CVIndependent

Mon10152018

Last updateTue, 18 Sep 2018 1pm

The final few weeks of this year’s session of the California State Legislature are here—and the fates of some important cannabis-related bills hang in the balance.

There are 17 cannabis-related bills, in fact, which must be decided on by the Aug. 31 adjournment, covering everything from after-school program funding to the veterinary use of cannabis. As this new industry continues to evolve, it’s important to pay attention—and speak up to ensure lawmakers in Sacramento know what the people of California think.

Here’s a list of those bills, and where they stand as of this posting on Aug. 14. Click the links to each bill to go to the Legislature’s website for up-to-date information.

AB 1744: This bill would mandate that cannabis-tax revenues be used to fund after-school education and safety programs—specifically programs that encourage healthy choices and improve school retention.

This bill is currently in the hands of the Senate Appropriations Committee. It should be a no-brainer; it passed the Assembly 73-0 and has sailed through two Senate committees so far.

AB 1793: This is a social justice bill, requiring the California Department of Justice to review all convictions that are potentially eligible for resentencing under the Adult Use of Marijuana Act of 2016 and Proposition 64.

This bill would go a long way toward addressing the historical use of marijuana convictions to punish communities of color, although it is a far cry from general amnesty. This bill passed the Assembly in a 43-28 vote and is also in the hands of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Legislators should show the wisdom and compassion to address these historic wrongs.

AB 1863: This would personal income-tax deductions for licensed cannabis businesses. It, too, is waiting for a hearing in the Senate Appropriations Committee after passing the Assembly in a 64-11 vote.

“Canna-preneurs” should have the same tax advantages as any other business owner. This is particularly important for small business owners.

AB 1996: This would create a cannabis research program here in California.

Using cannabis taxes to study cannabis seems perfectly reasonable—especially considering federal prohibition has created a vacuum of research. Without a thorough understanding of cannabis, how can we make informed decisions around its usage?

It is currently making its way through the Senate after a 73-0 vote in the Assembly.

AB 2020 and AB 2641: The former bill would authorize temporary event licenses, while the latter would allow for onsite sales at those events. Both easily passed through the Assembly and are in the hands of the Senate.

Last April, High Times magazine’s Cannabis Cup event in San Bernardino was denied permits for sales … meaning the nation’s largest cannabis convention was held without any cannabis. These bills will hopefully eliminate this sort of snafu in the future.

AB 2215: This bill is a bit confusing. The California Veterinary Medical Board currently does not allow doctors to discuss or prescribe cannabis—and can revoke their license for doing so.

The good news: This bill would prohibit the board from punishing vets for discussing cannabis. The band news: It would still be illegal for veterinarians to prescribe cannabis for pets, while the Veterinary Medical Board comes up with guidelines.

This bill passed the Assembly, 60-10, and is working its way through the Senate

AB 2255: This proposed law would prohibit licensed distributors from transporting amounts of cannabis that exceed the amount on the shipping manifest. It unanimously passed in the Assembly and is expected to easily pass in the Senate.

AB 2402: The bill would prohibit marijuana businesses from sharing your personal information without your consent—and would prohibit them from denying you service for withholding consent. It passed the Assembly unanimously and is working its way through the Senate.

AB 2555: This is a “cleanup” bill that would create definitions for terms in state marijuana codes, including “immature cannabis plant,” “mature cannabis plant” and “plant.” It’s in the Senate’s hands after unanimously passing in the Assembly.

AB 2899: This is also a “cleanup” bill that would prohibit businesses with suspended licenses from advertising. It, too, passed unanimously in the Assembly and is working its way through the Senate.

AB 2914: I have mixed feelings about this one. It prohibits cannabis licensees from producing or selling alcoholic beverages containing cannabis, and would stop alcoholic-beverage licensees from selling or providing cannabis products.

I have had wine with cannabis in it … and let’s just say a little goes a long way. This bill may prevent lots of Californians from getting the spins … but does seem a bit “nanny state.”

It passed through the Assembly unanimously and is working its way through the Senate.

AB 2980: This would allow two or more licensed marijuana business to share common-use areas. Office and warehouse space is expensive, especially for small businesses, as long as they are complying with the law, why should they be treated differently from any other businesses?

It passed the Assembly in a 48-21 vote and is in the Senate’s hands.

AB 924: This would create the Cannabis Regulatory Enforcement Act for Tribal Entities, forming a process through which the state can interact with sovereign tribes that are producing cannabis products.

It unanimously passed through the Assembly and is awaiting word from the Senate Appropriations Committee.

SB 1459: This would allow county agricultural commissioners to include cannabis in its reporting process to the State Secretary of Food and Agriculture.

It unanimously passed through the Senate and is working its way through the Assembly.

SB 829: This bill would establish compassionate-care licenses for donors of medical use cannabis products to patients who are in need.

It was passed unanimously by the Senate and is now working its way through the Assembly.

SB 930: This is probably the piece of legislation that would do the most to reform the cannabis industry, making things better for the legal market and negatively impacting the illegal market.

