Cali cannabis laws ...

http://www.dof.ca.gov/Budget/Trailer_Bill_Language/documents/200CannabisRegulationDraft.pdf



Better bribe for the local permit or be prepared to stay underground

https://www.mymotherlode.com/news/local/291327/citizens-complaint-revealed-illegal-pot-grow.html

Good morning Cannabis --

It has been such a busy week that I haven't even had a chance to send you an update about our Spring board meeting and policy summit last week. There was a lot of great dialogue and discussion. We got important clarification on the harvest tax and confirmed that some in law enforcement are ready to support a license option for non-storefront dispensaries.

I want to give a special thank you to Assembly member Jim Wood, Bureau Chief Lori Ajax, CalCannabis Chief Amber Morris, Tim Morland with Board of Equalization member Fiona Ma, Richard Parrot from the Board of Equalization and Lauren Michaels from the California Police Chiefs Association for joining us as speakers.

Also, three Cal Growers supported bills advanced through committee in the Senate last week, SB 175, SB 311, and SB 506. You can learn more about those and other bills here.

Now, for the big news: yesterday evening the Brown administration revealed the long awaited budget trailer bill proposal. We have been working toward this legislation with the governors administration and legislative leadership since our first meeting right after the election on November 15th. It is good that it is finally available for review and I want to thank the administration for briefing us on the legislation yesterday.

The budget trailer bill can be found by clicking here. Let the dialogue and debate begin!

The proposal seeks to bridge the gap between the regulatory frameworks in the Medical Cannabis Regulatory and Safety Act (MCRSA) and the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) while providing operators the ability to distinguish themselves as either medical or adult use. Our initial statement on the legislation can be found here. The proposal includes several of our priorities:

Cultivation limits: We strongly support the cultivation limits proposed in the trailer bill. These limits are consistent with the MCRSA and will ensure unlimited Type 1 and 2 licenses with limits on Type 3 licenses.
Appellations: The appellations program is blended for the best of both worlds. The program remains mandatory (AUMA) and is to be implemented by the CDFA (MCRSA). The program will be implemented by 2020!
Environmental protections: Consistent with SB 837 last year, this trailer bill puts the environment first. We are pleased to see the provisions from the 2016 budget process included in the consolidated regulatory framework.
Testing standards: the trailer bill removes problematic provisions and relies on the bureau to develop scientific standards rather than the overly prescriptive language in current law.
Cottage Cultivation: The Type 1C Cottage cultivation license is included in the consolidated licensing structure.

We are also encouraged by the inclusion of streamlined CEQA for local governments. The streamlined CEQA process will encourage local government to enact ordinances and ensure more businesses are able to participate.

Over the next few days and weeks we will fine tooth comb the proposal and share our analysis with you and with other stakeholders around Sacramento and throughout the state as we seek to improve and strengthen the legislation before the budget is finalized this summer. In our initial review and analysis we did identify a few priority concerns:

Unlimited vertical integration: The proposal allows for unlimited vertical integration with no restrictions on types of licenses that can be held or the number of licenses that can be held. We agree with the administration that "overly restrictive vertical integration stifles new business models and does not enhance public and consumer safety." However, no restrictions on vertical integration is equally problematic. We must find a better balance and ensure a level playing field for all businesses--even the ones who can't afford multiple licenses. The trailer bill must strike a better market between a free and fair market.
No provisions for delivery services: Over the last few years we have worked to negotiate language that would allow delivery services to participate in the regulated marketplace while still requiring them to comply with regulations. These "non-storefront" dispensary provisions have support from all the major stakeholders and we are disappointed they were not included in the initial proposal. The trailer bill should ensure a path forward for all cannabis business types.
Residency requirements are removed: Residency protections are common in states that have regulated cannabis. Experts in California were already concerned at the lack of protections in MCRSA. Current legislation proposes to expand and strengthen the residency protections. We are seeking clarification on why this change was made. The trailer bill should provide adequate timelines for California businesses to get licensed.

If you have questions or concerns about the Budget Trailer Bill please email policy@cagrowers.org. I will make sure your input is included in our conversation as we seek to improve this proposal. There is a lot of work still to do to clarify and improve the proposal. I expect many changes to come. I hope you are ready! This year is going to be full of hard work. We need to work together now, more than ever. That's why our spring membership drive is based on a basic truth we all learn on the farm: springtime is much easier when we share the load. If you aren't a member yet, please join today!

With love and gratitude,
HDA_Sig.jpg
Hezekiah D. Allen

So where can we grow homegrown weed in the Golden State? And what are the limits?

http://www.calgrowersassociation.or...17&utm_medium=email&utm_source=emeraldgrowers

Hello Cannabis --

Did you know that the governors budget trailer bill proposes to repeal Business & Professions Code Section 26051?

