AB 266 Breakdown. The end of the cannabis industry as you know it.

Discussion in 'Marijuana News' started by Sgtstadanko707, Jul 2, 2015.

  1. http://weedactivist.com/2015/07/02/ab-266-breakdown-the-end-of-the-cannabis-industry-as-you-know-it/



    Home

    Menu

       

    AB 266 Breakdown. The end of the cannabis industry as you know it.

    July 2, 2015 in California, Fuck You, Local Regulations, Medical Cannabis, Reform Groups, Weed Business, Weed Politics

    94

    I will be following this up with a more detailed response, but below is my initial breakdown of AB 266 being proposed by the legislature, and being supported by groups such as Americans for Safe Access, the Emerald growers Association, UFCW, and the California Cannabis Industry Association. This law will be the end of the industry as we know it and the provisional licensing requirement will ensure that all growers, producers, and manufacturers of cannabis will be completely fucked…. Enjoy. My comments are the bullet points in red….

    SECTION 1.

     The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

    (a) The people of California enacted the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 to ensure that seriously ill Californians have access to cannabis for medical purposes. The Compassionate Use Act of 1996 urged the state and federal governments to implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of medical cannabis to all patients in medical need of the drug.

    (b) Federal enforcement authorities have recognized that in states that have authorized cannabis use and have enacted strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems to control the cultivation, distribution, sale, and possession of cannabis, conduct in compliance with those regulatory and enforcement systems is less likely to threaten federal priorities, and, thus, less likely to require federal enforcement intervention (See: Memorandum For All United States Attorneys-Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement, by James M. Cole, Deputy Attorney General, August 29, 2013).

    (c) Greater certainty and minimum statewide standards are urgently needed regarding the obligations of medical cannabis facilities, and for the imposition and enforcement of regulations to prevent unlawful cultivation and the diversion of cannabis to nonmedical use.

    (d) The purpose of this act is to establish for California a robust medical cannabis regulatory and enforcement system to ensure that conduct in compliance with California's medical cannabis laws does not threaten the federal priorities as set forth in the James M. Cole memorandum, and, therefore, does not require federal enforcement intervention.

    (e) The California Constitution grants cities and counties the authority to make and enforce, within their borders, “all local police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with the general laws.” This inherent local police power includes broad authority to determine, for purposes of public health, safety, and welfare, the appropriate uses of land within the local jurisdiction's borders. The police power, therefore, allows each city and county to determine whether or not a medical cannabis dispensary or other facility that makes medical cannabis available may operate within its borders. This authority has been upheld by City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center, Inc. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 729, and County of Los Angeles v. Hill (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 861. Nothing in this act shall diminish, erode, or modify that authority.

    (f) If a city or county determines that a dispensary or other facility that makes medical cannabis available may operate within its borders, then there is a need for the state to license these dispensaries and other facilities for the purpose of adopting and enforcing protocols for security standards at dispensaries and in the transportation of medical cannabis, as well as health and safety standards to ensure patient safety. This licensing requirement is not intended in any way nor shall it be construed to preempt local ordinances, regulations, or enforcement actions regarding the sale and use of medical cannabis, including, but not limited to, security, signage, lighting, and inspections.

    (g) Nothing in this act or Article 2 (commencing with Section 11357) or Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 11362.7) of Chapter 6 of Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code is intended to preempt any local ordinance regulating or banning the cultivation, processing, manufacturing, testing, transportation, distribution, provision, donation, or sale of medical cannabis, or to otherwise prevent or limit a city, county, or city and county from adopting or enforcing a zoning ordinance or other law, ordinance, or regulation that bans or regulates the location, operation, or establishment of any individual or other person that cultivates, processes, possesses, stores, manufactures, tests, transports, distributes, provides, donates, or sells cannabis.

    While local municipalities can ban alcohol, it is not clear if they can ban medicine. Can a town declare they do not want a pharmacy in town and force people to travel to get their prescribed medicines?

