Tax Cannabis 2010 Initiative Headed for November BallotJan. 28 - California voters will have the opportunity to vote for marijuana reform this November. The Tax and Regulate Cannabis Initiative or "TC2010" has submitted more than enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.
Obama re-appoints Leonhart for DEA AdministratorJan. 26 - President Obama signaled more of the same in drug policy by re-appointing Bush appointee Michele Leonhart as DEA administrator.
Ca Supreme Court Strikes Down Medical Marijuana Possession, Cultivation LimitsJanuary 21 - As expected, the court struck down the so-called SB 420 quantity limits in Ca Health & Safety code 11362.77 as applied to patients' right to grow, but upheld their application for other purposes, e.g. as a "safe harbor" guideline for protecting patients from arrest.
LA Finally Votes (But It's Not Yet Final)January 20 - By an 11-3 preliminary vote, the Los Angeles City Council moved to adopt a medical marijuana ordinance requiring collectives to locate outside a 1000-foot buffer from sensitive use properties.
California Public Safety Committee Passes AB390January 12 - The Assembly Public Safety Committee voted 4-3 to approve Tom Ammmiano's bill to legalize and regulate marijuana, the first time a legislative body has ever voted to repeal MJ prohibition.
Historic Hearings on Marijuana Legalization in SacramentoJanuary 12 - The California Assembly Public Safety Committee will be voting on Tom Ammiano's landmark bill to legalize, tax and regulate marijuana (AB390) this Tuesday, Jan 12th. The bill is expected to be heard when the committee convenes at 9 am.
Let's Blitz Sacramento for Legalization!We are kicking off 2010 with a major legalization blitz in Sacramento. The California legislature will be hearing Tom Ammiano’s landmark legalization bill AB 390 on Jan. 12th. We are asking all California activists to start the new year by contacting their Assembly members in support of AB 390. The legislature is returning into session on Jan 4th, so we have just one week to do this.
CaNORML 2009 Accomplishments and Plans for 2010California NORML is proud to have been on the forefront of marijuana reform in 2009, a year that marked a memorable turning point in the movement as legalization finally emerged as a serious political issue. Your support for CalNORML will help us move this issue forward as never before.
Pain Doctors Discriminate Against Medical Marijuana PatientsDecember 29, 2009 - NORML has received a flood of recent complaints from chronic pain patients wrongfully denied treatment by pain clinics for having failed unwarranted drug tests for medical marijuana.
L.A. City Council Once More Puts Off Medical Marijuana Ordinance VoteDecember 17 - At a rollicking meeting where someone signed in as “Santa Claus” for public comment, LA City Council yesterday once more put off their vote on a medical marijuana ordinance, at least until a special meeting they will hold on the topic January 13.
AB390 Hearings Set for January 2010The California Assembly will be hearing AB390, Tom Ammiano's landmark bill to legalize and regulate marijuana in early January, 2010. Please tell your assembly member that it's time to stop wasting money on marijuana prohibition and to reap the benefits of a legally regulated market.
JACKSON "NOT GUILTY" VERDICT SENDS MESSAGE TO SD DA: LAY OFF MEDICAL MARIJUANA!December 1 - A San Diego jury's not guilty verdict for medical marijuana defendant Jovan Jackson sends a powerful message to District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis to call off the heat and dismiss the numerous other defendants currently facing similar charges in San Diego.
L.A., Redding to Hear Medical Marijuana OrdinancesDecember 1 (UPDATE) - Redding city council will consider a comprehensive medical marijuana ordinance on Dec. 1; L.A. City Council has put off the matter until Dec. 8.
Two LA Committees Vote for Medical MarijuanaNovember 17 - After a huge public outpouring of support, two Los Angeles City Council committees rejected the advice of the city attorney and voted Monday to approve an ordinance that allows marijuana dispensaries to continue selling marijuana to people with a doctor's recommendation.
AMA, CMA Call for Medical Marijuana Research, Policy ChangeNovember 11 - The American Medical Association and the California Medical Association have both adopted resolutions in favor of research and debate on medical marijuana.
CaNORML Opposes Red Bluff Cultivation BanNovember 10 - A proposed Red Bluff ordinance would effectively deprive patients of their Prop. 215 right to grow medical marijuana, both individually and collectively.
Kelly Case Sees Oral ArgumentsNovember 3 - In a remarkable turn of events, both sides at today's California Supreme Court Hearing on the Kelly case agreed that the so-called SB 420 quantity limits in Health and Safety Code 11362.77 are unconstitutional when applied to limit patients' right to a compassionate use defense under Prop. 215.
Cal NORML Testifies at Historic Hearings on Marijuana LegalizationSACRAMENTO, Oct. 28th - The state Assembly Public Safety Committee held historic hearings on the legalization of marijuana, the first since "Indian hemp" was prohibited in 1913. The hearings were chaired by Tom Ammiano (D-SF), who has proposed a legalization bill, AB390, which will be heard early next year.
Ill-Conceived L.A. Medical Marijuana Proposal Would Cost $36 - $74 Million In Tax RevenuesOctober 26 - A medical marijuana regulation ordinance proposed to the L.A. City Council by City Attorney Carmen Trutanich would cost $36 - $74 million in lost tax revenues plus untold additional enforcement costs, according to an analysis by California NORML.
