CVIndependent

Sun09242017

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

After the November election, 28 states have now legalized marijuana in one way or another. Public opinion has never been stronger in favor of legalization—and this even includes a vast majority of police, according to a new Pew Research Center survey. (More on this in a bit.)

Unfortunately, presumptive Attorney General Jeff Sessions does not agree—and that could pose a serious problem for weed.

Of course, we know Sessions’ views on racial matters have been troubling, at best, over the years. A black assistant U.S. attorney named Thomas Figures once testified that, in addition to calling him “boy” on several occasions, Sessions thought Ku Klux Klan members were “OK, until (he learned) that they smoked marijuana.”

Let that sink in: The probable head of the Department of Justice once said the only problem he has with the KKK is that they smoke weed.

While it’s debatable whether Sessions’ views on race issues have improved over the years, it seems clear that Sessions remains firmly in the anti-marijuana camp.

"I think one obvious concern is that the United States Congress made the possession of marijuana in every state and the distribution of it an illegal act," Sessions said during his confirmation hearings. “If that's something that's not desired any longer, Congress should pass a law to change the rule. It is not much the attorney general's job to decide what laws to enforce. We should do our job and enforce laws effectively as we are able."

Seems like a pretty innocuous answer at first … but just what does "enforce laws effectively as we are able" mean? Many are taking this as an indication that he will enforce the federal ban until federal laws say otherwise.

This means the good done by the Cole memo may be in jeopardy. The Cole memo, the key Obama-era concession to state-legalization laws, was authored by then-Deputy Attorney General James Cole and issued by the DOJ on Aug. 29, 2013. It set different priorities for federal prosecutors that dictated a hands-off policy on prosecuting federal cannabis laws where local jurisdictions had legalized and regulated the plant. This effectively ended federal raids and interference in state-legal businesses.

In a quixotic quest to enforce an antiquated and wildly unpopular federal ban, and prop up a beloved-but-lost War on Drugs, Attorney General Sessions would have the power—and apparently the will—to reverse the Cole memo. Federal raids could resume, hamstringing a burgeoning industry. This is serious: Small businessmen could be jailed, with jobs lost and millions of dollars taken from municipal and state coffers. Large-scale grows like those approved in Desert Hot Springs, Coachella and soon Palm Springs would be prime targets. Cannabis businesses would again be subject to asset forfeiture (where authorities can seize property tied to a crime). The Drug Enforcement Administration’s insistence on keeping cannabis in the Schedule 1 club (making funds non-FDIC-insurable) has made investors nervous already. Under threat of asset forfeiture, big investors will quickly head north into Canada’s cannabis-loving arms. Cash-strapped cities like Desert Hot Springs would be left wondering what the hell happened.


OK, SO WE’RE A LITTLE CONFLICTED...

Meanwhile, the opinion of law enforcement at-large is now heavily in favor of legalization.

The day after Congress began the process to confirm Jeff “Good people don’t smoke marijuana” Sessions to the position of Top Cop in the U.S. (and yes, he said exactly that last April), the Pew Research Center released the results of a poll indicating that the majority of American police officers are in favor of some form of legalization.

The survey of 7,917 officers from 54 police and sheriff's departments, conducted from May 19 through Aug. 14, 2016, shows the opinion of Jeff Sessions is completely out of touch with that of the cop on the street.

The really astounding number is that 68 percent of police officers are in favor of legalization for at least medicinal use: 37 percent of officers polled support legalization for medicinal use only, while 32 percent are in favor of both recreational and medicinal legalization. While this isn’t quite as favorable toward cannabis as overall public opinion (49 percent for recreational and medicinal, and 32 percent for medicinal only), it’s a huge shift in a positive direction. Only 30 percent of police officers believe the plant should remain illegal, but that’s double the 15 percent of the general public. As with the public, support for legalization is stronger among younger officers.

This support for weed hasn’t stopped police from enforcing marijuana laws: In 2015, police made more arrests for marijuana possession than for all violent crimes combined.