    (h) Nothing in this act is intended to require an employer to permit or accommodate the use, consumption, possession, transfer, display, transportation, sale, or growth of cannabis in the workplace, or to affect the ability of employers to have policies restricting the use of cannabis by employees, or otherwise complying with federal law.

    This is a result of Ross vs. Raging Wire but I would beg to wonder why we are not including language to at least try and make it so patients were protected under CA law for using medical cannabis.

    (i) Nothing in this act shall be construed to promote or facilitate the nonmedical, recreational possession, sale, or use of cannabis.

    (j) Nothing in this act shall have a diminishing effect on the rights and protections granted to a patient or primary caregiver pursuant to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.

    SEC. 2.

    Section 2220.05 of the Business and Professions Code is amended to read:

     

    2220.05.

    (a) In order to ensure that its resources are maximized for the protection of the public, the Medical Board of California shall prioritize its investigative and prosecutorial resources to ensure that physicians and surgeons representing the greatest threat of harm are identified and disciplined expeditiously. Cases involving any of the following allegations shall be handled on a priority basis, as follows, with the highest priority being given to cases in the first paragraph:

    (1) Gross negligence, incompetence, or repeated negligent acts that involve death or serious bodily injury to one or more patients, such that the physician and surgeon represents a danger to the public.

    (2) Drug or alcohol abuse by a physician and surgeon involving death or serious bodily injury to a patient.

    (3) Repeated acts of clearly excessive prescribing, furnishing, or administering of controlled substances, or repeated acts of prescribing, dispensing, or furnishing of controlled substances  substances, or recommending cannabis to patients for medical purposes  without a good faith prior examination of the patient and medical reason therefor. However, in no event shall a physician and surgeon prescribing, furnishing, or administering controlled substances for intractable pain consistent with lawful prescribing, OR CANNABIS WAS RECOMMENDED, including, but not limited to, Sections 725, 2241.5, and 2241.6 of this code and Sections 11159.2 and 124961 of the Health and Safety Code, be prosecuted for excessive prescribing, OR RECOMMENDING CANNABIS, and prompt review of the applicability of these provisions shall be made in any complaint that may implicate these provisions.

    The “recommending of cannabis” should be included in the second half of this too anywhere it says “prescribing”

    (4) Sexual misconduct with one or more patients during a course of treatment or an examination.

    (5) Practicing medicine while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

    (b) The board may by regulation prioritize cases involving an allegation of conduct that is not described in subdivision (a). Those cases prioritized by regulation shall not be assigned a priority equal to or higher than the priorities established in subdivision (a).

    (c) The Medical Board of California shall indicate in its annual report mandated by Section 2312 the number of temporary restraining orders, interim suspension orders, and disciplinary actions that are taken in each priority category specified in subdivisions (a) and (b).

    SEC. 3.

    Section 2242 of the Business and Professions Code is amended to read:

     

    2242.

    (a) Prescribing, dispensing, or furnishing dangerous drugs as defined in Section 4022 without an appropriate prior examination and a medical indication, constitutes unprofessional conduct. Prescribing or recommending medical cannabis to a patient for a medical purpose without an appropriate prior examination and a medical indication constitutes unprofessional conduct.

    This is undoubtedly a slippery slope

    (b) No licensee shall be found to have committed unprofessional conduct within the meaning of this section if, at the time the drugs were prescribed OR CANNABIS WAS RECOMMENDED, dispensed, or furnished, any of the following applies:

    (1) The licensee was a designated physician and surgeon or podiatrist serving in the absence of the patient's physician and surgeon or podiatrist, as the case may be, and if the drugs were prescribed, OR CANNABIS WAS RECOMMENDED, dispensed, or furnished only as necessary to maintain the patient until the return of his or her practitioner, but in any case no longer than 72 hours.