This is important because without these provisions there is little--if anything--protecting California from market abuses at the hands of big monopolies. Passed by the voters as part of Proposition 64, Section 26051 includes language to prevent:

creation or maintenance of monopolies
unreasonable restraints on competition
violations of environmental protection laws

The trailer bill repeals these important protections, giving an advantage to the well capitalized and creating a barrier to entry for thousands of vulnerable farmers and business owners. This isn't what Proposition 64 promised us. This isn't what the voters supported. And it isn't good for California.

Tomorrow three Senate Budget Sub Committees will meet in a Joint Hearing to discuss "Cannabis Regulatory Implementation." The agenda includes the proposed trailer bill language. At that hearing I will communicate our position: "Cal Growers cannot remove our opposition until the trailer bill includes adequate language preventing monopolies."

Please review our position and add your voice: oppose the trailer bill unless it includes language to protect against monopolies.

The economic, social and environmental impacts of a rapid consolidation in the cannabis marketplace would be catastrophic for vulnerable communities and sensitive watersheds up and down the state. That is why the state legislature enacted Business & Professions Code Section 19328 (also set to be repealed by the budget trailer bill) to limit the size and scope of businesses in the cannabis marketplace. That is why the Blue Ribbon Commission Report states that it is "appropriate and probably wise for the state of California to adopt a path that limits the size...of any one entity in the marijuana industry." That is why Prop 64 included Section 26051.

And, that is why--thanks to your support--Cal Growers continues to advocate everyday for fair market policies.

With love and gratitude,
HDA_Sig.jpg
http://www.calgrowersassociation.org/

Thanks for your work on this.

alota fucking regs!

http://www.record-bee.com/general-n...ornia-cultivators-respond-to-state-draft-regs

“If the regulations were implemented as they stand, it would be a disaster,” said Swami Chaitanya, president of the Mendocino Cannabis Industry Association.

Kira Tucker Am I reading this correctly? Personal grows med or rec harmonized to 6 plants, no square footage limitations?
Jacqueline McGowan That's how I'm reading it too.
Hezekiah Allen ��





TRAILER BILL LANGUAGE - SB 94, with the language to reconcile MCRSA and AUMA, went into print today. Read it here:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB94

I got to ask, did any of you want this legalization or did you fight against it? Seems like you all screwed yourselves

Hello --

Earlier this afternoon the State Senate passed SB 94, the cannabis budget trailer bill, with a vote of 31 to 7. This vote came a short while after the State Assembly passed the bill with a vote of 66 to 3. With these two votes, the trailer bill is out of the state legislature and is fast-tracked to become state law.

Now that the bill is passed, the Medical and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA) will govern California cannabis. This law will be the foundation of regulated cannabis activity in the state. This bill is the culmination of nearly three years of focused work--work that brought together stakeholders representing a broad spectrum of perspectives and required the investment of tens of thousands of hours.

I know I said it the other day when I emailed you, but it bears repeating: your continued support is what sustains our success. Thank you.

To help make sense of the MAUCRSA we are working with our local partners in Nevada County, Sonoma, Sierra County, Humboldt, Tuolumne, Mendocino, Calaveras, the SF - Oakland Bay Area and Los Angeles to bring you a series of no cost informational workshops.

Want us to come visit your community? Email info@cagrowers.org and we will work with you to get something on the calendar.

Also, I am pleased to confirm two important panels for our Summer Policy Summit on July 10. From 1:30 to 2:30 PM we will be joined by representatives from the Employment Development Department to discuss payroll taxes and reporting. From 3 to 4 PM we will be joined by representatives from the state water board who will discuss the progress that has been made on the statewide water quality order.

The event is free for members. You can join here if you would like to attend.

In addition, the board meeting will feature a report on the budget process, an update about this years legislation and an update on the regulatory process, and a presentation on the cultural significance of the word "marijuana." This conversation has become a focal point of the dialog at times and board member Miguel Gavilan Molina and others will offer a very valuable perspective. We will also host round-table discussions in partnership with the Cannabis Delivery Alliance and the Cannabis Distributors Association.

With so many important events coming up in July and August, now is a great time to become an event sponsor.

A $2500 "single event sponsorship" made before July 1st will get your farm, brand or company exposure in printed and digital materials at a half a dozen (likely more!) events throughout the state. There really isn't a better value if you want to reach growers, policy makers and community leaders. You can contribute here if you are ready to make moves--or email info@cagrowers.org if you would like more information.
I am looking forward to seeing you soon! Thanks again--without your support none of the success would be possible.

With love and gratitude,


Hezekiah D. Allen
http://www.calgrowersassociation.org/

There is a lot to digest here. I have not worked out the details, but here are some broad points about the bill. The hearing is underway now. The buzz in the building is that the changes are a "done deal."