This bill would create a state-sponsored credit union for licensed marijuana businesses to use. Because of federal prohibition, cannabis businesses can’t use the banking system, meaning most cannabis business deal with vast amounts of cash, making them vulnerable to crime. I have heard of bud-tenders being paid with stacks of $5 bills, landlords receiving thousands of dollars of rent in cash, and so on.

It passed the Senate on a 32-6 vote and is working its way through the Assembly.

It’s great to see so much work being done in Sacramento to reform and strengthen California’s cannabis industry. However, it’s disappointing that not one of these 17 bills was introduced by a Coachella Valley legislator. Considering the blooming importance of cannabis to our economy, it’s disappointing that these state legislators seem indifferent to the needs of their constituents.

Published in Cannabis in the CV

On July 13, California’s three state cannabis-licensing authorities—the Bureau of Cannabis Control, the California Department of Food and Agriculture, and the California Department of Public Health—announced the publication of proposed “non-emergency” regulations that would replace the rules under which the state’s marijuana industry has been operating.

Voters passed Proposition 64 in November 2016, legalizing the sale and use of recreational cannabis in California as of Jan. 1, 2018—meaning there was only a little more than a year to create an entire state agency, licensing guidelines and regulatory processes.

Given the size of this task—and the size of this state—it’s no surprise that California has gotten off to a bumpy start. High taxes, both on the state and local level, are a major problem. In Washington, Oregon and Colorado, marijuana consumers saw a drop in the price of cannabis for the recreational user as soon as the supply chain was able to catch up to demand—so much so, in fact, that the black and gray markets were largely put out of business.

In California, this has not been the case. Because of both the incredibly high taxes on legal weed and the big production costs California’s state regulations have created, legal marijuana has remained expensive—so the illegal cannabis market has been able to maintain lower prices and, therefore, flourish. Non-licensed retailers have also thrived, providing customers with much lower prices than the licensed competition. (In some parts of the state, I have heard of regulators not realizing that a shop is unlicensed until they asked to see permits.) On the Bureau of Cannabis Control’s own Facebook page, the day the new regulations were announced, people were bragging and/or complaining that they have returned to the black market. 

Medical-marijuana patients are also suffering under these taxes, and many have had to return to the illegal market in order afford the medicine they need to control their very serious medical issues. Small growers who have been in the cannabis industry for decades have suffered and been driven out of business because of the onerous regulations placed on them—and as of July 1, a number of dispensaries were stuck with inventory that was all of a sudden illegal for them to sell, because it did not meet state standards.

Thankfully, it seems like Lori Ajax, the chief of the California Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC), recognizes that there have been problems, and she seems to be interested in fixing them. The proposed regulations, which can be viewed here, are now open to a 45-day public-comment period. State law stipulates that the non-emergency regulations must be in place by the end of the year.

I find some portions of the new regulations to be very encouraging. I am still in the process of digesting the information that the BCC wants to be able to award research funding. One of my biggest beefs with the medical-cannabis industry is its promotion of cannabis as a cure-all for many ailments, when there are so few peer-reviewed studies regarding the medical benefits of marijuana. This is not necessarily the industry’s fault—federal law has essentially prohibited the use of marijuana for all purposes, including scientific ones—so the state’s possible foray into scientific research funding is a step in the right direction.

The new regulations also get rid of the necessity for establishments to have two sets of licenses; as of now, dispensaries need one for medical marijuana, and one for recreational adult use. With only a few differences in the requirements, it seems unnecessary to require businesses to apply for two types of licenses to sell the same product.

I also find the proposed codification of enforcement to be encouraging. Under the emergency regulations, there was no significant list of grounds for disciplinary action, meaning each licensing authority had the ability to discipline on a case-by-case basis—a system that is open to abuses. The proposed regulations will create a framework for licensing authorities to use when initiating or undertaking enforcement.

Unfortunately, the BCC is proposing to keep in place its requirements around packaging. Retailers would still not be able to package product onsite, and would still be required to place cannabis products in a resealable child-resistant opaque package before customers leave the store. This requirement has always seemed rather ridiculous: If the goal is to protect children, why do we not see these same sorts of requirements around tobacco and liquor? Given California’s push for a greener future, adding a new type of plastic waste feels counterproductive.

While I believe the Legislature still needs to step in to make some legal changes to ensure California’s cannabis industry—particularly small and minority-owned businesses—can thrive, these new regulations are a start.

Any interested party is encouraged to participate in the public-comment process—although consider yourself warned that reading through the proposed rule changes is not an easy process. (The Initial Statement of Reasons from the BCC is 567 pages long!) Comments on the proposed regulations are being accepted in both writing (via email or snail mail) and at public hearings throughout the state, comments cannot be made by phone. The closest hearings will be held in Los Angeles and Riverside (find a list here), so written comments may be a Coachella Valley resident’s best bet. Regarding BCC regulations, comments can be sent to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.; in the subject line, type in the subject of the proposed regulation to which the comments apply. You can make your comment either in the body of the email or as an attached document. Physical mail can be sent to: Lori Ajax, Chief, Bureau of Cannabis Control, P.O. Box 419106, Rancho Cordova, CA, 95741. All information submitted becomes public information—so don’t include anything you want to remain confidential.