    (2) The licensee transmitted the order for the drugs to a registered nurse or to a licensed vocational nurse in an inpatient facility, and if both of the following conditions exist:

    (A) The practitioner had consulted with the registered nurse or licensed vocational nurse who had reviewed the patient's records.

    (B) The practitioner was designated as the practitioner to serve in the absence of the patient's physician and surgeon or podiatrist, as the case may be.

    (3) The licensee was a designated practitioner serving in the absence of the patient's physician and surgeon or podiatrist, as the case may be, and was in possession of or had utilized the patient's records and ordered the renewal of a medically indicated prescription for an amount not exceeding the original prescription in strength or amount or for more than one refill.

    (4) The licensee was acting in accordance with Section 120582 of the Health and Safety Code.

    SEC. 4.

    Section 2264 of the Business and Professions Code is amended to read:

     

    2264.

    (a)  The employing, directly or indirectly, the aiding, or the abetting of any unlicensed person or any suspended, revoked, or unlicensed practitioner to engage in the practice of medicine or any other mode of treating the sick or afflicted which requires a license to practice constitutes unprofessional conduct.

    (b)  Employment by, or other agreement with, a mandatory commercial licensee acting pursuant to the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Control Act or a dispensary to provide recommendations for medical cannabis constitutes unprofessional conduct.

    SEC. 5.

    Article 25 (commencing with Section 2525) is added to Chapter 5 of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code, to read:

     

    Article  25. Recommending Medical Cannabis

    2525.

     (a) It is unlawful for a physician and surgeon who recommends cannabis to a patient for a medical purpose to accept, solicit, or offer any form of remuneration from or to a facility issued a conditional license pursuant to Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 19300) of Division 8, if the physician and surgeon or his or her immediate family have a financial interest in that facility.

    (b) For the purposes of this section, “financial interest” shall have the same meaning as in Section 650.01.

    (c) A violation of this section shall be a misdemeanor.

    2525.1.

     The Medical Board of California shall consult with the California Marijuana Research Program, known as the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research, authorized pursuant to Section 11362.9 of the Health and Safety Code, on developing and adopting medical guidelines for the appropriate administration and use of medical cannabis.

    So doctors will be issued guidelines from some college researchers instead of being able to use their own medical judgement? Weird….

    2525.2.

     A physician and surgeon shall not recommend medical cannabis to a patient, unless that person is the patient's attending physician, as defined by subdivision (a) of Section 11362.7 of the Health and Safety Code.

    The term “patient's attending physician” can be a quite dangerous term if misinterpreted by the courts. In the United States and Canada, an attending physician (also known as an attending, rendering doc, or staff physician) is a physician (M.D. or D.O.) who has completed residency and practices medicine in a clinic or hospital, in the specialty learned during residency.

    SEC. 6.

    Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 19300) is added to Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code, to read:

     

    CHAPTER  3.5. Medical Cannabis

    Article  1. Definitions

    19300.

     For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:

    (a) â€œCannabinoid” means a chemical compound that is unique to and derived from cannabis, also known as phytocannabinoid.

    (b) â€œCannabis” means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., Cannabis indica, or Cannabis ruderalis, whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin, whether crude or purified, extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds, or resin. “Cannabis” does not include the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination. “Cannabis” also means marijuana as defined by Section 11018 of the Health and Safety Code as enacted by Chapter 1407 of the Statutes of 1972.

    (c) â€œCannabis concentrate” means manufactured cannabis that has undergone a process to concentrate the cannabinoid active ingredient, thereby increasing the product's potency.

    (d) â€œCertified testing laboratory” means a laboratory that is certified by the State Department of Public Health to perform random sample testing of medical cannabis pursuant to the certification standards for these facilities promulgated by the department.

    It will be interesting to see how the DPH approaches this one. Gives a lot of power to a group that is about 50/50 on cannabis at best. Could result in some interesting certification protocols.