· Requires probable cause to believe that the information on an identification card issued pursuant to a recommendation is false

· Allows for felony charges when cannabis activity results in the unlawful taking of fish or wildlife

· Defines a volatile solvent used for manufacturing cannabis products as “a solvent that is or produces a flammable gas or vapor that, when present in the air in sufficient quantities, will create explosive or ignitable mixtures”

· Repeals MCRSA and includes some of its provisions in a new law, which includes medical and adult use laws – Medical and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA)

· Requires “separate and distinct” premises for multiple licenses

· Essentially harmonizes licenses types (e.g. cottage cultivator, micro-business, etc.) and cross-licensing restrictions between medical and adult using licenses

· Allows testing laboratories to test both medical and adult use cannabis with a single laboratory

· Requires that the protection of the public is the paramount in regulatory decisions (as opposed to patient or consumer safety)

· Eliminates Type 10-A Producing Dispensary and transporter licenses

· Gives the California Highway Patrol authority of vehicles used for transportation

· Requires opaque exit packaging at dispensaries

· Requires distributors to store batches of cannabis on-site during testing and to perform a quality assurance review regarding labeling, packaging, and other provisions

· Requires testing laboratory employees to obtain and transport samples

· Allows for selling untested cannabis and cannabis products for a period to the specified by the Bureau, so long as it is labeled as “untested”

· Repeals the residency requirement in AUMA

· Allows for special event and public consumption permits, at the Bureau’s discretion

· Changes the rules related to denial of applications and appeals

· Requires that some advertisements include the seller’s state license number

· Requires a universal symbol on all edible products

· Appropriates $3 million to the CHP for training drug use recognition experts

· Changes the way that the 15% excise tax imposed by AUMA is assessed – average market price vs. gross receipts of the retailer

· Requires cultivators to identify the source of the water they use

· Would limit issuing new unique identifying tags for plants in areas where the CDFA finds adverse impacts related to cultivation

· Prohibits the use of any pesticide that has been banned for use

· Makes changes in the program to establish appellations of origin for cannabis and cannabis products

· Creates a state program to certify organic cannabis and cannabis products

· Classifies information on a physician’s recommendation as “medical information,” under the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (applies to state agencies)

· Removes industrial hemp from regulation by the Bureau

· Exempts butter infused with cannabis from the Milk and Milk Products Act of 1947

· Authorizes three or more “natural persons” who hold Type 1 and 2 licenses to form a cooperative to cultivate, sell, or market cannabis or cannabis products

· Creates an “open container” infraction for having cannabis in a vehicle

Open container? Geez.

When the governor passes this July 1rst everyone without a local commercial license will be immediately limited to 6 plants ...

I've been trying to find as much information on extraction permits and such for california and I'm still a bit confused... I realize the only way they will let you do extractions is w/ a permit of varying levels such as 1-7(a/b) for extraction and infusion having to do w/ volatile solvents. Though the wording seems to get me jumbled when it comes to CO2 extractions. Is it my understanding you will only need inspections of facilities and equipment w/ CO2 rather than a CL BHO system because CO2 is non flammable and food grade quality w/o other solvents being used? if someone could help shed some light on this topic it'd be much appreciated!

The whole system is way too expensive and confusing. And behind schedule.

never mind I believe i figured it out after rereading another article. I would need a Type 6 license if I'm understanding this correct?

Northern Cali Sith District

Northern Cali Sith District

Guys I have to take a break from images today to share with you the text of a reply to me from my Representative Doug Lamalfa to a letter I sent him. Reefer madness still exists!

Dear Mr. Scheetz:

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for ending the federal marijuana prohibition . I value your point of view and appreciate the opportunity to respond.

While I agree that efforts to limit illicit drug use have not been fully successful, I believe that the negatives of drug legalization, including marijuana, would be much worse. Studies indicate that the marijuana used today contains significantly greater cancer-causing properties than tobacco, can cause mental health issues, is addictive and creates harmful dependencies, is a frequent precursor to the use of more dangerous drugs, and can lead users to commit violent or otherwise irresponsible actions that harm innocent people.

Additionally, decriminalizing or legalizing drugs may lead to the creation of a permanent class of drug users who will find it increasingly impossible to support themselves, and thus will rely on the state for welfare, disability payments, or unemployment insurance. Their medical problems will increase, draining our already strained county hospitals and the health care programs. Thus, innocent taxpayers will be forced to subsidize the lethargic lifestyle of substance abusers. Preventing drug users from operating motor vehicles will also become an increasing problem as drug use becomes more tolerated and acceptable.

For these and other reasons, I oppose legalizing the use of marijuana. I believe the better approach is discouraging its use through a clear and honest discussion of the damage that the drug can cause. I believe parents, schools, churches, and community organizations are best positioned to encourage personal responsibility and convince younger Americans especially that marijuana use contributes to an unhealthy lifestyle. Additionally, I believe existing drug laws should be enforced to further discourage illicit drug use.

Although we may not see eye-to-eye, I will be sure to keep your perspective in mind should Congress consider legislation that would change laws governing marijuana use.

I appreciate the opportunity to be of assistance. If you would like to stay connected to our office with the latest news, legislation, and other useful information, please visit my website at https://lamalfa.house.gov . Thank you again for your communication, and please do not hesitate to contact my office with any future questions or comments. It is an honor to be your representative in Congress.

Sincerely,

Doug LaMalfa
Member of Congress

What a well written ass

He defines the concept of shameless.