Law Office of Dale Schafer November 2018 Cannabis Voter Guide

Courtesy of DrugSense.org, California City & County Regulation Watch and CANORML is the November 2018 Cannabis Voter Guide. Please note that this voter guide is NOT intended to instruct potential voters on how to vote. The November 2018 Cannabis Voter Guide is simply a list compiled to help you make the best decision for you.

 

STATE OFFICES

GOVERNOR

No state official has done more to champion legal marijuana than Democratic frontrunner Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom. A longtime advocate of drug harm reduction, Newsom convened a Blue Ribbon Task Force on legalization that served as a blueprint for Prop 64, which he backed strongly. Some worry that Newsom is partial to big-money interests. As of last July, he had received over $300K in donations from the cannabis industry. Newsom has a history of leadership on other social issues, most notably gay marriage, which he championed as Mayor of San Francisco, as well as gun control and single-payer health care. Newsom has dealt with personal issues, including a bout with alcohol and cocaine addiction, but has recovered with impressive dynamism reminiscent of JFK.

Republican businessman James Cox made news when he said, “I’d like to go to the Portugal system where they actually put people who use marijuana in hospitals and cure them of their substance abuse. I’m not interested in jailing recreational marijuana users, and I’m certainly for medical marijuana.” He now says, “I’m not necessarily demanding that it [hospitalization] be done with regard to cannabis.” Among other nutty ideas, Cox has proposed that California be governed by a 12,000 – person “citizens legislature.”

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Incumbent Xavier Becerra was appointed by Gov. Brown to fill the seat of Sen. Kamala Harris. Since taking office, Becerra has aggressively moved to protect California’s interests against federal interference. Admitting to have tried pot “at a younger time,” he has vowed to protect the state’s legalization law against federal intrusion by A.G. Jeff Sessions. Becerra represented downtown L.A. in Congress from 1993 to 2017, where he posted an excellent voting record on drug and criminal justice reform, without taking an active role in advocating for them.

The Republican challenger is Stephen Bailey, a former judge running on a law-and-order platform who has called Becerra “soft on crime.” Asked by the Claremont Independent if he supports marijuana legalization, Bailey replied, “I think classifying marijuana as a schedule one is a mistake on the federal side. The reason for that is because schedule one assumes that there’s no medicinal value in that particular drug. I think that’s been proven incorrect. It also curtails research on marijuana in this case.”

He added, “Marijuana has changed over the last couple decades. The people who cultivate marijuana are good farmers, and have actually enhanced the percentage of THC in marijuana from in the 1960s—it might be roughly three percent—t’s now running at 18 to 22 percent. I have had kids in front of me from my time serving on juvenile court, that I had seen for a period of time, that became paranoid from using marijuana. Marijuana impairs the brain’s ability to function properly and it has a negative impact on a significant number of users. What we’ve done with the wholesale legalization of marijuana down to the recreational level is creating a long-term public health crisis.”

Asked whether he would defend Prop. 64, Bailey replied, “The voters passed Proposition 64. Whether I think it’s the best public policy is immaterial. As Attorney General, my duty is to defend the laws of the state and I intend to do that, whether I have reservations about marijuana or not.”

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

State Senator Ed Hernández (D-Asuza), has consistently voted well and thoughtfully on cannabis issues, medical and otherwise. An optometrist, he has taken a special interest in health care access and pharmaceutical drugs. Hernandez sponsored legislation to outlaw the dangerous synthetic marijuana substitute “Spice” and to raise the tobacco smoking age to 21.

His challenger Eleni Kounalakis, who won 24% of the vote in the primary to Hernandez’s 20%, is a former ambassador to Hungary (in the Obama administration). During the 2016 election cycle, she was a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and part of Clinton’s foreign policy advisory team. When asked whether or not she supports medical or recreational legalization, her campaign responded, “California voted to legalize the recreational use of marijuana, and Eleni believes that now we need to make sure that the implementation of the law protects the public, especially our kids. Regulations must be put in place for a wide-range of aspects, from ensuring products are properly labeled, to setting up a banking system which keeps the industry from operating on an all-cash basis. Legalization poses other new challenges to public safety that must also be addressed, including a possible increase in people driving under the influence. Eleni believes we can develop effective regulatory practices to address these problems by imposing taxes, ensuring strict identification for purchases, and proposing and supporting bills that are specifically designed to protect our kids, and the public at large.”

CONTROLLER

The Democrats have a fine candidate in State Controller Betty Yee. When serving on the Board of Equalization in 2009, Yee emerged as one of the first state officials to publicly advocate legally taxed and regulated cannabis. Yee actively courted the medical cannabis community, and enjoys wide support from both business and consumer interests.