Marijuana Arrests Up Again in CaliforniaOctober 19 - Marijuana arrests in 2008 rose to their highest level in California since the state's 1976 decriminalization law, according to the latest data from the Cal DOJ Bureau of Criminal Statistics.
Will They Really? Feds Finally Accept State Laws on Med MJOctober 19 - While it is certainly encouraging that the Obama administration has committed to writing the AG's declared policy of respecting state medical marijuana laws, the proof will be in the pudding.
LA District Attorney Targets Cannabis CollectivesOctober 18 - Turn up the pressure on the LA DA! Tell him that LA's dispensaries provide a valuable service to the community, and that they should be subject to reasonable city regulations, not arbitrary raids and closures.
Mendo Measure B Blamed for Increased ArrestsOctober 17 - Mendocino county reported a record number of marijuana arrests in 2008, according to data from the Cal DOJ Bureau of Criminal Statistics.
Legalization Initiatives Filed in CATwo marijuana legalization initiatives are currently collecting signatures for the 2010 ballot in California. A third initiative has also been submitted but is not presently circulating.
September 28 - Appeals Court Rules Some Cities May Disallow Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
September 23 - PayPal Violates First Amendment, Dumps CaNORML
September 20 - Feds Cast Doubt on "Cartel" Myth
September 19 - Fresno and Madera Seek to Shut Collectives
September 19 - Jack Herer Suffers Heart Attack in Oregon
San Diego Cracks Down on Dispensaries with DEA HelpSeptember 11 - SWAT-style raids on 14 medical marijuana outlets in the San Diego area on September 9 resulted in 31 arrests, including a man in a wheelchair who was wrestled into a police car.
First DEA Arrests Under Obama Administration in Lake CountyAug. 24th, 2009 - UPPER LAKE, CA: In what are believed to be the first DEA medical marijuana arrests since President Obama took office, the federal government arrested five Lake County defendants on marijuana charges on Tuesday, August 18th.
Recent Pain Study Put in ContextAugust 23 - A recent University of Texas study that claims the active ingredients in marijuana spread and prolong pain is an isolated, theoretical lab study involving rodent cells and endocannabinoids. It is more compelling to consult the long list of human clinical studies examining actual use of marijuana for chronic pain.
State Senate Balks At Prison Reform BillAugust 22 - In a troubling development, the state assembly is balking at passing the prison population reduction bill passed by the state senate. The major objection appears to be the review of penalties for various offenses including drugs.
DEA Raids Two Los Angeles CollectivesAugust 12 - According to press and eyewitness reports, the DEA and other federal and local agencies raided two Los Angeles cannabis collectives today, as well as the residences of collective officials.
Governor's Prison Plan: Don't Tax Pot, Steal a CarAugust 10 - As California considers how to reduce prison spending, it has overlooked releasing non-violent marijuana prisoners in favor of car thieves.
CaNORML Invites Drug Czar on Fact-Finding TourAfter Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske pronounced "Marijuana is dangerous and has no medicinal benefit," in Fresno last week, California NORML cordially invites Kerlikowske to come and interview a few real, live medical marijuana patients, physicians, researchers and providers next time he visits California.
FOXNews.com Attacks BOE Report, CaNORMLCalNORML director Dale Gieringer writes: "While Fox news is right that studies on marijuana consumption are hazy, it is confused about how Cal NORML got its estimates on marijuana consumption in CA. In fact, our estimates are lower than those of the ONDCP."
Oakland Voters Approve Nation's First Cannabis Business TaxJuly 22 - Last night's landslide victory for Oakland's cannabis business tax by 79.9% of the vote mirrors the historic 79.6% victory of San Francisco's path-breaking medical marijuana initiative in 1991.
LA City Council Introduces Two Reform ProposalsJuly 18 - At their meeting yesterday, LA City Councilmembers introduced resolutions to study the feasibility of taxing medical marijuana collectives in Los Angeles, and to support HR 2835, the Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act.
Marijuana Legalization Bill Would Net California $1.38 Billion in RevenuesBoard of Equalization, Cal NORML Agree On Benefits of Ammiano Bill AB 390 (July 15)
New CBS Poll Shows Increasing Support for Legalization NationallyJuly 15 - A new nationwide CBS News poll reports 41% support for marijuana legalization. This is a 10% jump since the last CBS poll just four months ago.
VA Allows Medical Marijuana for PainThe Veterans Administration will ignore marijuana drug screening for pain patients who have legal medical marijuana recommendations, under a new policy reported by VA Watchdog.
L.A. Continues Reviewing Hardship ExemptionsThe Los Angeles Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) Committee will be holding a special meeting next Monday June 29, 2009 to hear 29 medical marijuana hardship exemption applications. On June 22, L.A.'s mayor signed off on the revised Interim Control Ordinance (ICO) regulating medical marijuana collectives in Los Angeles.
CAMP Season BeginsJune 22 - The CAMP (Campaign Against Marijuana Planting) marijuana eradication helicopter program is starting operation today.
Rep. Frank Re-Introduces Bill to Recognize State Medical Marijuana LawsCal NORML thanks Rep. Barney Frank and California's co-sponsors for HR 2835, a bill to let states legally regulate medical marijuana.