Published in Cannabis in the CV

The passage of Proposition 64 not only decriminalized the adult use of marijuana; the Adult Use of Marijuana Act created a path for people to have prior pot convictions reduced—or entirely cleared from their records.

The legislation specifies that people can initiate this process on their own, but in some counties—most notably San Francisco and San Diego—district attorneys have taken it upon themselves to review cases and reduce or dismiss convictions.

Those who oppose relief from prior convictions often say that since a crime was committed—marijuana was illegal then, after all—people need to face the consequences. But this same argument did not hold water for alcohol Prohibition—and should people continue to pay for a crime that was the result of misguided government policies?

This is a social-justice issue—one that all of us who care about our democracy should pay attention to. Why? People of color were much more likely to be arrested and convicted under the old laws. In fact, recent studies have shown that although whites and people of color use marijuana at about the same rate, black people are almost four times as likely, and Latinos two to three times as likely, to have faced arrest—even for possession of a small amount of marijuana. An old pot conviction can negatively impact a person’s ability to vote, get a job, rent an apartment and get student loans—and it can affect child-custody and immigration decisions. Therefore, it is particularly important for the government to ensure everyone is treated fairly under the law.

Prop 64 makes it clear that not everyone is eligible for conviction reductions or dismissals: The law specifies that this relief is reserved for those with relatively low-level offenses. A person with a history of violence, multiple convictions or convictions for selling to minors is not eligible to have his or her records expunged or reduced. In other words, hard-core drug dealers and people working for drug cartels are unlikely to somehow be set free.

Here’s hoping that other district attorneys around the state choose to follow the lead of San Diego and San Francisco counties and review old convictions—because it can be expensive and intimidating for people to initiate the process on their own. If someone can’t get a job or student loans because of a past marijuana conviction, it’s unlikely that person can afford a lawyer. The Drug Policy Alliance and other organizations are hosting free expungement clinics, where lawyers and paralegals are present to help, but they tend to happen in and around larger cities—with none planned here in the Coachella Valley that I could find. (If you know of any, please let us know.) That means someone from here would need to drive into Los Angeles on the chance they might get to speak to a lawyer about possibly having an old conviction reduced. Also: This is not the most well-known piece of the law, and the government is unlikely to publicize this information—so spread the word.

San Diego has already reduced the records of more than 700 people, and has identified more than 4,000 people who may be able to access this relief—yet Riverside County so far has reminded silent. Although a great number of people in the county have applied to have their records reduced or cleared, as of this writing, the office of District Attorney Mike Hestrin has made no public comment, nor did anyone from the office respond to my inquiries about plans to relive this burden. As a community that prides itself on progressive values, it’s incumbent upon us to put pressure on our local elected officials.

Legislative help may be on the way: Assemblyman Rob Bonta, a Democrat from Alameda, introduced Assembly Bill 1793 in January to “to allow automatic expungement or reduction of a prior cannabis conviction,” but the legislative process is a slow one. The bill went through its first reading in early January, and there has been no movement since. One possible reason for inaction: The Legislature would also need to provide financial resources to assist the counties in doing this work.

Real people continue to be harmed by old laws that the voters of the state of California have thrown out. Old felony convictions that today would be, at worst, misdemeanors—and possibly not even worthy of arrest—are keeping a disproportionate number of African Americans and Mexican Americans from fully participating in our democracy. After all, a right delayed is a right denied.

Published in Cannabis in the CV

On Jan. 1, weed aficionados in California were finally able to do what they say they’ve always wanted—legally buy marijuana, no prescription required.

But small farmers who had been selling on the black market were not uniformly delighted by the change.

For decades, the illegal-weed industry has been lucrative. Then came increasing legalization that created its own boom: In the United States, the total medical and recreational market for pot is expected to hit $2.6 billion in revenue this year, reports the Financial Times. Nine states have now legalized recreational sales, and 29 states have legalized medical marijuana. Colorado alone recorded nearly $4.5 billion in sales since recreational stores opened on Jan 1, 2014.

But many small farmers in California worry about this new world of legal pot. They’ve been the backbone of the industry through the drug-war years of heavy enforcement and heavy penalties, and they know all too well what it’s like to live as outlaws. They now fear that big agriculture will take over the industry that some of them pioneered and worked in for generations.

Under Proposition 64, also called the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, after Jan. 1, 2023, there will be no state cap in California on the size or production amount of marijuana farms. David Bienenstock, former editor of High Times Magazine, fears this lack of a size limit invites consolidation by corporations with deep pockets. What he’d much rather see are “as many small, sustainable, eco-friendly farms as possible.”

Right now, there are an estimated 50,000 cannabis farms in the state of California. These farms are run by everything from multi-generation families who have worked the same land for decades, to recently formed groups of tech-industry dropouts. It’s no secret that people have flocked to the California hills over the last decade to join what is being called the new California “green rush.”

The black market has allowed growers to earn an exorbitant amount of tax-free wages without ever having to build a business profile or work within legal systems. For many, one of the major draws of the marijuana-farming lifestyle has always been its freedom from government oversight and pesky regulations. But going legal now means paying licensing fees and taxes and wading through paperwork—just like any other businessperson.