    (e) â€œCommercial cannabis activity” means any cultivation, possession, manufacture, processing, storing, laboratory testing, labeling, transporting, distribution, or sale of cannabis or cannabis product, or any Internet platform that facilitates any of these functions for the purpose of selling medical cannabis or medical cannabis products to qualified patients or caregivers, except as set forth in Section 19316.

    The term “selling” always gets a little tricky, especially when you consider the many get around terms that have been used in this industry over the years. I might use the term “retail distribution” or something.

    (f) â€œCultivation” means any activity involving the planting, growing, harvesting, drying, processing, or trimming of cannabis.

    So you have “processing” here. That may need to be more clearly defined, as its broad interpretation could mean processing into finished goods, which is a whole different deal…. Especially when there are license limitations ahead.

    (g) â€œDelivery” means the commercial transfer of medical cannabis or medical cannabis products from a dispensary to a primary caregiver or qualified patient, as defined in Section 11362.7 of the Health and Safety Code.

    Only from a dispensary? That is odd considering it defines delivery service next.

    (h) â€œDelivery service” means a person issued a state license by the State Department of Public Health pursuant to this chapter and a local license or permit, to deliver medical cannabis or medical cannabis products, up to an amount determined by the department, to patients, testing laboratories, or to events or locations where it will be used solely for promotional purposes. A delivery service shall not be required to obtain a transporter license.

    Can a dispensary hold a Delivery Service license? Can a cultivator or product manufacturer? Like farm to table deals?

    (i) “Director” means the director of the Office of Marijuana Regulation.

    I am pretty sure I am going to get this job. (rolls eyes)

    (j) â€œDispensary” means a nonmobile, nonvehicular, non-Internet-based retail location that distributes medical cannabis or medical cannabis products and is owned and operated by a licensee for these activities pursuant to this chapter.

    So how does this work? Currently most dispensaries are not “owned and operated” by any one. Does that mean the corporation would be the licensee? How are these “not-for-profit” entities going to decide ownership after there is no not-for-profit requirement? It still seems to me that there is a need for the word “retail” in here. I mean, technically aren't cultivators and manufacturers “distributing” cannabis too, just wholesale?

    (k) â€œDispensing” means any activity involving the retail sale of medical cannabis or medical cannabis products from a dispensary.

    Well there is the term retail….. at least it is in here somewhere.

    (l) â€œDried flower” means all dead medical cannabis that has been harvested, dried, cured, or otherwise processed.

    Odd… so all stems, leaves, and other byproduct material are classified as flowers too. Good to know. Here we are with the processed again too. Super.

    (m) â€œEdible cannabis product” means manufactured cannabis that is intended to be used, in whole or in part, for human consumption, including, but not limited to, chewing gum.

    Interesting to call out the chewing gum. Consumption could include smoking or vaping products too, correct? Definitions for consumption include “used or ingested.” Would “ingestion or sublingual consumption” be better?

    (n) â€œFund” means the Medical Cannabis Regulation Fund established pursuant to Section 19361.

    (o) â€œIdentification program” means the universal identification certificate program for licensees.

    (p) â€œLabor peace agreement” means an agreement between a licensee and a bona fide labor organization that, at a minimum, protects the state's proprietary interests by prohibiting labor organizations and members from engaging in picketing, work stoppages, boycotts, and any other economic interference with the applicant's business. This agreement means that the applicant has agreed not to disrupt efforts by the bona fide labor organization to communicate with, and attempt to organize and represent, the applicant's employees. The agreement shall provide a bona fide labor organization access at reasonable times to areas in which the applicant's employees work, for the purpose of meeting with employees to discuss their right to representation, employment rights under state law, and terms and conditions of employment. This type of agreement shall not mandate a particular method of election or certification of the bona fide labor organization.

    It is easy to see that UFCW and their posterboy Gavin Newsome got their language inserted. At least this one doesn't use the term “labor union currently active in the cannabis industry” to cement their place. LOL. I dig unions, but man…. It is tough to justify that type of all for us and our membership only attitude sometimes.