If Sen. Jeff Sessions is indeed confirmed as attorney general of the United States, he could create a disaster that cripples the growth of an industry expected to triple in the next few years, with the new addition of California and other states to the legal market. He is a just-say-no-era anachronism who is completely out of touch with 21st century America.

All we can do at this point is hope Trump is a single-term president, and that four years isn’t enough time to do too much damage to a legalization movement that is finally finding real success and acceptance after so many decades of marginalization.

Tell the Senate to reject Jeff Sessions as attorney general. Find an online petition here.

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

It’s becoming an age-old tradition to gripe about the Coachella headliners. However, if you look past the big names on the poster, you’ll find a lot of great acts. Here are some to consider including in your Coachella schedule.


Friday, April 10 and 17

The Ghost of a Saber Tooth Tiger

I’m amazed that this band is listed so low on Friday’s lineup. The Ghost of a Saber Tooth Tiger consists of American fashion model Charlotte Kemp Muhl and Sean Lennon (yes, John Lennon’s son). After meeting each other and falling in love at Coachella in the mid-2000s, Lennon realized Muhl had talent as a singer. In 2010, they released their first album, Acoustic Sessions, which was warmly received. This band definitely belongs at Coachella.

Brant Bjork and the Low Desert Punk Band

Sadly, this is another small-print booking. Locals should recognize this name—and if you don’t, you have some learnin’ to do. Brant Bjork was one of the founding members of the legendary desert-rock group Kyuss, with John Garcia and Queens of the Stone Age frontman Josh Homme. You definitely don’t want to miss Bjork’s performance at Coachella, given he’s one of the people who put the Coachella Valley on the map, music wise. Check out our interview with Bjork at the start of the music section.

Trippy Turtle

Last summer during one of Splash House parties, Independent contributor Guillermo Prieto and I were mystified by this young DJ who wore a green hoodie with a turtle on it. His DJ set was upbeat and fun—and you’ll hear a clip of that YouTube video of the little boy saying “I like turtles” several times throughout his set. (See a photo from Prieto at the top right.)

Steely Dan

This was the one listing on the lineup that had me saying “WTF?” when I first saw it. Steely Dan is a delight for true music-lovers, even though many of the people who will be at Coachella did not yet exist (myself included) back in 1972 when they first formed. Donald Fagen and Walter Becker are musical geniuses, and while their blend of jazz and rock is considered “soft rock,” Steely Dan shouldn’t be lumped into the same genre as the Eagles and Michael Bolton. This is a strange booking for Coachella—but it will probably still be awesome.


Saturday, April 11 and 18

Parquet Courts

This New York City post-punk/garage band has managed to drum up momentum from the DIY, indie and mainstream scenes since it seemingly came out of nowhere in 2010. I’ve seen them once before, and I can say that if you like an edgier and dirtier (in a good way) sound, Parquet Courts are for you.

Royal Blood

A gentleman I talked to not too long ago at Pappy and Harriet’s suggested this band to me after we talked about the White Stripes and the Black Keys. This duo from the United Kingdom has an impressive sound, and the self-titled debut album is balls-to-the-wall rock ’n’ roll from beginning to end. I can’t wait to see Royal Blood’s live show.

War on Drugs

While the name is amusing, War on Drugs is no joke: Front man Adam Granduciel has exemplary skills as a singer-songwriter. War on Drugs, which once included Kurt Vile, has a sound similar to that of Destroyer, The New Pornographers, and Real Estate. Make sure you check this band out. (Photo below.)

The Weeknd

In 2010, this guy became the talk of the underground-music scene, and his debut album, released a year later, was highly anticipated. The Weeknd has an interesting genre listing: PBR&B, in reference to the hipster culture’s love of Pabst Blue Ribbon and R&B, or hipster-based R&B. Whatever. The bottom line: The Weeknd makes great R&B that is soulful and dark at the same time—and the fact that he’s on the reclusive side adds a little mystery.