Jonathan Collier, a director of the California Growers Association, lives in Nevada County, home to more than 4,000 marijuana farms. He’s lobbied hard to get black-market growers in his area to come out of the shadows and capitalize on being legal. He tells small pot farmers that they can do well if they decide to “position themselves in the artisanal market, establishing branding and higher-quality processes.”

But Collier said many successful marijuana farmers don’t want to go legal, because they’ve got “millionaire blinders.” Rather than accept a reasonable income as a legal pot farmer, some want to stay in the background and just keep doing what they’re doing, under cover.

Many of the newly legal growers have joined cooperatives to help process and market their marijuana. The distribution cooperative Alegria, based in Nevada City, north of Sacramento, helps farmers bring their individualized product to consumers. Executive director Michelle Carroll makes this analogy: “People will pay more for craft beer. We go to farmers’ markets in San Francisco twice a month, and we get to deal face-to-face with the consumers (who) want the best product.”

Alegria, which has strict policies against the use of pesticides, has assembled a group of growers who sell direct to a distributor, who then focuses on branding and sales. This allows farmers to concentrate on quality control. “We feel like if we all work together, we will get to a better place,” Carroll said.

“Durban poison,” “strawberry cough” and “super silver haze”—these are a few of the names buyers will find at dispensaries these days. At the moment, organic and inorganic marijuana seem fairly similar in quality. In some dispensaries, organic marijuana is sold for an even lower price than its inorganic counterpart. Most consumers I’ve talked to say they’re interested in smoking designer, high-end strains; they don’t particularly care about sourcing and growing practices. But this may change as big agriculture starts to move into the business.

As more states legalize the weed industry, and corporate consolidation changes the market, only knowledgeable consumers will be able to keep small, boutique farms alive. That means the once-illegal folks on heritage farms have the chance to change the future of cannabis—if they can step out of the black-market they grew up in.

Desdemona Dallas is a contributor to Writers on the Range, the opinion service of High Country News. A writer and photographer based in Brooklyn, N.Y., she learned about the cannabis industry while living in Nevada City, Calif.

Published in Community Voices

So with legal recreational marijuana just around the corner, you want to buy a joint … but the last time you bought “the pot,” you were at the crossroads of pimples and AP algebra.

Well, medical marijuana, legal weed and even your old-fashioned pot dealer have all matured since then to compete in an ever-growing market.

Over the last few years, marijuana has become specialized, and pot heads have become cannabis connoisseurs, as exacting as any oenophile. Three basic words—indica, sativa and hybrid—make up the lexicon of the aficionado, with growers creating specialized varietals that vary in strength, taste and affect to satisfy demanding customers.

Let’s explore the difference between the strains—keeping in mind that within each classification, there are hundreds of sub-strains with their own flavor profiles, effects and fans. We have seen these classifications around for a long time, but in the last few years, users have started coming out of their basements and enjoying their herb casually in social situations—in much the same way they enjoy a fine wine or hand-crafted cocktail. Also, remember that your own life experiences and body chemistry will inform the way any strain affects you.

Sativa strains are believed to have originated in temperate growing regions between the equator and the 30th parallel (around the top of the Gulf of Mexico); they grow tall and have a thin leaf. If you are looking to grow your own plants outdoors here in the desert, these are the ones for you.  

Sativas tend to make the user feel more energetic, creative and happy. Going out with friends for the evening, embarking on a hike or taking a painting class? Sativa is the way to go. From personal experience, I can tell you this is what I prefer when I sit down to write during the day or want to be out and about with people. One of my favorite sativa strains is Tangilope, a super-tasty, citrusy strain that really helps me with creativity. But remember: It is always a good idea to test out any new strain in a small amount before making a commitment.

Indicas, on the other hand, originated further north, probably in the area around Afganistan. The plants tend to be short and bushy with a relatively short maturation time. If you are looking to grow inside your home, you will probably want to look for one of these.

Indicas tend to be more relaxing and act as a sedative for their users, while at the same time making a person feel somewhat social. Planning an evening of Netflix and chill? Have a lot on your mind and need to spend some time processing? Or are you planning a quiet evening at home with friends? If so, indicas are a great choice—but they do tend to make you hungry or sleepy, and they just may fuse your tush to the couch. I am fond of the Grape Ape strain of indica; I find its grapey smell and flavor really tasty. If I have had a tough day and just need to relax, I will often reach for some Grape Ape—not too much, though, or I may not move for the rest of the night.

As the name implies, hybrids are cross-bred plants with both indica and sativa genetics. Growers do this for a variety of reasons, including yield and growing time. Of course, they also want to produce plants with the benefits of both parent strains, and they are experimenting with hybrids that will create very specific effects. A grower may, for instance, breed some indica into a sativa to make it better-suited for an indoor grow operation, or decrease some of the associated paranoia; perhaps they’ll add some sativa to an indica to help the consumer stay awake.