    (q) â€œLicensed cultivation site” means a person that plants, grows, cultivates, harvests, dries, or processes medical cannabis, or that does all or any combination of those activities, and that is issued a state license pursuant to this chapter and a local license or permit.

    Process again can get weird here. Surprised not to see the term “agriculture” in here since cultivation and propagation are definitely agricultural functions.

    (r) â€œLicensed dispensing facility” means a person that provides medical cannabis, medical cannabis products, or devices for the use of medical cannabis or medical cannabis products, either individually or in any combination, that is issued a state license pursuant to this chapter and a local license or permit.

    Again I believe there is a need to include the term retail in this definition even if mentioned above. Interesting to see a facility called a “person” too. Am I reading it right with the “or devices for the use of medical cannabis” meaning that all head shops would also be included? So a wholesaler doesn't “provide” too?

    (s) â€œLicensed manufacturer” means a person that conducts the production, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing of medical cannabis or medical cannabis products, either directly or indirectly or by extraction processes, or independently by means of chemical synthesis or by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis, and includes a location that packages or repackages medical cannabis or medical cannabis products or labeling or relabeling of its container, and that has been issued a state license pursuant to this part.

    Propagation here would seem to be pointing to clones, but wouldn't a licensed cultivator need to propagate too? If it is “and includes a location that packages or repackages medical cannabis…” wouldn't that mean dispensaries would be excluded from packaging their own medicine? Everything has to be pre-packed or what?

    (t) â€œLicensed transporter” means a person issued a state license by the Board of Equalization to transport medical cannabis or medical cannabis products above a limit determined by the board to and from facilities that have been issued a state license pursuant to this chapter.

    Is a transporter license in addition to other licenses? I mean can a grower transport his own product? Or is a transporter license required in addition to your grower license? More fees?

    (u) â€œLicensee” means a person issued a state license under this chapter to engage in commercial cannabis activity.

    Having a license seems like a good idea if the terms are reasonable. They are not though.

    (v) â€œLicensing authority” means the state agency responsible for granting and renewing state licenses and regulating the relevant licensees. For licensed cultivators, the licensing authority is the Division of Medical Cannabis Cultivation in the Department of Food and Agriculture. For dispensaries and transporters, the licensing authority is the State Board of Equalization. For licensed manufacturers and certified testing laboratories, the licensing authority is the Division of Medical Cannabis Manufacturing and Testing within the State Department of Public Health.

    Cultivators being licensed by the Department of Food and Ag seems awesome… it could also be problematic though. The State BOE is probably viable for dispensaries and transporters. Where are the delivery services? And then licensed manufacturers get the Department of Public Health. Interesting…. Sort of wondering what that will end up looking like, and why manufacturing is more “medical” than medical cultivation and medicine dispensing.

    (w) â€œLive plants” means living medical cannabis flowers and plants, including seeds, immature plants, and vegetative stage plants.

    (x) â€œManufactured cannabis” means raw cannabis that has undergone a process whereby the raw agricultural product has been transformed into a concentrate, an edible product, or a topical product.

    Where are we at on suppositories? LOL. And what about chewing gum again?

    (y) â€œMedical cannabis,” “medical cannabis product,” or “cannabis product” means a product containing cannabis, including, but not limited to, concentrates and extractions, intended to be sold for use by medical cannabis patients in California pursuant to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (Proposition 215).

    “Sold for use” seems like it could face legal challenges, as it refers to Prop 215 as well where there is no mention of “sold to” anything really. We should only look as far as the petty word games used to try and overturn Obamacare to know that lack of clear definitions and meaning can be fateful to any law. We definitely have legal challenges to happen on both the pro and anti-cannabis sides of the argument.

    (z) â€œNursery” means a licensee that produces only clones, immature plants, seeds, and other agricultural products used specifically for the planting, propagation, and cultivation of medical cannabis.

    So who are the nurseries licensed by then?

    (aa) â€œOffice” means the Office of Marijuana Regulation.

