California is the sixth-largest economy in the world, so Prop 64 passing is the brass ring for the legalization movement.

In Colorado, the push toward further legalization received a boost when Denver passed Initiative 300, which allows businesses to permit social consumption of cannabis on their premises. This opens the door to smoking weed in bars, cafes and other public spaces.

While the news regarding legalization was great on the state and local levels (outside of Arizona, that is), the national results were not quite as encouraging: With election of The Donald and Republicans in control of both houses of Congress, don’t expect federal prohibition to end any time soon. While Trump himself has indicated he would defer to the states to set medicinal cannabis law, Vice President-elect Mike Pence’s influence remains to be seen. Pence is a long-time proponent of the War on Drugs and believes in jail time for minimal possession. Pence’s role in leading Trump’s transition team indicates he will have an active role in the administration. This also means the DEA will be under no pressure to remove marijuana from Schedule 1 for at least the next four years—which will complicate cannabis-industry banking and deter major investment in the industry for the foreseeable future due to a continued lack of Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation coverage.

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness …

Published in Cannabis in the CV

The public-opinion news just keeps getting better for the legalization movement.

A recent Pew Research Center poll revealed that 57 percent of Americans favor the legalization of the use of marijuana, while only 37 percent still think it should be illegal. This is fairly amazing, considering that a mere 10 years ago, those numbers were pretty much reversed, with 32 percent in favor of legalization, and 60 percent opposed.

Weed, you’ve come a long way, baby!

Not surprisingly, the youth vote is where the strongest support for legalization is. A whopping 76 percent of millennials (ages 18-35 in 2016) are in favor. That’s up from 34 percent just a decade ago. Baby Boomers and GenXers are showing increasing support as well: Boomers are 56 percent in favor of legalization, up from just 17 percent in 1990, while Generation X sits at 57 percent in favor, up from 21 percent in 1990.

How does this break down across party lines? Predictably: 66 percent of Democrats are in favor of legalization, with just 30 percent opposed, while most Republicans (55 percent) oppose legalization.

Here in California, the numbers tell a similar tale. A recent poll showed that 58 percent of Golden State voters favor Proposition 64, which, if approved in November, would legalize marijuana for some recreational use. The poll (conducted by USC Dornsife and the Los Angeles Times) also showed that support for legalization was strong across “most lines of age, race, income and gender,” the Los Angeles Times reported.

This shift in public opinion all but guarantees passage of Prop 64, which is backed by former Facebook president Sean Parker and Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, despite blowback from pro-marijuana skeptics who think the law doesn’t do enough to protect smaller growers and the rights of medical patients.

Cannabis-industry trade groups like the California Growers Association are deeply divided on the issue. Only 31 percent of the 750 member growers of the CGA are in favor of the bill, while 31 percent are opposed, and 38 percent are undecided. The resistance stems from potentially costly environmental regulations (said to cost around $20,000 to $100,000 per farm), and a lack of long-term protections from an industry takeover by out-of-state interests.

Allowing Big Agriculture into the game is the biggest concern of growers. Some of these growers have been waiting decades for legalization, and now they fear being cut out of the industry they helped create. Prop 64 gives growers five years to establish market dominance in the state before corporate mega-grows can be approved, but many in the industry say this is not enough time, will take industry accessibility away from smaller operations, and will result in a lower-quality product.

The possibility of a lower-quality product is one of the many arguments coming from the medical-marijuana camp. One such voice of dissent is Dennis Peron, a co-author of Proposition 215, which opened the door for medical marijuana in the state back in 1996. He believes cannabis patients will be victimized by law enforcement and the tax code as they are lumped in with recreational users.

“I want the voters to be aware of the situation at hand,” Peron told The Cannabist. “Prop 64 is not legalization. If it were legalizing, that would imply that marijuana is illegal, and it’s not. This law would mean the displacement of cannabis farms in Humboldt. It essentially empowers profit instead of people.”

While these concerns are indeed valid, Prop 64 will most likely become law in our fair state. Even if Prop 64 fails, not much would change; most of the regulations it puts into effect were passed in last year’s Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act, which is now law.

Only time will determine how things shake out. In a strange little twist, the Drug Enforcement Administration may actually help smaller California growers stay in business by refusing to reclassify marijuana from Schedule 1: Until the federal prohibition is lifted, large investors will want to place their money where it can be federally insured, like Canada.


‘High Times’ Launches Marijuana-Themed Clothing Line

Back in 1974, a group of pothead pranksters headed by a publisher named Thomas King Forcade thought a one-off spoof of Playboy Magazine that featured buds instead of babes would be a pretty funny thing to do. That first issue sold more than anyone expected, and the public demanded more.

High Times magazine was born. Since then, the magazine has become the voice of the industry, movement and subculture that is marijuana.

The roller-coaster ride to legalization is finally coming to fruition, and weed subculture has been thrust into the limelight. Stoners across the land are more and more open about their love of cannabis, and cannabis culture is booming. Therefore, High Times has introduced a line of clothing that pays tribute to these connoisseurs, patients, activists and advocates—as well as to their maverick founder.