Hybrids tend to be broken down into either sativa- or indica-dominant verities. (Truth be told, most strains these days have at least some hybridization in their ancestry.) Depending on what strain you choose, you will find a wide range of differences in both effect and flavor. One of my favorite hybrid strains is the sativa-dominant Blue Dream, a fairly mellow strain that will help you relax while still giving you the creative effects of many sativas. Blue Dream’s ancestry involves the indica Blueberry strain, which carries through to give you a lovely berry flavor.

With so many strains to choose from, it is important to both experiment and get guidance while you are discovering your favorites. Always talk to your friendly neighborhood budtender, as they are sure to keep abreast of the latest and greatest. When figuring out what strains work well for you, consider keeping a notebook with your favorites and how they each make you feel.

Whatever strain you choose … enjoy!

Published in Cannabis in the CV

I lived in Washington state in 2012 when voters passed Initiative 502, making Washington one of the first states to legalize the recreational use of marijuana for people 21 and older.

Although the process took a year, Washington was able to implement a well-thought-out system to fairly tax recreational users, ensure public safety and create distribution methods.

Three years later, I moved to Southern California, where recreational prohibition was the law of the land—even though anyone with access to the Internet, $45 or so, a California state driver’s license and the ability to say the words “trouble sleeping” could easily obtain a medical diagnosis via what amounts to a Skype call.

While marijuana does have numerous medical benefits, I find it difficult to believe it is the panacea that many of its proponents suggest it is—and the medical dispensaries don’t do much to maintain the illusion that they are anything like pharmacies. Imagine going to a drugstore … with a happy hour? Would you get 2-for-1 antibiotics to help clear up that rash?

I was relieved when California voters last year followed the lead of Washington (and, by then, three other states) and passed Proposition 64. As a person who tries to lead an honest life, it pained me to participate in this fiction. When Prop 64 fully takes effect on Jan. 1, 2018, California will join the ranks of Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Alaska and the District of Columbia in acknowledging that marijuana is as safe, if not safer, than alcohol when used by adults.

Of course, California has been at the center of unlawful or semi-lawful marijuana cultivation for decades, and bringing the growers into the legal market will help control quality, eventually bring down prices, take power away from the gangs and cartels, and help influence the movement to end prohibition entirely on a national scale. (Of course, given the state of our federal government as of now, that last part may be delayed a bit.)

California cities have a great deal of leeway in deciding where pot can be sold, and how many licenses to issue. Palm Springs, for instance, is currently expecting to have approximately six shops—the same number of legal medical dispensaries that are now operating in the city; during season, I’m sure this will give locals yet another chance to talk about how long the lines are. (Remember: Wednesday is our slow day here, so you may want to plan your recreational shopping trips accordingly.) The city of Palm Springs also just passed a law that will allow Amsterdam-style cafes. This is particularly important, given the number of tourists we attract; it’s also important for renters, as most hotels and apartments have strict “no smoking” policies. Remember: It is still illegal to smoke in bars and restaurants.

Palm Desert only recently lifted its ban on any sort of dispensaries—and will even be allowing one recreational shop in the tony El Paseo shopping district. On the other end of the spectrum, the city of Coachella maintains an outright ban on the sale of marijuana, although cultivation is OK, and there are at least two churches where congregants can go and, for a donation, receive the sacrament in either brownie, flower or vape form.

Tourists and nonmedical users will need to be aware of a few things before showing up at one of the new recreational shops. Most importantly: As with alcohol, driving while under the influence will be illegal, and if you have anything in the car, it must be in a closed container. The best practice would be to keep it in the trunk so there can be no doubt if you are pulled over.

Also of note is that adults over the age of 21 can carry up to an ounce of marijuana flower, or eight grams of concentrate. That is a lot of pot to have on you. Private citizens can also grow up to six mature plants for their own use; although it will be illegal to sell the pot you grow without a license, you are welcome to give it to friends or perhaps your favorite Independent marijuana columnist. 

Initially, at least, prices will probably rise. Although commercial growers are eagerly preparing for the first post-legalization harvest, demand may surpass supply in those first few months, if what happened in other states is any indication. Also: An additional 15 percent state tax combined with local taxes and other fees virtually ensures that prices will be higher at first. However, as growers get a handle on demand, we should see prices drop.

Marijuana is still illegal under federal law, and our current attorney general, Jeff Sessions (at least he is as of this writing … you never know with the Trump administration) has vowed to crack down on enforcement, so bringing pot into national parks could land you in some real trouble: State and local law enforcement will no longer assist the feds, but you still need to be careful if you want to bring a joint along with you when you, say, go hike in Joshua Tree. Plus, with our long history of drought here in Southern California, you don’t want to risk being responsible for the next round of wild fires. Try vaping or a brownie instead.

Come Jan. 1, nearly a quarter of the U.S. population will be able to use pot in much the same way they currently enjoy a glass of wine or cocktail—and as states and municipalities wrestle with the implications of this brave new world, the Coachella Valley Independent will continue to be here with news, reviews and stories to help you make good, responsible decisions around marijuana use.

Published in Cannabis in the CV

Custom-apparel makers across the state exhaled a collective sigh of relief with the apparent death of SB 162 on Sept. 1.