    I want an office…..

    (ab) â€œPermit,” “local license,” or “local permit” means an official document granted by a local jurisdiction that authorizes a person to conduct commercial cannabis activity in the local jurisdiction.

    This is where the provisional licensing requirements could make an issue for those who process and manufacture items currently, as it will take a lot of time and political process to get any “permits, local licenses, and/or local permits” for the entire production sector of the industry. Certainly having to have one by a deadline could make it nearly impossible to overcome.

    (ac) â€œPerson” means an individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, corporation, limited liability company, estate, trust, business trust, receiver, syndicate, or any other group or combination acting as a unit and includes the plural as well as the singular number.

    Corporations are people my friend….

    (ad) â€œState license ” or “license” means a state license issued pursuant to this chapter.

    (ae) â€œTopical cannabis” means a manufactured product intended for external use.

    (af) â€œTransport” means the commercial transfer of medical cannabis or medical cannabis products from the business location of one licensee to another licensee, for the purposes of conducting commercial cannabis activity authorized by licensees pursuant to this chapter.

    Article  2. Administration

    19301.

     This chapter shall be known, and may be cited, as the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Control Act.

    19302.

    There is hereby created within the office of the Governor, the Governor's Office of Marijuana Regulation, under the supervision and control of the Director of the Office of Marijuana Regulation, who shall be appointed by the Governor. The Governor shall appoint the director at a salary to be fixed and determined by the director with the approval of the Director of Finance. The director shall serve in accordance with the State Civil Service Act (Part 2 (commencing with Section 18500) of Division 5 of Title 2 of the Government Code).

    Put in a good word for me…. LOL. But who does get this job could be a major issue for sure.

    (b) The director shall be the appointing power of all employees within the office, and all heads of divisions, bureaus, and other employees in the office shall be responsible to the director for the proper carrying out of the duties and responsibilities of their respective positions.

    (c) In developing a regulatory framework pursuant to this chapter, the director shall consult with state agencies possessing expertise in licensure and enforcement, including, but not limited to, the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and the Department of Consumer Affairs.

    Does the fact that this is 6th state agency named so far worry anyone else?

    (d) The office shall have overall executive authority and responsibility for implementation of all aspects of cannabis regulation pursuant to this chapter.

    (e) The office shall coordinate and provide oversight of all activities described in this chapter. The office shall lead all state and local authorities regarding the tracking of medical cannabis, medical cannabis products, and licensees pursuant to this chapter. All departments and divisions specified in Section 19304 shall report directly to the office. Any information technology systems created to store and process data related to commercial cannabis licensing shall be integrated, and all licensing data shall be immediately available to each licensing authority and to the office.

    Broad sweeping power in this office….

    19303.

     The office shall maintain a registry of all permit holders and shall maintain a record of all state licenses and commercial cannabis activity of the permit holder throughout the length of licensure and for a minimum of seven years following the expiration of each license. The office shall make limited licensee information available to a licensee so that it may verify whether it is engaging in commercial cannabis activities with a properly licensed entity.

    19304.

     (a) The following entities shall report to and be directly accountable to the office for their respective designated responsibilities within the regulatory and enforcement framework, as follows:

    (1) The Division of Medical Cannabis Regulation, which is established within the State Board of Equalization, shall do all of the following:

    (A) Be administered by a person who is appointed by the State Board of Equalization.

    (B) Administer this chapter, as it pertains to commercial cannabis activity relating to dispensaries and transporters.

    (2) The Division of Medical Cannabis Manufacturing and Testing, which is established within the State Department of Public Health, shall do all of the following:

    (A) Be administered by a person who is appointed by the Governor.

    (B) Administer this chapter, as it pertains to manufacturing, testing, and certification of testing laboratories for medical cannabis and medical cannabis products.

    (3) The Division of Medical Cannabis Cultivation, which is established within the Department of Food and Agriculture, shall do all of the following:

    (A) Be administered by a person who is appointed by the Governor.