State, Federal Efforts to Clarify Medical Marijuana PolicyOn June 8, State Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) introduced a SJR 14, which calls for a comprehensive federal policy to ensure safe and legal access to medical marijuana for patients who benefit from its therapeutic use.
Eddy Lepp Receives 10 Year Mandatory Minimum for Medical MarijuanaMay 18, 2009 - US District Judge Marilyn Patel sentenced Eddy Lepp to ten years mandatory minimum for having grown over 1,000 marijuana plants for a medical marijuana garden in Lake County.
SUPREME COURT AFFIRMS STATES' RIGHTS TO MEDICAL MARIJUANAMay 18, 2009 - The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear case #08-887 San Diego County, CA, et al. V. San Diego NORML, et al., leaving in place an appeals court ruling holding that California law trumps federal law over medical marijuana.
SCHWARZENEGGER "OPEN" TO LEGALIZATION DEBATEMay 5 - Asked today about a recent Field Poll showing that 56 percent of registered voters support legalizing and taxing marijuana in California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said "Well, I think it's not time for that, but I think it's time for a debate."
LANDMARK LEGALIZATION BILL AB 390(Ammiano) TO BE HEARD IN CAMarch 23, 2009 - Hearings for AB 390 have been set for the next session of the California Assembly (Dec - Jan) so as to provide time for building support.
10-Year Medical Marijuana Sentence UpheldMay 3 - In an unpublished opinion, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed the 10-year mandatory minimum sentence of Bryan Epis on charges of conspiracy to manufacture marijuana.
CA Field Poll: 56% Support Legalizing MarijuanaApril 30 - Public opinion has swung to legalization here in California.
DOJ to Charles Lynch: Business as UsualThe US Dept of Justice has made a mockery of AG Eric Holder's policy of supposedly respecting state medical marijuana laws in the case of Charles C. Lynch, whose sentencing has been postponed until June 11.
SF DEA Raid Raises Doubts about Obama Policy on Medical MarijuanaMarch 26, 2009 - Yesterday's DEA raid on a San Francisco medical cannabis club is a wake-up slap to everyone who was hoping for the best from Attorney General Holder's promise to end DEA raids.
Rep. Loretta Sanchez Backs Legalizing Marijuana in CaliforniaSpeaking live on CNN, Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-47) cited the west coast's majority support for regulating cannabis like alcohol and called for a statewide "pilot program" to objectively assess the impact of cannabis legalization upon adult society.
Attorney General Holder Says Medical Marijuana Raids Will EndFebruary 25, 2009 - Speaking at a press conference with DEA administrator Michelle Leonhart, Attorney General Eric Holder declared that ending medical marijuana raids "is now American policy."
Bill to Tax and Regulate Marijuana Would Raise Over $1 Billion for CaliforniaFebruary 23, 2009 - Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-SF) announced the introduction of a landmark bill to tax and regulate marijuana like alcohol and tobacco at a press conference today.
New Poll Finds Growing Support for LegalizationFebruary 19, 2009 - A growing number of Americans, and a majority in the West, support legalizing marijuana, according to a January 29-31 poll of 1,053 likely voters by Zogby International, sponsored by California NORML and Oaksterdam University.
Kelloggs Drops Michael Phelps for Smoking PotFeb. 6 - Pot advocates unite! Tell the Kellogg Company and USA Swimming that you're disgusted by their spurning of Michael Phelps.
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SAYS IT WILL REVIEW DEA RAIDSFebruary 5 - A White House spokesperson says that the Obama administration will re-evaluate policies of DEA interference in state medical marijuana laws.
Zogby Poll: 72% of Voters Want Obama to End DEA Medical Marijuana RaidsFeb 4th, 2009 - While the DEA continues to stage medical marijuana raids in California, nearly three-quarters of voters think President Obama should honor his campaign pledge to end the raids, according to a poll of 1,053 likely voters by Zogby International.
MORE DEA RAIDS IN LOS ANGELESFebruary 3 - California NORML has confirmed reports of four DEA raids in L.A. today.
CALIFORNIA SURVEY SHOWS STUDENT MARIJUANA USE STABLE, PRESCRIPTION DRUG USE HIGHJanuary 30, 2009 - The newly released biennial Attorney General's Survey of Student Drug Use in California shows that marijuana use among 7th, 9th and 11th graders remained stable during 2007-8, but reports an "alarming rate" of prescription drug abuse.
Call on Obama to End the DEA Raids!January 23, 2009 - Cal NORML is sorry to note that the DEA yesterday conducted its first medical marijuana raid under the Obama administration. Supporters are urged to call the White House and ask that Obama act promptly on his pledge to end DEA medical marijuana raids. Call the White House hotline 202-456-1111 or visit the White House website.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Ca Supreme Court Strikes Down Medical Marijuana Possession, Cultivation Limits
Posted January 21st, 2010 by canorml_admin
January 21 - The California Supreme Court released its long-awaited ruling in People v. Kelly today.
As expected, the court struck down the so-called SB 420 quantity limits in Ca Health & Safety code 11362.77 as applied to patients' right to grow, but upheld their application for other purposes, e.g. as a "safe harbor" guideline for protecting patients from arrest.