The bill was aimed at limiting the ways in which cannabis businesses could market themselves, including a ban on everything from apparel to billboards. Lawmakers had until Sept. 1 to extend consideration of the bill another two weeks, but opted to let it die instead.

The bill’s sponsor, Santa Monica State Sen. Ben Allen, and other supporters of SB 162—like the California Police Chiefs Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics (California)—claimed the bill was meant to protect kids from marketing that will make them want to smoke weed. Y’know, to protect the kids … like the ban on beer shirts. (Oh, wait …)

These “for the kids”-types of bills are almost impossible to defeat (What politician doesn’t want to at least appear to care about kids?), and its demise came a surprise to its sponsor.

“The Legislature in the past has wisely prohibited advertising with branded merchandise by tobacco companies, expressly because items like hats and T-shirts are known to entice kids to smoke," Allen told the Los Angeles Times in the bill’s defense. “This was a common-sense measure to apply similar restrictions that would help prevent marijuana use by teens.”

One of the measure’s opponents was the California Cannabis Industry Association. The group claimed the limits would place an unfair financial burden on the industry by cutting off valuable revenue streams. Opponents also pointed out that marketing to kids was already sufficiently limited by Proposition 64, which was approved by voters last year.

“It’s not that our members don’t accept and support reasonable solutions to issues that are arising, but on this one, we felt Prop 64 made it pretty clear the cannabis industry could not be marketing to minors,” said CCIA outreach director Josh Drayton to Cannabis Now.

The bill could come up again next year, but the industry and manufacturers are hoping it stays dead. Banning marijuana businesses from branding themselves while generic weed shirts, hats and other merchandise are available in stores everywhere—including Walmart—would be absurdly unfair. And I’ve seen a lot more kids at Walmart than I ever have at a dispensary. (Because, well, it’s illegal for kids to be at dispensaries.)


Sorry, No Weed Deliveries by Drone in California

California’s Bureau of Cannabis Control issued 490 pages of regulations meant to regulate commercial cannabis businesses when recreational sales begin in January. Among the thousands of rules, the BCC has determined you do, in fact, need to have a weed guy—as the agency banned non-human delivery methods. It also said deliveries should be generally kept on the DL, with product kept out of view en route.

“Deliveries may be made only in person by enclosed motor vehicle. Cannabis goods may not be visible to the public during deliveries,” read the regulations.

So, no convertibles …

Delivery drivers are required to have GPS in their vehicles, which seems a little stalker-y: “Vehicles used for delivery must have a dedicated, active GPS device that enables the dispensary to identify the geographic location of the vehicle during delivery.”

The rules went on to define exactly what vehicles could and could not be used for transporting cannabis products. In a move that makes perfect sense to me, but surely struck a blow to tech geeks everywhere, drone deliveries have been ruled out. Also: canoes, trains and bikes. No air drops, either: “Cannabis goods will be required to be transported inside commercial vehicles or trailers. Transportation may not be done by aircraft, watercraft, rail, drones, human powered vehicles, or unmanned vehicles.”

For now, at least, this means no weed-bots will be buzzing around California, delivering stashes from the sky while your neighbors try to shoot them down.

While there is no indication that these policies will be changed any time soon, the state may still get blowback from non-cannabis, pro-autonomous-delivery companies like Google and Amazon. Recognizing a threat to a decades-old tradition, San Francisco bike messengers are expected to voice opposition as well.


The IE Gets Its First Licensed Dispensary!

Despite a few municipal bans, Coachella Valley residents are spoiled by the relatively high number of quality dispensaries within a few minutes’ drive. However, this is not the case for our neighbors over the mountains in the Inland Empire, where—until August—no licensed dispensaries existed.

Perris voters decided it was time to change that last November, when 77 percent of them approved Measure K, which removed the city’s ban on cannabis businesses. San Bernardino also voted to allow dispensaries last November, and issued its first permit Aug. 24.

But Perris wins the IE weed race with the opening of Green America, the city’s first licensed dispensary, on Aug. 25.

Perris voters also approved a 10 percent tax on weed businesses. According to the city attorney, that could add up to $1.2 million in new revenue to the city’s coffers each year. This could offer a boost to the struggling city of 76,000 residents, 25 percent of whom are living below the poverty line.

This tax-revenue contribution is in stark contrast to the dozen or so unlicensed shops operating in the city that pay no taxes, nor the $13,008 permit fee. To date, the city has been ineffective in shutting down these illegal shops. One would hope the city will act quickly to change that in order to protect its legit cannabis businesses, and the contributions they’ll make to the community.

Published in Cannabis in the CV

On March 15, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, while addressing a law enforcement conference in Richmond, Va., said: “I realize this may be an unfashionable belief in a time of growing tolerance of drug use, but too many lives are at stake to worry about being fashionable. I reject the idea that America will be a better place if marijuana is sold in every corner store, and I am astonished to hear people suggest that we can solve our heroin crisis by legalizing marijuana—so people can trade one life-wrecking dependency for another that’s only slightly less awful.”

Yes, the attorney general of the United States just said marijuana is “only slightly less awful” than heroin.