    (B) Administer this chapter as it pertains to cultivation of medical cannabis.

    (4) The California Environmental Protection Agency and the California Natural Resources Agency shall coordinate and direct the following entities in the discharge of their designated regulatory responsibilities:
     
  2. Pretty sure Californians have nothing to worry about. Even if dispensaries get shut down I am sure patients will have access to their medicine.
     
  3. How they are banning patients from growing their own.
     
  4. Be that as it may....at least y'all have legal access to it....unlike Florida.[​IMG]


    I don't have a lot of sympathy for crybabies.....[​IMG]
     
  5. I could have walked into a store for the past 7 years and have not been to one. If I didn't grow it I am not smoking it. I know that Is a crazy concept to wrap your mind around.
    Those shops you all are so excited about are just as bad as those evil street dealers. They have qurente almost 100k plants already in Co for using sprays that are not approved for human consumption.
    And yes. Florida sucks. We all know that.
     
  6. Circumvent the dispensaries by enabling massive home grows and teachers to do neighborhood watch protected mini grows. Then circle back and help them fire the city officials and state politician who keep forgetting that the White House,and many others, already have multiple patents. Have the larger grower associations nationwide issued a statement? http://www.medicaljane.com/directory/company/emera...


    http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2008/jul/23/si...


    http://www.news-medical.net/news/20131211/GW-Pharm...



    http://www.calgarycmmc.com/cannabispatents.htm




    It's a problem because the FDA is corrupt and their methods could remove licenses from all dispensaries simultaneously under a federal mandate.

    http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43038.pdf

     
  7. 19316.
    (a) This chapter shall not apply to, and shall have no diminishing effect on the protections granted to, a patient or a primary caregiver pursuant to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.
    (b) (1) A patient who cultivates, possesses, stores, manufactures, or transports cannabis exclusively for his or her personal medical use but who does not provide, donate, sell, or distribute cannabis to any other person is not, thereby, engaged in commercial cannabis activity and is, therefore, exempt from the licensure requirements of this chapter.
    (2) A primary caregiver who cultivates, possesses, stores, manufactures, transports, donates, or provides cannabis exclusively for the personal medical purposes of no more than five specified qualified patients for whom he or she is the primary caregiver within the meaning of Section 11362.7 of the Health and Safety Code but who does not receive remuneration for these activities except for compensation in full compliance with subdivision (c) of Section 11362.765 of the Health and Safety Code is not engaged in commercial cannabis activity and is, therefore, exempt from the licensure requirements of this chapter.
    (c) Exemption from the license requirements of this chapter shall not limit or prevent a city, county, or city and county from regulating or banning the cultivation, storage, manufacture, transport, provision, or other activity by the exempt person, or impair the enforcement of that regulation or ban.


    This part is troubling the most. The law is basically written to allow cities and counties to control everything down to the patient level of growing, and it seems to possession. And many California cities are affiliated with the League of Cities, which is strongly affiliated with the California Police Chiefs Association. [​IMG]

     
  8. They are basically codifying the chaos into law. Basically you go buy some weed from a legal town, and you get pulled over in a city and county on your way home where they don't want it, you're getting the book thrown at you. Now you aren't even safe from possession in your own home if your town wants to ban it completely. What a joke.
     
  9. But but but I can go into a store with a funny name and pretty flashing lights and buy crap weed. Who cares then. Bring it own.
     
  10. They'll ban those stores too. What's the use in having a state law for medicine or recreation when cities can completely thwart the law if they want? Its much worse than "dry counties", which prohibits commercial sale, this goes all the way down to banning personal possession and cultivation. It's strange that cities and police are the ones writing the rules and laws for my medicine, that can change every few miles. This state is going backwards quick!
     