Read the opinion
Excerpt:"We conclude, consistently with the decision of the Court of Appeal below (and with the position of both parties in the present litigation), that insofar as section 11362.77 burdens a defense under the CUA to a criminal charge of possessing or cultivating marijuana, it impermissibly amends the CUA and in that respect is invalid under article II, section 10, subdivision (c). We also conclude, consistently with the views of both parties in the present litigation, that the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that section 11362.77 must be severed from the MMP and hence voided."
See: Kelly case sees oral arguments
AP: Calif. high court strikes down medical pot limits
Kelly voids Mendo's Measure B?Ukiah Daily Journal1/21/2010
A Big Fat Bowl of Nothing: What the Pot Limit Strike Down Really MeansSF Weekly Blog
State court ruling shoots down medical marijuana restrictionsTimes-Standard, Eureka1/22/2010
January 21 - The California Supreme Court released its long-awaited ruling in People v. Kelly today.
As expected, the court struck down the so-called SB 420 quantity limits in Ca Health & Safety code 11362.77 as applied to patients' right to grow, but upheld their application for other purposes, e.g. as a "safe harbor" guideline for protecting patients from arrest.
Read the opinion
Excerpt:"We conclude, consistently with the decision of the Court of Appeal below (and with the position of both parties in the present litigation), that insofar as section 11362.77 burdens a defense under the CUA to a criminal charge of possessing or cultivating marijuana, it impermissibly amends the CUA and in that respect is invalid under article II, section 10, subdivision (c). We also conclude, consistently with the views of both parties in the present litigation, that the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that section 11362.77 must be severed from the MMP and hence voided."
See: Kelly case sees oral arguments
AP: Calif. high court strikes down medical pot limits
Kelly voids Mendo's Measure B?Ukiah Daily Journal1/21/2010
A Big Fat Bowl of Nothing: What the Pot Limit Strike Down Really MeansSF Weekly Blog
State court ruling shoots down medical marijuana restrictionsTimes-Standard, Eureka1/22/2010
Congress: Bill to Do Top-to-Bottom Review of Criminal Justice System, Drug War Passes Senate Judiciary Committee
The Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday approved Sen. Jim Webb's (D-VA) National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2009 on a unanimous voice vote Thursday. The bill would create a commission to conduct a top-to-bottom evaluation of the country's criminal justice system and offer recommendations for reform at every level.
Jim Webb at 2007 incarceration hearing (photo from sentencingproject.org)Webb has been a harsh critic of national drug policies, and has led at least two hearings on the costs associated with current policies. The bill could create an opportunity to shine a harsh light on the negative consequences of the current policies.
An amendment offered by Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) and accepted by the committee stripped out the original bill's lengthy list of negative drug policy "findings" and replaced them with blander language, but left the bill's purpose intact.
Passage out of committee was applauded by sentencing reform advocates. "Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM) commends the Senate Judiciary Committee for recognizing that the American criminal justice system needs an overhaul," said Jennifer Seltzer Stitt, FAMM federal legislative affairs director. "Any comprehensive reform of our criminal justice system must include eliminating mandatory minimum laws. One-size-fits-all mandatory drug sentencing laws enacted in the 1980s are responsible for filling prisons with low-level, nonviolent drug offenders, wasting millions in taxpayer dollars, and destroying public trust in the criminal justice system. The National Criminal Justice Commission can help right these wrongs by recommending mandatory sentencing reform."
The bill's prospects are uncertain. It faces a crowded calendar in the Senate and has made little progress in the House.
Jim Webb at 2007 incarceration hearing (photo from sentencingproject.org)Webb has been a harsh critic of national drug policies, and has led at least two hearings on the costs associated with current policies. The bill could create an opportunity to shine a harsh light on the negative consequences of the current policies.
An amendment offered by Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) and accepted by the committee stripped out the original bill's lengthy list of negative drug policy "findings" and replaced them with blander language, but left the bill's purpose intact.
Passage out of committee was applauded by sentencing reform advocates. "Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM) commends the Senate Judiciary Committee for recognizing that the American criminal justice system needs an overhaul," said Jennifer Seltzer Stitt, FAMM federal legislative affairs director. "Any comprehensive reform of our criminal justice system must include eliminating mandatory minimum laws. One-size-fits-all mandatory drug sentencing laws enacted in the 1980s are responsible for filling prisons with low-level, nonviolent drug offenders, wasting millions in taxpayer dollars, and destroying public trust in the criminal justice system. The National Criminal Justice Commission can help right these wrongs by recommending mandatory sentencing reform."
The bill's prospects are uncertain. It faces a crowded calendar in the Senate and has made little progress in the House.
Long Beach now has an ordinance regulating medical marijuana collectives in the city.
After a debate that started on Tuesday night and lasted into Wednesday morning,
But nobody thinks this ordinance will remain the same, likely even a year from now, due to council tinkering, court rulings and possibly the voters changing state law.
’ÄúThis is going to be an evolutionary process,’Äù Mayor Bob Foster said.
’ÄúNo matter what (the City Council members) do, there will be unintended consequences’Ķ You are going to have to come back and make changes.’Äù
After another night of wrangling and emotional testimony, the City Council this week approved a new medial marijuana collective ordinance for the city. That ordinance puts no limit on the number of collectives there can be. However, it puts restrictions on where they can locate, among other things.