This isn’t a question of being “unfashionable,” but of the AG being factually wrong about the effects of two very different drugs. While some cannabis industry and advocacy groups have forced a smile and tried to paint a green-tinted picture of states’ rights, Trump likes medical cannabis, it’ll all be OK, yadda yadda yadda, how can we not see a difficult future ahead for cannabis when America’s top cop is so glaringly ignorant in his crusade against it?

“With over 600,000 arrests a year, the only thing life-wrecking about marijuana is its prohibition,” said Erik Altieri, NORML’s executive director, in a statement the day of Sessions’ speech.

Sessions spoke with reporters after his speech in Richmond.

“I think medical marijuana has been hyped, maybe too much,” Sessions said, according to various media sources. “Dosages can be constructed in a way that might be beneficial, I acknowledge that, but if you smoke marijuana, for example, where you have no idea how much THC you’re getting, it’s probably not a good way to administer a medicinal amount. So forgive me if I’m a bit dubious about that.”

Steph Sherer, executive director of Americans for Safe Access, countered Sessions’ remarks in a statement issued the same day.

“Statements like these from the Attorney General are factually inaccurate,” Sherer said. “In January, the National Academies of Sciences, Medicine, and Engineering released a report that reviewed over 10,000 research articles, which states there is conclusive, moderate, and substantial evidence for benefits of cannabis in several conditions. Sessions needs to stop spreading unfounded, unscientific theories about medical marijuana and take the time to actually meet the millions of Americans that are benefitting from its use before making comments about it being over-hyped.”

President Trump said he was “100 percent” in favor of medical marijuana during the campaign. But White House press secretary Sean Spicer recently clarified that the president sees a “big difference” between medical and recreational use.

As we’ve seen in the days since the inauguration, things are moving fast on all fronts in the Trump era. Those wishing to preserve and even further legalization must not be reactionary in their activism. There is too much at stake to take a wait-and-see position.

One productive way to be proactive in the defense and progress of legalization is to participate in and support the organizations that have been fighting this battle for decades—and will be on the front lines in the coming years.

National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws

norml.org

Keith Stroup was smoking with Ralph Nader’s legal team in 1970 when someone suggested he ask Hugh Hefner’s Playboy Foundation for a grant to fund his fledgling pro-pot organization. Hefner approved a grant of $5,000, and NORML was born. By the mid-1970s, Hef was donating $100,000 a year to NORML. It was this support that helped make NORML the premier pro-pot organization.

NORML now boasts 135 chapters and a network of more than 500 lawyers. With legalization becoming more of a reality, NORML has edited its mission to “move public opinion sufficiently to legalize the responsible use of marijuana by adults, and to serve as an advocate for consumers to assure they have access to high quality marijuana that is safe, convenient and affordable.”

Americans for Safe Access

www.safeaccessnow.org

The ASA is a medical marijuana advocacy group founded in 2002 by medi-pot patient Steph Sherer. The mission is “to ensure safe and legal access to cannabis (marijuana) for therapeutic use and research.”

ASA is the largest national member-based organization of medical professionals, patients and scientists promoting medical use and research, with more than 100,000 active members in all 50 states.

Brownie Mary Democratic Club of Riverside County

www.browniemaryclub.org

If you’re looking for a way to get involved locally, stay informed on the latest developments, and meet like-minded individuals, check out the Brownie Mary Democratic Club of Riverside County. Founded by activist Lanny Swerdlow, it is believed to be the first political-party-affiliated cannabis advocacy group in California. It is named for Mary Jane Rathbun, who got the nickname “Brownie Mary” for illegally baking and distributing cannabis brownies to AIDS patients while volunteering at San Francisco General Hospital.

Meetings are held the first Saturday of every month at 11:30 a.m. at Crystal Fantasy, 268 N. Palm Canyon Drive, in Palm Springs.

Marijuana Policy Project

mpp.org

Founded in 1995, the MPP deals with lobbying and ballot initiatives. The MPP PAC, founded in 2003, donates to key congressional candidates. The mission is to affect federal law, to allow states enact to their own marijuana policies without federal interference, and to regulate marijuana like alcohol nationwide. In terms of budget, members and staff, the Marijuana Policy Project is the largest national organization working specifically on marijuana policy reform.

Drug Policy Alliance

www.drugpolicy.org

The DPA takes an active role in the legislative process, and its goals include rolling back the excessive laws of the War on Drugs, blocking harmful initiatives, and pushing for sensible drug-policy reforms.

Considering the mixed (or worse) signals we’re getting from the current administration, it is clear that the fight for legalization and acceptance is far from over. We must not rest on recent victories. We must remain vigilant, and we must let our representatives know that we support the legalization of cannabis. When the will of the people is ignored in favor of a self-righteous crusade with no base in science or democracy, we must resist. Joining, supporting, and participating in these organizations shows that we are unified—and that we are not going anywhere.

Published in Cannabis in the CV

Jeff Sessions has been confirmed as the attorney general along party lines, with no Republicans opposing his appointment and only one Democrat in favor. While this understandably makes the cannabis industry a little jittery, thanks to the prospect of the resumption of federal enforcement efforts, there may be some cause for cautious optimism—at least that’s the message put forth in a statement released by the nation’s largest cannabis policy group, the Marijuana Policy Project.