TREASURER

The Democrats have another fine candidate in Fiona Ma, who like Yee before her now serves on the Board of Equalization from San Francisco. Upon joining the board, she took a serious interest in the cannabis industry, talking to farmers and touring businesses to figure out how they could best be integrated in California’s legal economy. Like Treasurer Chiang, she has struggled to figure out how to provide banking services to cannabis businesses so they can stop having to deal in cash. Her efforts have won her support from the cannabis community.

US CONGRESS

US SENATOR

During her long career in public office, incumbent Dianne Feinstein has been a staunch opponent of all things marijuana. Though praised as a moderate on other issues, Feinstein has been one of the Senate’s leading drug warriors, vociferously opposing Prop. 215 and 64, and using her power on the Senate Judiciary Committee to block rescheduling, water down sentencing reform, impose tougher penalties against drugs and their users, and criminalize more drugs. Shamefully, Sen. Feinstein was the only Democrat on the Judiciary Committee to vote against an amendment to prohibit Attorney General Jeff Sessions from interfering in California’s medical marijuana law, and another to protect banks from being prosecuted for serving the cannabis industry. Her stubbornness has led many Californians to think she is too old and out of touch for the job. In a stunning move, the state Democratic party declined to endorse her at its convention.

Finally, in a stunning announcement one week before the start of primary voting, Sen. Feinstein announced that she is shifting her position and would drop her opposition to legal cannabis. Feinstein’s views are said to have been changed by meeting constituents, especially those with young kids who have benefited from medical cannabis. “Federal law enforcement agents should not arrest Californians who are adhering to California law,” said Feinstein. Sen. Feinstein is now a co-sponsor of the STATES Act, which would amend federal law to legalize actions that are legal under state marijuana laws. This is a welcome if long overdue act by the senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, though many voters are asking themselves whether it is too little, too late.

State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León (D- L.A.) is Feinstein’s challenger. De León is campaigning from the progressive left as an energetic, young advocate for protecting immigrants, the environment and clean energy, and other progressive issues. In the legislature, De León was not a vocal leader on drug or criminal justice reform, but consistently voted right. Just before Feinstein’s about-face, de León announced that he would back Sen. Cory Booker’s Marijuana Justice Act. “Cory Booker’s bill recognizes that legal cannabis is the law of the land in California and many other states. More importantly, it corrects deep-rooted racial disparities in the criminal justice system.” he tweeted. Speaking at the State of Marijuana Conference in Long Beach, he promised, “I’ll be your champion in the fight to deschedule cannabis at the federal level, so we can strengthen the Golden State’s flourishing cannabis industry.”

 

US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

California is a prime battleground in the struggle for control of Congress. Although most districts are sure wins for incumbents, Democrats have mounted strong challenges in several currently Republican seats. San Franciso’s Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who stands in line to become Speaker if the Democrats flip the House, has made it known she thinks marijuana reform should be an important Congressional priority. On the other hand, Republican Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield, the top candidate for Speaker if the Republicans hold the House, has consistently opposed cannabis reform bills in Congress. California’s Democratic delegation has consistently voted well on marijuana issues, while most Republicans have voted poorly. Three notable Republican exceptions are Dana Rohrabacher (O.C.), Tom McClintock (Tahoe), and Duncan Hunter (San Diego), all of whom are strong conservatives who have co-sponsored bills to end federal cannabis prohibition.

 

KEY CONGRESSIONAL RACES:

Most districts are sure wins for incumbents; some key or contested districts are:

4th C.D. – Roseville/El Dorado Co.- Incumbent Republican Tom McClintock is a rock-ribbed, small-government conservative who opposes federal interference in California’s marijuana laws. He co-sponsored an amendment that would have barred the U.S. Dept. of Justice from spending funds to undermine state adult-use legalization laws. His opponent is Democrat Jessica Morse, whose views are unknown.

8th C.D. – Mono/Inyo/SBd County – This all-Republican race has former Assemblyman Tim Donnelly challenging incumbent Paul Cook, who has a dismal “F” voting record. Donnelly, a hard-core Tea Party conservative, sponsored drug decriminalization legislation in the Assembly to help reduce prison overcrowding, although he opposed the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act to legally license medical marijuana production.

10th C.D. – Modesto/Manteca – Incumbent Republican Jeff Denham is a social conservative with an atrocious voting record. His opponent is Democrat Josh Harder

21nd C.D. – Bakersfield/Kings/Fresno- Incumbent Republican David Valadao co-sponsored a hemp bill, but has voted against every marijuana reform measure and opposes recreational legalization. HIs opponent, Democrat TJ Cox, is in favor of legalization.