Existing clubs are not ’Äúgrandfathered’Äù in and will have to meet the new requirements or close. That led the owners of several collectives to come down and speak, saying that they are within the 1,500-foot limit for being near a high school and this would force them to close or move. Council members discussed adding a way that clubs could seek a variance on a case-by-case basis, but did not change the rules.
Most of the council debate was about whether collectives should only be allowed to sell what they grow on site. It was something the Long Beach Police Department suggested so the collectives were not buying from other sources and importing marijuana into the city. Other council members questioned how this would work in a practical sense and if it was really a good idea to have the collectives taking over larger retail spaces so they would have the room to grow marijuana in the back.
’ÄúI’Äôm not sure how forcing them to grow (marijuana) in the city of Long Beach makes the city safer,’Äù said Seventh District Councilwoman Tonia Reyes Uranga.
On a narrow five-to-four vote, the council agreed with Uranga and lifted the growing restrictions. The four voting no (trying to keep on-site
growing) were Second District Councilwoman Suja Lowenthal, Third District Councilman Gary DeLong, Fourth District Councilman Patrick O’ÄôDonnell, and Fifth District Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske.
The council stuck with other restrictions they had approved last week, plus added a couple of new ones suggested by City Attorney Robert Shannon and City Prosecutor Tom Reeves:
’Ä¢ Collectives cannot be located within 1,500 feet of a high school, 500 feet of any other school and 1,000 feet of each other. However, there are no restrictions on locations near a library, childcare facility or playground.
’Ä¢ Outlets can only be located in commercial or industrial zones, not in residential areas.
’Ä¢ Operators will need to apply for and receive a city permit, and to do so must show the organization is a collective (as defined by state law, a co-op structure where a few people grow for other members, but there is no profit).
’Ä¢ There can be no consumption of any products in any form on site.
’Ä¢ Marijuana at the sites can be tested by the city to see if it contains illegal pesticides that were used as part of the growing process and that cultivation records of where the marijuana was grown must be kept on premises.
’Ä¢ Collective members will have to show picture identification (such as a driver’Äôs license) to pick up their prescription.
Opponents of this measure said that the city was treating marijuana as an illegal drug and not a medicine. Speakers said that the city should regulate this more like they regulate pharmacies than they do liquor stores, and that this was far more restrictive than what liquor stores face.
Shannon said before the meeting he thought this ordinance could withstand any legal challenge from people who thought it too restrictive. He said that this was done in accordance with existing state law and precedents.
However, that legal ground is shifting with measures moving through the courts, Shannon said.
Maybe the biggest change could come in November, when voters are expected to be asked about legalizing marijuana in the state. The petition expected to be on the ballot would allow up to one ounce of marijuana to be kept for personal use, and for a space of up to 25 square feet at a residence for growing. It would also allow the sale and taxing of marijuana.
The measure likely would bring a fierce campaign battle this fall, and if approved, a legal showdown with the federal government, which still classifies marijuana as an illegal drug.
But for now, Long Beach has its ordinance restricting medical marijuana.
But nobody thinks this ordinance will remain the same, likely even a year from now, due to council tinkering, court rulings and possibly the voters changing state law.
’ÄúThis is going to be an evolutionary process,’Äù Mayor Bob Foster said.
’ÄúNo matter what (the City Council members) do, there will be unintended consequences’Ķ You are going to have to come back and make changes.’Äù
After another night of wrangling and emotional testimony, the City Council this week approved a new medial marijuana collective ordinance for the city. That ordinance puts no limit on the number of collectives there can be. However, it puts restrictions on where they can locate, among other things.
Existing clubs are not ’Äúgrandfathered’Äù in and will have to meet the new requirements or close. That led the owners of several collectives to come down and speak, saying that they are within the 1,500-foot limit for being near a high school and this would force them to close or move. Council members discussed adding a way that clubs could seek a variance on a case-by-case basis, but did not change the rules.
Most of the council debate was about whether collectives should only be allowed to sell what they grow on site. It was something the Long Beach Police Department suggested so the collectives were not buying from other sources and importing marijuana into the city. Other council members questioned how this would work in a practical sense and if it was really a good idea to have the collectives taking over larger retail spaces so they would have the room to grow marijuana in the back.
’ÄúI’Äôm not sure how forcing them to grow (marijuana) in the city of Long Beach makes the city safer,’Äù said Seventh District Councilwoman Tonia Reyes Uranga.
On a narrow five-to-four vote, the council agreed with Uranga and lifted the growing restrictions. The four voting no (trying to keep on-site
growing) were Second District Councilwoman Suja Lowenthal, Third District Councilman Gary DeLong, Fourth District Councilman Patrick O’ÄôDonnell, and Fifth District Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske.
The council stuck with other restrictions they had approved last week, plus added a couple of new ones suggested by City Attorney Robert Shannon and City Prosecutor Tom Reeves:
’Ä¢ Collectives cannot be located within 1,500 feet of a high school, 500 feet of any other school and 1,000 feet of each other. However, there are no restrictions on locations near a library, childcare facility or playground.
’Ä¢ Outlets can only be located in commercial or industrial zones, not in residential areas.