"The fashion trend in general is about retro and vintage. … You can see it at any show you go to. At the same time, what you’re seeing is this recognition of the legalization of cannabis," says Larry Linietsky, chief operating officer of High Times. "It's a way to support the movement by wearing the clothing. We think it's well-timed. (It’s) vintage, counterculture and authentic."

With the line’s launch, “High Times recognizes the need to celebrate these street soldiers worldwide by giving them banners to fly.” This would be pretty haughty talk for anyone other than High Times … but would you question Rolling Stone magazine’s place in rock ’n’ roll history? Playboy’s place in pinup culture? No, you would not.

The line is available now at shop.hightimes.com.

Published in Cannabis in the CV

The pro-cannabis movement has had quite a few recent state-level victories—both here in California and elsewhere—but the anti-prohibition movement and the development of the cannabis industry continue to be crippled at the federal level by the Drug Enforcement Administration, as the agency desperately tries to retain relevancy by preserving the failed War on Drugs—and the revenue that goes with fighting it.

But before we talk about that, let’s look at the good news happening at the state level.

Here in California, the State Assembly passed civil-asset-forfeiture reform legislation by a 69-7 vote on Aug. 15. The legislation—which has gone through numerous amendments, including a previous version which was passed in the Senate—is expected to glide through when it returns to the Senate.

Information from the U.S. Department of Justice and California’s Attorney General’s Office shows that most asset-forfeiture cases involve cash and property valued less than $40,000. Currently, assets can be seized before any criminal conviction. Supported by the ACLU, the Drug Policy Alliance, the Institute for Justice, the Ella Baker Center, and the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Senate Bill 443 would require that a conviction be gained in the underlying criminal case before seized cash and money with a value of less than $40,000 can go to bolster law-enforcement coffers.

“If Gov. Brown signs this bill, it will be one of the most far-reaching civil-asset forfeiture reforms in the country and will once again demonstrate that states are taking the lead to protect people’s due process and property rights,” said Lynne Lyman, California state director of the Drug Policy Alliance, in a news release. “This important legislation will drastically reduce the opportunity for police to take money from and otherwise harass poor people, immigrants, people of color, and small businesses that work primarily in cash.”

The bill was delayed last year by law-enforcement lobbyists who claimed the loss of revenue would result in lower standards of crime prevention. The revised bill, now on the way to becoming law, is the result of extensive negotiations between proponents and law-enforcement representatives. Republican Assemblyman Donald Wagner called the effort and resulting bill “the model of lawmaking.”


Excise Tax Shelved by Senate Appropriations Committee

In another cannabis victory here in California, a bill to put a 15 percent excise tax on medical marijuana has been killed by a Senate panel following claims by patient advocates that its passage it would put an undue financial burden on medi-pot patients.

AB 2243 was shelved by the Senate Appropriations Committee, in part because a 15 percent tax on cannabis is part of Proposition 64, to be voted on by Californians on Nov. 8; the ballot question would legalize the recreational use of cannabis in the state if passed.

Authored by Assemblyman Jim Wood (D-Healdsburg), the bill would have charged up to $9.25 per ounce of flower product, $2.75 per ounce of leaf and $1.25 per ounce of immature plants.

Wood says the excise tax is needed to cover the costs of enforcing new licensing for the cultivation, transportation and sale of medical cannabis. This seems like a fairly hollow justification for a huge tax burden to fall on patients—in light of how much money law enforcement stands to save by not enforcing draconian cannabis-prohibition laws.

California NORML and Americans for Safe Access were among the opponents to the bill.

These are just a couple California examples of the marijuana progress being made on the state level. Medical cannabis has been legalized in 25 states. Recreational use is now legal in Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, Washington and our nation’s capitol, Washington D.C. (Well, it’s sort of legal. Residents have voted for legalization, though Congress—which controls Washington, D.C.’s budget—prohibits retail sale for recreational use there). California, Nevada, Arizona, Massachusetts and Maine will all vote on recreational use this November, and medicinal use will be on the ballot in Arkansas, Florida and Missouri.


Then There Are the Feds …

Back in May, the DEA indicated it would again consider moving cannabis from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2. The move would lead to wider access to marijuana by researchers, and would open traditional banking avenues to cannabis businesses that are now off limits due to federal prohibition.

After months of anticipation, the Drug Enforcement Agency—following (sarcasm alert) what was surely careful and balanced analysis, and consideration of the will of the people—decided to leave Cannabis on Schedule 1, alongside heroin, GHB, bath salts, mescaline and Ecstasy.

The classification indicates the drug has no medicinal purpose, and the DEA stands by this assertion—in spite of hundreds of credible studies and tests proving the plant’s medicinal benefits.

Who cares if marijuana can increase revenues in state coffers, reduce the prison population (We’re No. 1!), increase funding for school construction and budgets, and help with back pain/cerebral palsy/arthritis/social anxiety/PTSD/cancer/insomnia/eating disorder/etc./etc.? So what if state after state is following the will of the people and embracing cannabis?

When will the DEA give up the ghost on cannabis? The time for the agency to take any kind of leadership on the issue has long since passed, and it’s time for the feds to follow the findings of science and the will of the American people—or at least get out of the way.

Published in Cannabis in the CV