22nd C.D. – Fresno – Incumbent Republican Devin Nunes, a social conservative with an “F” voting record on marijuana, is notorious outside this Republican-leaning district for his partisan mishandling of the Russian investigation. His Democratic opponent, former prosecutor Andrew Janz, supports taking cannabis off Schedule One and re-doing the federal sentencing guidelines.

25th C.D. – Palmdale/Santa Clarita – Incumbent Republican Steve Knight has a mediocre voting record, having opposed the Rohrbacher-Farr and McClintock-Polis amendments to protect California’s marijuana laws from federal interference, while supporting medical use by veterans and saying it should be reclassified to Schedule III. He is opposed by Democrat Katherine Hill, whose campaign says she supports California voters’ decision to legalize marijuana and likewise federal legislation to protect it.

39th C.D. – Fullerton – In this open seat formerly held by Republican Edward Royce, former Naval officer and lottery winner Gil Cisneros (D) faces former legislator Young Kim (R). Kim has a poor voting record, except on more recent regulatory bills, and she opposed Prop. 64. According to VoteSmart, Cisneros supports recreational marijuana legalization.

45th C.D. – Irvine – Incumbent Republican Mimi Walters has a NORML “D” rating in Congress and was on DPFCA’s State Senate Hall of Shame. She faces Democrat Katie Porter, a consumer protection lawyer and former student of Sen. Elizabeth Warren at Harvard Law, who expressed “strong support” for marijuana reform measures on Cal NORML’s candidate questionnaire.

48th C.D. – Republican Dana Rohrabacher has been a leading champion for cannabis in Congress, being the co-sponsor of the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer (or -Farr) Amendment that currently bars the U.S. Dept. of Justice from spending funds to undermine state medical marijuana laws. Rohrabacher is also facing criticism over what he claims were innocent meetings with Russian officials implicated in the Mueller investigation. His Democratic challenger, Harley Rouda, is solid on marijuana issues, having responded positively regarding all aspects of marijuana legalization on a Cal NORML candidate questionnaire.

49th C.D. – Oceanside/Dana Point – Vying for Darrell Issa’s vacant seat are BOE member Diane Harkey (R) and Attorney Mike Levin (D). Harkey had a lousy voting record when she was in the Assembly. From her position on the BOE she opined, “The cannabis initiative pads the pockets of the industry participants, funds a growing bureaucracy, promotes the products and, when considering the potential cost or unintended consequences, has very little direct benefit to our existing state budget. If all goes according to plan and marijuana becomes our new ‘cash’ crop replacing existing agriculture, California could be on its way to establishing the next big tobacco industry and the first banana republic in the nation.”

50th C.D. – San Diego – Embattled incumbent Duncan D. Hunter, who is fighting an indictment for misusing campaign funds, is one of the few Republicans who has taken a strong stance for marijuana reform. He co-sponsored the “Respect State Marijuana Laws Act of 2015” the CARERS Act, and Charlotte’s Web Medical Access Act. He has also been a proponent of e-cigs and vaporizers. Hunter won an “All-Star” rating from the San Diego Association of Cannabis Professionals. So did his opponent, Democratic party activist and businessman Ammar Campa Najjar, who says he will work “proactively” toward national cannabis reform if elected.

Other Pro-Reform Congress Members who have co-sponsored legalization bills, but aren’t in competitive races::

Dist. 01 – N. Coast – Jared Huffman (D)

Dist. 09 – Antioch – Jerry McNerney (D)

Dist. 13 – Oakland – Barbara Lee (D)

Dist. 15 – Pleasanton –Eric Swalwell (D)

Dist. 17 – Santa Clara – Ro Khanna (D)

Dist. 18 – Palo Alto – Anna Eshoo (D)

Dist. 19 – San Jose – Zoe Lofgren (D)

Dist. 24 – Santa Barabara/SLO – Salud Carbajal (D)

Dist. 30 – LA Valley – Brad Sherman (D)

Dist. 33 – LA – Ted Lieu (D)

Dist. 46 – Santa Ana – Lou Correa (D)

Dist. 47 – Long Beach – Alan Lowenthal (D)

 

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE

Few seats are expected to change hands in the state legislature, which is firmly controlled by the Democrats. By and large, Democrats have voted well and Republicans poorly on cannabis-related issues, but this isn’t true in all cases (for example Palmdale AD 36 and San Bernardino AD 40).