’Ä¢ Operators will need to apply for and receive a city permit, and to do so must show the organization is a collective (as defined by state law, a co-op structure where a few people grow for other members, but there is no profit).
’Ä¢ There can be no consumption of any products in any form on site.
’Ä¢ Marijuana at the sites can be tested by the city to see if it contains illegal pesticides that were used as part of the growing process and that cultivation records of where the marijuana was grown must be kept on premises.
’Ä¢ Collective members will have to show picture identification (such as a driver’Äôs license) to pick up their prescription.
Opponents of this measure said that the city was treating marijuana as an illegal drug and not a medicine. Speakers said that the city should regulate this more like they regulate pharmacies than they do liquor stores, and that this was far more restrictive than what liquor stores face.
Shannon said before the meeting he thought this ordinance could withstand any legal challenge from people who thought it too restrictive. He said that this was done in accordance with existing state law and precedents.
However, that legal ground is shifting with measures moving through the courts, Shannon said.
Maybe the biggest change could come in November, when voters are expected to be asked about legalizing marijuana in the state. The petition expected to be on the ballot would allow up to one ounce of marijuana to be kept for personal use, and for a space of up to 25 square feet at a residence for growing. It would also allow the sale and taxing of marijuana.
The measure likely would bring a fierce campaign battle this fall, and if approved, a legal showdown with the federal government, which still classifies marijuana as an illegal drug.
But for now, Long Beach has its ordinance restricting medical marijuana.
So what does this have to do with Medical Marijuana
Possession of 28.5 grams or less of marijuana is not an arrestable offense. As long as the offender can provide sufficient identification and promises to appear in court, the officer will not arrest the offender. Upon conviction of the misdemeanor charge the offender is subject to a fine of $100. Possession of greater than 28.5 grams is punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $500.
Proposition 36The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act passed by 61% in 2000
Possession of 28.5 grams or less of marijuana on school grounds when the school is open is punishable by up to 10 days in jail and a $500 fine. Possession of greater than 28.5 grams or more of marijuana in a school zone is punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $500.
The cultivation or processing of any amount of marijuana is punishable by up to sixteen months in state prison. There is an exception to the cultivation prohibition for patients or patients’ caregivers who possess or cultivate for personal use by the patient upon approval of a physician.
The laws regarding possession and cultivation of marijuana do not apply to patients or patients’ primary caregivers who possess or cultivate marijuana for the personal medical use of the patient, upon the recommendation or approval of a physician.
Selling marijuana in any amount is punishable by 2 – 4 years in the state prison. Giving away less than 28.5 grams is a misdemeanor and is punishable by a fine of up to $100.
Sale of marijuana to a minor is punishable by 3 – 5 years in prison.
For anyone under the age of 21 convicted of any of the above offenses, the state may suspend the offender’s driver’s license for up to one year.
Possession of paraphernalia is a civil fine of $200-$300 for the first offense and goes up to $5,000-$6,000 for a fifth or subsequent violation within a five-year periood.
A breakdown of CA county and local medical marijuana guidelines is available here: http://www.safeaccessnow.net/countyguidelines.htm.
Proposition 36The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act passed by 61% in 2000
Possession of 28.5 grams or less of marijuana on school grounds when the school is open is punishable by up to 10 days in jail and a $500 fine. Possession of greater than 28.5 grams or more of marijuana in a school zone is punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $500.
The cultivation or processing of any amount of marijuana is punishable by up to sixteen months in state prison. There is an exception to the cultivation prohibition for patients or patients’ caregivers who possess or cultivate for personal use by the patient upon approval of a physician.
The laws regarding possession and cultivation of marijuana do not apply to patients or patients’ primary caregivers who possess or cultivate marijuana for the personal medical use of the patient, upon the recommendation or approval of a physician.
Selling marijuana in any amount is punishable by 2 – 4 years in the state prison. Giving away less than 28.5 grams is a misdemeanor and is punishable by a fine of up to $100.
Sale of marijuana to a minor is punishable by 3 – 5 years in prison.
For anyone under the age of 21 convicted of any of the above offenses, the state may suspend the offender’s driver’s license for up to one year.
Possession of paraphernalia is a civil fine of $200-$300 for the first offense and goes up to $5,000-$6,000 for a fifth or subsequent violation within a five-year periood.
A breakdown of CA county and local medical marijuana guidelines is available here: http://www.safeaccessnow.net/countyguidelines.htm.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Proposal
Background
Federal Law. Federal law classifies marijuana as an illegal substance. The Federal Controlled Substances Abuse Act provides criminal sanctions for various activities relating to marijuana. Federal laws are enforced by federal law enforcement agencies that may act independently or in conjunction with state and local law enforcement agencies.
State Law and Proposition 215. Under current state law, the possession, use, transportation, or cultivation of marijuana is generally illegal in California. Penalties for marijuana-related activities vary depending on the offense. For example, under the state Penal Code, possession of less than one ounce of marijuana is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine, while selling marijuana is a felony and may result in a prison sanction.