  11. Yes sir we are.
     
  12. Just got word from one of the top head's of the big marijuana reform groups that the League of Cities is basically writing this law. Their hope is that cities will be "more willing to accept collectives after they're regulated". Good luck with that one... [​IMG]
     
  13. They already allow cities to have regulations for dispensaries and they fight them tooth and nail. They can ban personal use cultivation through "regulation", and very often do, and the only times they allow collectives to pop up and regulate them is because there are so many unlicensed ones proliferated, so they cave in. Now they'll all be illegal drug dealers and disappear off weedmaps if they want to stay out of jail. Say goodbye to patient grows once this is passed. This one is the "nail and coffin" for Prop 215.

     
  14. oh the horror....poor Californians....please you guys have had it good for the past 20 years...This could have been prevented if the growers weren't so intent on keeping everything status quo....
     
  15. #15 ocsurfer, Jul 9, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 9, 2015
    "If misinterpreted by the courts"?


    The author goes on to provide a definition of "attending physician" when the bill already provides one:


    Seems like a useless comment by the author to me. This part of the bill changes nothing.



     
  16. <blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' >
    (j) Nothing in this act shall have a diminishing effect on the rights and protections granted to a patient or primary caregiver pursuant to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.

    </blockquote>


    Prop 215 (the Compassionate Use Act) provides protection from prosecution for possession (amongst other things). Once again, this bill changes nothing in that aspect.


    The major weakness of this bill is that it preserves local control, meaning that dispensary and cultivation bans by local municipalities are still viable. It does not make local control any worse, it just allows it to continue as it is.


    There is no chance that the legislature will pass a bill that removes local control and prohibits dispensary and cultivation bans. It simply would never pass.


    It is possible, however, that state regulation may make local bans less likely (although I wouldn't count on it).

     
  17. "Some college researchers..."


    The Director of the California Marijuana Research Program is Dr. Igor Grant, M.D. (notice the "M.D." there?).


    One of the co-Directors is J. Hampton Atkinson, M.D. (there it is again!).


    Other co-Directors are PhDs. OK they're not M.D.s, but still technically doctors.


    And let's not forget that the CMRC is the source of the "Gold Standard" study on the efficacy of inhaled cannabis in treating neuropathic pain.


    http://cmcr.ucsd.edu/images/pdfs/cmcr_report_feb17.pdf



    I have no idea why the author feels that this is part of the "end of the cannabis industry as you know it".


    Chicken Little syndrome...

     
  18. Local control cant get any worse. They are already banning growing left and right out here . So this new law would change nothing for most of the state.
    For this reason alone I can not support this bill.
     
  19. #19 dabs710, Jul 10, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 10, 2015
    You forgot to read this part. They are getting around Prop 215 because Prop 215 is only limited to protecting you from CRIMINAL convictions, as a prosecution defense, not CIVIL. That's how they are entirely banning cultivation in some cities and counties, even though SB 420 supposedly says cities and counties can't ban cultivation (they do anyways). So, they are thwarting these rights by allowing cities to ban everything as a nuisance / local ordinance violation / zoning violation (non-criminal). Basically, your city will have complete control of your rights as a patient, from possessing, to growing a small number of plants for yourself... all the way up to any commercial sales.


    We basically lost everything to the cities and cops. Patients used to have more rights when anyone was allowed to grow for themselves anywhere, and SB 420 at least gave us a minimum standard. Now there's nothing. I guess everyone was too distracted as to the what was going on with recreational MJ in other states, as the entire West Coast MMJ scene takes a complete dive into the sand.

     
  20. #20 dabs710, Jul 10, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 10, 2015
    Just look at Oregon. Aside from them starting to attack MMJ because of the rec law, they're still pushing for "local control", even though they supposedly voted against it. There is a new snake in the grass not talked about in this community very much, called "local control". If the new California legalization initiative does nothing to combat this, NOTHING will change. You will just see a few "big" shops open in very socially liberal areas, with different rules, (over)regulations, and bans everywhere. Everything falls into the hands of the city and county - the direction things are headed now.
     

Share This Page