(Click here for 2017-18 DPFCA Voting Scorecard of all incumbent State Senators and Assemblymembers. Listed below are candidates running in this year’s election.)

 

KEY LEGISLATIVE RACES

SENATE:

District 8 (Amador, Calaveras, Fresno, Inyo, Madera, Mariposa, Mono, Sacramento, Stanislaus, Tulare, Tuolumne) – Republican contender and Fresno county supervisor Andreas Borgeas does not support the use or sale of marijuana. He faces Democrat Paulina Miranda.

District 12 (Fresno, Madera, Merced, Monterey, San Benito, Stanislaus) – Assemblywoman Anna Caballero has a good voting record. She faces Madera County Supervisor Rob Poythress.

District 16 (Kern, Riverside, San Bernardino, Tulare) – Democratic archeologist and activist Ruth Musser-Lopez faces former Assemblywoman Shannon Grove (R), who has a dismal voting record.

District 22 (Los Angeles) – Assemblyman Mike Eng, who has a good voting record, faces fellow Democrat Susan Rubio.

District 32 (Los Angeles, Orange) – Democrat Bob Archuleta, a Pico Rivera City Councilman, faces Republican attorney Rita Topalian.

Other Senators with notably good records, but not in competitive races:

Dist 02 (North Coast) – Mike McGuire (D)

Dist 10 (Fremont) – Bob Wieckowski (D)

Dist 18 (LA/Van Nuys) –Robert Hertzberg (D)

Dist 30 (LA) – Holly Mitchell (D)

ASSEMBLY:

AD 15 – Berkeley/Oakland – Two Democrats are running in this race. Richmond Councilmember Jovanka Beckles is running a progressive, “people-powered” campaign. Her platform advocates criminal justice reform: “Mass incarceration must be ended, drug offenses should result in rehabilitation, not imprisonment, and the use of illegal drugs should be decriminalized.” Her opponent, Obama aide and campaign organizer Buffy Wicks, is endorsed by Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris and also has favorable views on criminal justice reform.

AD 36 – Palmdale – Incumbent Assemblyman Tom Lackey has been the leading Republican sponsor of legislation to advance the legal licensing of cannabis, including a bill to lower Prop. 64 taxes in order to help the licensed industry compete against the black market. His opponent, former Assemblyman Steve Fox, posted the worst voting record of any Democrat in the legislature, an atrocious 0% in 2013/4.

AD 40 – San Bernardino – Republican Henry Nickels, the Mayor Pro Tem of San Bernardino City, has worked constructively with the cannabis industry to try to establish local regulations. His opponent, Democrat James Ramos, has opposed cannabis licensing efforts as a member of the county board of supervisors.

AD 42 – Yucca Valley– Like most of his fellow Republicans, incumbent Chad Mayes has a sub-par voting record. His opponent, DeniAntoinette Mazingo, has expressed support for Prop. 64 and protecting the rights of medical marijuana patients, and is endorsed by the Brownie Mary Democratic Club.

AD 76 Oceanside: Two Democrats are vying for the seat of outgoing Asm. Rocky Chavez. Elizabeth Warren (no relation) supports both adult and medical use of cannabis, which she calls a “wonder plant.” The views of her opponent, Tasha Boerner Horvath, aren’t known.

Other Assembly Members with notably positive records, but not in competitive races:

Dist 13 (Stockton) Susan Eggman (D)

Dist 18 (Oakland) Rob Bonta (D)

Dist 20 (Hayward) Bill Quirk (D)

Dist 27 (San Jose) Ash Kalra (D)

Dist 59 (LA) Reggie Jones-Sawyer (D)

Dist 64 (Carson) Mike Gipson (D)

 

LOCAL RACES

ALAMEDA COUNTY

  • Berkeley City Council District 4 – Kate Harrison has a good record on the council.
  • Emeryville City CouncilDianne Martinez recommended by local advocates.
  • Fremont City Council District 2 – Cullen Tiernan favors licensed cannabis sales; CC District 3: David Bonaccorsirecommended by local advocates.
  • Hayward Mayor – Barbara Halliday; Councilmember – Aisha Wahab recommended by local advocate
  • Newark City Council – Mike Bucci recommended by local advocates
  • Oakland City Council District 4 – Local advocates recommend both Sheng Thao, Chief of Staff for pro-cannabis At-Large Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan, and Matt Hummel, Chair of the Cannabis Regulatory Commission.
  • San Leandro City Council District 1- Deborah Cox; CC District 3 – Victor Aguilar; CC District 5 – Corina Lopez recommended by local advocates.
  • Union City CouncilHarris Mojadedi recommended by local advocates.