“We remain cautiously optimistic that the Trump administration will refrain from interfering in state marijuana laws,” said the Feb. 9 statement. “When asked about his plans for marijuana enforcement, Attorney General Sessions said he ‘echo(es)’ the position taken by Loretta Lynch during her confirmation hearings. He repeatedly acknowledged the scarcity of enforcement resources, and he said he would ensure they are used as effectively as possible to stop illicit drugs from being trafficked into the country.

“President Trump has consistently said that states should be able to determine their own marijuana laws, and his spokesperson made it clear that the attorney general will be implementing the Trump agenda. We are hopeful that Mr. Sessions will follow the president’s lead and respect states’ rights on marijuana policy.

“A strong and growing majority of Americans think marijuana should be made legal, and an even stronger majority think(s) the federal government should respect state marijuana laws. Eight states have adopted laws that regulate and tax marijuana for adult use, and 28 states now have laws that regulate marijuana for medical use. It would be shocking if the Trump administration attempted to steamroll the citizens and governments in these states to enforce an increasingly unpopular federal policy.”

The MPP’s view seems to be somewhat optimistic. Sessions’ distaste for legalization is well-documented, and when asked about enforcing the federal ban in states that have legalized weed, he’s said it is not his place to choose which laws to enforce, before adding: “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.” Many took this as an indication that federal enforcement could resume in the absence of action by Congress. However, parts of his oral testimony did indicate that a lack of resources might keep federal enforcement of pot laws in check, and he avoided committing to enforcement in states where marijuana is legal.

On the same day as Sessions’ confirmation, Orange County-area Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher reintroduced the Respect State Marijuana Laws Act, H.R. 975. First introduced in April 2013, the Respect State Marijuana Laws Act exempts individuals and entities acting in compliance with state marijuana laws from certain provisions of the Controlled Substances Act. This is the third time Rohrabacher has introduced the bill.

“I happen to believe that the federal government shouldn’t be locking up anyone for making a decision on what he or she should privately consume, whether that person is rich or poor, and we should never be giving people the excuse, especially federal authorities, that they have a right to stop people or intrude into their lives in order to prevent them and prevent others from smoking a weed, consuming something they personally want to consume,” Rohrabacher said during his speech introducing the bill. A solid Trump supporter and devout state’s rights advocate, Rohrabacher added: “My bill would then make sure that federal law is aligned with the states’ (laws), and the people in those states’ desires, so that the residents and businesses wouldn’t have to worry about federal prosecution. For those few states that have thus far maintained a policy of strict prohibition, my bill would change nothing. I think that this is a reasonable compromise that places the primary responsibility of police powers back in the states and the local communities that are most directly affected.”

Not surprisingly, the MPP supports the bill.

“Nine out of 10 Americans now live in states that have rejected federal marijuana prohibition by adopting some sort of marijuana policy reform,” said Robert Capecchi, director of federal policies for the Marijuana Policy Project. “This legislation would ease the tension between state and federal laws to ensure these state-level reforms are successful. It would also help states address the public health and safety priorities shared by state and federal authorities.”

The last time the bill was introduced in 2015, it received neither a hearing nor a vote, so it’s still a big maybe in a GOP-controlled Congress. Therefore, legal-weed proponents have much to fear—and are not taking “maybe” for an answer.

Washington, one of the first states to legalize adult recreational use of cannabis, is leading the resistance against federal interference. State Sen. Reuven Carlyle, a Seattle Democrat, has been involved with shaping Washington state’s cannabis policy since legalization in 2012.

“It is extremely difficult for anyone to pretend we can predict what the Trump administration is going to do,” Carlyle told The News Tribune in Tacoma.

Washington is preparing for the worst with a bill that would prevent local officials from cooperating with the feds in enforcement of marijuana laws that contradict state law. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee said he would do anything he can to sway White House opinion in favor of at least allowing states to continue down their own paths without federal interference.

“I think it would be a really big mistake for them to pick this fight, and I hope it will not occur,” Inslee said in that aforementioned article in The News Tribune.


Cannabis sprouts in Coachella

Del-Gro, the city of Coachella’s first commercial cannabis-cultivation facility, held a groundbreaking ceremony on Thursday, Feb. 9. The facility rents turn-key grow spaces to growers, and will provide cannabis-business support including extract production, financial services, consulting, lab testing and onsite distribution.

“Opening the first cultivation operation in Coachella is an incredible opportunity for us and our partner cultivators”, said Ben Levine, founder and CEO of Del-Gro, in a news release. “We forecast that our operation will ultimately bring in over $100 million in annual revenue for us and the independent growers we work with. But greater than that, we’re thrilled that the residents of Coachella have trusted us to be industry trailblazers in their city.”

All available spaces have been rented, and Del-Gro will be open for business later this year on the property that used to be the home Ajax Auto Wrecking. Del-Gro estimates the facility could produce $3 million in annual tax revenue for the city of Coachella.

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

Page 1 of 2