Sunday, April 12 and 19

The Orwells

This Chicago outfit has been on the rise since 2009. After they toured with the Arctic Monkeys, played at Lollapalooza and recently appeared on Late Show With David Letterman, it makes sense to see The Orwells playing at Coachella in 2015. I suggest listening to the band’s most recent album, Disgraceland, before the festival; you won’t be disappointed.

Chicano Batman

I have had a number of opportunities to see this band—and thanks to bad luck, I’ve missed them every time. These guys are not only one of the best DIY indie-bands in the Southwest U.S.; they also have a unique sound that combines Latin music with soul and psychedelic rock. Check out The Lucky 13 on Page 38 for more info.

Jenny Lewis

When I was a third-grader, I was a Nintendo-playing kid who was fascinated with the movie The Wizard, which Jenny Lewis, then a child actress, appeared in with Fred Savage. Lewis is now all grown up and playing music—and she’s pretty awesome. Her Americana-meets-pop sound is a lot of fun; she was even a part of Bright Eyes at one time. For giggles, look up the Christmas-themed comedy skit she took part in with Megadeth back in 2013 on Jimmy Kimmel Live.

Marina and the Diamonds

Marina and the Diamonds were beloved by some of my co-workers at Borders Books and Music (R.I.P.) back in 2010 after she dropped her debut album, The Family Jewels—and Marina Diamandis has been pushing the envelope ever since. She has a new album out, and Marina and the Diamonds should be a highlight of the festival.

Published in Previews

Dear Mexican: I’m not Mexican, but my son-in-law is. He is intelligent, bright, enthusiastic and pleasant to spend time with. He came here, illegally, at the age of 18 with his aunts. He and my daughter are married, have a 3 1/2-year-old son, and have gone through the entire process of filing papers and paying fees so he could enter the country legally.

Last week, at the instruction of la migra, he went to Juarez, Mexico, to apply for his visa. He had his physical after waiting in line for nine hours. Then, on Wednesday, he stood in line for his 9:45 a.m. appointment from 7 a.m. until the consulate closed at 4 p.m. He was told to come back tomorrow. He showed up at 6 a.m. the next day and was finally granted his interview.

One question that is asked in the interview is: “Have you ever used drugs?” Well, being the honest person he is, and not ever wanting to be accused of lying, he answered truthfully: “Yes, I tried some with a friend about 6 months ago.”

It is from this experience that I have learned our own U.S. government doesn’t care about honest people; it just wants to appear “drug-free.” He was told he was banned from the U.S. and to reapply in 2 1/2 years! My daughter is beside herself with grief. She cannot afford to pay for child care without the help of her husband, so she will be forced to quit her job. My grandson believes his daddy doesn’t love him any more, or he would come home. And my son-in-law has learned this lesson: If you want to enter the U.S. legally, don’t admit to having done anything wrong—period.

My daughter and grandson now are in mental-health counseling, but their plan is to move to Tijuana, where a family member owns a home in which they can live. My daughter will commute to San Diego if she can find work. And for the next five years, while they go through the entire process over again, I will miss watching my sweet little boy grow up. I will miss having my only daughter and best friend with me, and I will miss having my loving son-in-law here where he belongs with his family.

I’ve written to my senators asking for intervention, and I’m going to get an appointment to see an immigration lawyer, but I’m not terribly confident. Do you hold out any hope for them at all?

Upset Mom

Dear Gabacha: Ever hear that canard by Know Nothings that Mexicans don’t want to enter el Norte the “right” way? Your yerno is Exhibit Número 1 on why we don’t.

Throw in the stupidity of our drug war, and coming into this country legally is unjustly harder than trying to get your tía to write her tamale secrets down in recipe form.

Honestly, the best thing for your son-in-law is to cross over illegally, as undocumented folks nowadays seem to have more protection than those who try to do it the right way—and while I have no problem with that whatsoever, how fucked up is it that we’ve come to this?

Wait, that came off VERY conservative, so let me save my Aztlanista reputation … ¡A LA CHINGADA CON MURRIETA!

Ask the Mexican at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.; be his fan on Facebook; follow him on Twitter @gustavoarellano; or follow him on Instagram @gustavo_arellano!

Published in Ask a Mexican