In November 1996, voters approved Proposition 215, which legalized the cultivation and possession of marijuana in California for medicinal purposes. Notwithstanding this initiative, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that federal authorities could continue to prosecute California patients and providers engaged in the medicinal cultivation and use of marijuana for violations of federal law. However, the U.S. Department of Justice announced in March 2009 that it would no longer prosecute marijuana patients and providers whose actions are consistent with state medical marijuana laws.
Proposal
This measure states that it repeals existing prohibitions on marijuana use, cultivation, possession, transportation, and sale. The measure also requires that state and local governments stop spending funds to enforce or prosecute any law that prohibits such marijuana-related activities. Under the measure, federal, state, and local governments would be authorized to tax the manufacture, sale, and use of marijuana. Specifically, the measure instructs the Legislature to establish laws for the regulation and taxation of marijuana. In addition, the measure instructs members of Congress from California to work to remove marijuana from the federal schedule of controlled substances and to vote against funding that would be used to enforce any laws prohibiting marijuana or hemp products.
Fiscal Effects
Although the federal government recently announced that it would no longer prosecute medical marijuana patients and providers whose actions are consistent with Proposition 215, it has continued to enforce its prohibitions on non-medical marijuana activities. To the extent that the federal government continued to enforce existing federal marijuana laws, it would generally have the effect of impeding or eliminating the cultivation, possession, transportation, sale, or use of marijuana permitted by this measure under state law.
Moreover, some or all of the provisions of this measure could be subject to challenge in the courts and found unconstitutional under state law. For example, the way in which this measure proposes to change California's existing marijuana-related statutes could be challenged in the courts. That is because the measure does not directly amend or strike out the specific existing laws relating to marijuana. In addition, the provisions in the measure instructing members of the Legislature and Congress to perform certain actions may be found unenforceable.
Thus, the following fiscal effects of the measure would be subject to significant uncertainty, as discussed below.
Reduction in State and Local Correctional Costs. The measure could result in significant savings to state and local governments, potentially in the several tens of millions of dollars annually, by reducing the number of marijuana offenders incarcerated in state prisons and county jails. It could also reduce the number of persons placed on county probation or state parole. The county jail savings would be offset to the extent that jail beds no longer needed for marijuana offenders were used for other criminals who are now being released early because of a lack of jail space.
Redirection of Court and Law Enforcement Resources. The measure could result in a major reduction in state and local costs for enforcement of marijuana-related offenses and the handling of related criminal cases in the court system. However, it is likely that state and local governments would redirect some or all of their resources to other law enforcement and court activities, reducing or perhaps eliminating the savings that could otherwise be realized.
Potential Increased Substance Abuse Program Costs. The measure could result in an increase in the consumption of marijuana, potentially resulting in an unknown increase in the number of individuals seeking publicly funded substance abuse treatment services. For example, the state Drug Medi-Cal Program could incur increased costs of a few million dollars annually. This measure could also have fiscal effects on state- and locally funded drug treatment programs for criminal offenders, such as drug courts.
Potential Elimination of Medical Marijuana Program. The measure could potentially result in the elimination of the state's Medical Marijuana Program, a patient registry that identifies those individuals eligible under state law to legally purchase and consume marijuana for medical purposes. This is because individuals would no longer require physician approval to legally possess marijuana under state law. The elimination of the program would reduce both the costs to run the program as well as the offsetting revenues that support the program.
Potential New Revenues From the Legalization of Marijuana. As noted earlier, this measure authorizes state and local governments, as well as the federal government, to tax the manufacture, sale, and use of marijuana, such as through an excise tax. The amount of additional revenues generated from an excise tax would depend upon whether the Legislature and local governments choose to adopt an excise tax, the rate of such a tax, and how the measure changed the consumption and sales price of marijuana. State and local governments could realize additional revenues from sales taxes generated by the sale of marijuana. The state could also realize additional income tax revenues from the manufacture and sale of marijuana. The amount of the tax revenue that could be generated under this measure would depend considerably on the extent to which the federal government enforces its laws against marijuana in California.
Reduction in State and Local Fine Revenues. The measure could reduce state and local revenues from the collection of the fines established in current law for marijuana criminal offenders.
Summary of Fiscal Effects
Given that the federal government continues to enforce federal marijuana laws that do not conflict with state medical marijuana laws, the revenues and expenditures resulting from this measure would be subject to significant uncertainty. In addition, it is uncertain if the measure would withstand state constitutional legal challenges as discussed above. If upheld in the courts, we estimate that this measure would have the following major fiscal effects:
Savings in the several tens of millions of dollars annually to state and local governments on the costs of incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders.
Unknown but potentially major new excise, income, and sales tax revenues related to the manufacture and sale of marijuana products.
Federal Law. Federal law classifies marijuana as an illegal substance. The Federal Controlled Substances Abuse Act provides criminal sanctions for various activities relating to marijuana. Federal laws are enforced by federal law enforcement agencies that may act independently or in conjunction with state and local law enforcement agencies.
State Law and Proposition 215. Under current state law, the possession, use, transportation, or cultivation of marijuana is generally illegal in California. Penalties for marijuana-related activities vary depending on the offense. For example, under the state Penal Code, possession of less than one ounce of marijuana is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine, while selling marijuana is a felony and may result in a prison sanction.
In November 1996, voters approved Proposition 215, which legalized the cultivation and possession of marijuana in California for medicinal purposes. Notwithstanding this initiative, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that federal authorities could continue to prosecute California patients and providers engaged in the medicinal cultivation and use of marijuana for violations of federal law. However, the U.S. Department of Justice announced in March 2009 that it would no longer prosecute marijuana patients and providers whose actions are consistent with state medical marijuana laws.
Proposal
This measure states that it repeals existing prohibitions on marijuana use, cultivation, possession, transportation, and sale. The measure also requires that state and local governments stop spending funds to enforce or prosecute any law that prohibits such marijuana-related activities. Under the measure, federal, state, and local governments would be authorized to tax the manufacture, sale, and use of marijuana. Specifically, the measure instructs the Legislature to establish laws for the regulation and taxation of marijuana. In addition, the measure instructs members of Congress from California to work to remove marijuana from the federal schedule of controlled substances and to vote against funding that would be used to enforce any laws prohibiting marijuana or hemp products.
Fiscal Effects
Although the federal government recently announced that it would no longer prosecute medical marijuana patients and providers whose actions are consistent with Proposition 215, it has continued to enforce its prohibitions on non-medical marijuana activities. To the extent that the federal government continued to enforce existing federal marijuana laws, it would generally have the effect of impeding or eliminating the cultivation, possession, transportation, sale, or use of marijuana permitted by this measure under state law.
Moreover, some or all of the provisions of this measure could be subject to challenge in the courts and found unconstitutional under state law. For example, the way in which this measure proposes to change California's existing marijuana-related statutes could be challenged in the courts. That is because the measure does not directly amend or strike out the specific existing laws relating to marijuana. In addition, the provisions in the measure instructing members of the Legislature and Congress to perform certain actions may be found unenforceable.
Thus, the following fiscal effects of the measure would be subject to significant uncertainty, as discussed below.
Reduction in State and Local Correctional Costs. The measure could result in significant savings to state and local governments, potentially in the several tens of millions of dollars annually, by reducing the number of marijuana offenders incarcerated in state prisons and county jails. It could also reduce the number of persons placed on county probation or state parole. The county jail savings would be offset to the extent that jail beds no longer needed for marijuana offenders were used for other criminals who are now being released early because of a lack of jail space.
Redirection of Court and Law Enforcement Resources. The measure could result in a major reduction in state and local costs for enforcement of marijuana-related offenses and the handling of related criminal cases in the court system. However, it is likely that state and local governments would redirect some or all of their resources to other law enforcement and court activities, reducing or perhaps eliminating the savings that could otherwise be realized.
Potential Increased Substance Abuse Program Costs. The measure could result in an increase in the consumption of marijuana, potentially resulting in an unknown increase in the number of individuals seeking publicly funded substance abuse treatment services. For example, the state Drug Medi-Cal Program could incur increased costs of a few million dollars annually. This measure could also have fiscal effects on state- and locally funded drug treatment programs for criminal offenders, such as drug courts.
Potential Elimination of Medical Marijuana Program. The measure could potentially result in the elimination of the state's Medical Marijuana Program, a patient registry that identifies those individuals eligible under state law to legally purchase and consume marijuana for medical purposes. This is because individuals would no longer require physician approval to legally possess marijuana under state law. The elimination of the program would reduce both the costs to run the program as well as the offsetting revenues that support the program.
Potential New Revenues From the Legalization of Marijuana. As noted earlier, this measure authorizes state and local governments, as well as the federal government, to tax the manufacture, sale, and use of marijuana, such as through an excise tax. The amount of additional revenues generated from an excise tax would depend upon whether the Legislature and local governments choose to adopt an excise tax, the rate of such a tax, and how the measure changed the consumption and sales price of marijuana. State and local governments could realize additional revenues from sales taxes generated by the sale of marijuana. The state could also realize additional income tax revenues from the manufacture and sale of marijuana. The amount of the tax revenue that could be generated under this measure would depend considerably on the extent to which the federal government enforces its laws against marijuana in California.
Reduction in State and Local Fine Revenues. The measure could reduce state and local revenues from the collection of the fines established in current law for marijuana criminal offenders.
Summary of Fiscal Effects
Given that the federal government continues to enforce federal marijuana laws that do not conflict with state medical marijuana laws, the revenues and expenditures resulting from this measure would be subject to significant uncertainty. In addition, it is uncertain if the measure would withstand state constitutional legal challenges as discussed above. If upheld in the courts, we estimate that this measure would have the following major fiscal effects:
Savings in the several tens of millions of dollars annually to state and local governments on the costs of incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders.
Unknown but potentially major new excise, income, and sales tax revenues related to the manufacture and sale of marijuana products.
Cut the red tape, get on board and smoke a doobie.
This is ridiculous here in this world. We got so many idiots with their hands in the pot that we cant pass the pot, per se. What gives? The state says its legal and the feds say it isnt. Although the feds say it isnt they also say they will not act on it if the state says it is legal. Are you confused already? Me too? Why? Because it is ludicrious. I want every law posted here and all the good marijuana brings. I would like you to post the money the state will have and let people educate themselves so they make their own decesions and do not get caught up in this red tape salad. Here is one voice, lets make it many! We got to educate everyone so the instilled fried egg mentality turns into a valid education of mass proportions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