BUTTE COUNTY

  • Chico – Cannabis supporters Alex Brown, Rich Ober, and Scott Huber are running for city council.
  • OrovilleMarlene del Rosario, Art Hatley, and Jack Berry (a mix of progressives and conservatives) are supportive candidates. Also, as per Jessica MacKenzie, Vice Mayor and councilmember Janet Goodson is running for mayor and also supports the ordinances.

CALAVERAS COUNTY

Fifth District supervisorial candidate Ben Stopper has support of local activists, as does Third District candidate Marist Calloway. For sheriff, Rick DiBasilio is the favored candidate.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY

Advocates are still struggling to win local approval for licensed cannabis providers in this county that voted 61% for Prop 64.

  • Concord City Council District 2 – Candidate Kenji Yamada favors licensed adult use cannabis sales.
  • Walnut Creek City Council – Candidate Iman Novin favors licensing cannabis outlets in the city.

EL DORADO COUNTY

South Lake Tahoe – Cannabis activist Cody Bass is running for City Council on a platform to support local businesses and youth programs.

ORANGE COUNTY

Dana Point – In the District 1 city council race, Amy Foell says, “It’s about time marijuana became legalized for recreational use just like alcohol. Dana Point has been prudent to restrict recreational operations within city limits. However, we should permit delivery service and cultivation for residents.” Her opponent Joseph “Joe” Jaeger does not support marijuana-related businesses in the city of Dana Point and Joe Muller did not support Prop 64.

NAPA COUNTY

Napa City Council – Medical cannabis advocate James Hinton is one of five candidates running for two spots on city council. “The city needs to permit adult use and marginalize the black market” he says.

PLUMAS COUNTY

Portola – Cannabis advocate Kimberly Anne Scales-Scott is running for City Council. Read more.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

Supervisor District 4: Former DA Bonnie Dumanis, infamous for her zealous prosecution of medical cannabis cases, is opposed by Democrat Nathan Fletcher, who has the support of the San Diego Association of Cannabis Professionals.

Supervisor District 5: Michelle Gomez would like to reverse the county’s ban on cannabis facilities.

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY

Lompoc Mayor: Jim Mosby (Current City Council Member with 2 years left on term) voted for “open market,” voted for no caps on cannabis businesses, voted to permit cannabis lounges/on-sight consumption, voted to allow for personal grows outdoor or indoors up to 6 plants (recreational). Voted originally for no local taxes on cannabis. Voted No tax on local medical cannabis. Opponent Jennelle Osborne is pro-cannabis but advocated for limited amount of cannabis businesses, advocated for lottery system for “limited market” as opposed to an “open market,” voted for on-sight consumption/lounges, advocated to only allow 2 or 3 plants to be grown outside personally (recreational). Advocated and voted for several local taxes. Voted No local tax on medical cannabis.

City Council District 2: Victor Vega (incumbent) same record as Mosby.

City Council District 3: Dirk Starbuck: same record.

SOLANO COUNTY

Vallejo – Cannabis advocate Hakeem Brown is running for city council.

 

LOCAL BALLOT MEASURES

 

County measures affect only unincorporated areas, not cities within the county.

 

ALAMEDA COUNTY

Emeryville

Measure S

asks, “To protect essential municipal services, including repairing public facilities, reducing traffic congestion, and improving pedestrian and bicycle safety; and to support regulation of the cannabis industry, and preserve the City of Emeryville’s long-term financial stability, shall the ordinance to impose a business tax of up to 6% of gross receipts on all cannabis businesses within Emeryville?”

Oakland

City Business Tax

Measure V would amend the marijuana business tax law to: allow marijuana business to deduct the cost of raw materials from their gross receipts and to pay taxes on a quarterly basis; and allow the city council to amend the law in any manner that does not increase the tax rate (including lowering taxes). Endorsed by Cal NORML.

Union City

Measure DD

reads, “To maintain/enhance essential city services including 911 dispatch/neighborhood police patrols/emergency response times; after-school programs for children/teens; keeping fire stations open full time; and other essential services shall a measure be adopted establishing a Union City cannabis business tax at a maximum rate of $12.00 per square foot for cultivation and 6% of gross receipts for others, until ended by voters, providing $1,400,000 annually, requiring oversight and no money for Sacramento?”

 

BUTTE COUNTY

Oroville

Measure T

asks, “To fund general municipal expenses such as police, fire, roads and recreation, shall the City of Oroville adopt an ordinance authorizing an annual Cannabis Business Tax on cannabis businesses upon their gross receipts at a rate not to exceed 10%, with initial rates of 5% on retailers, manufacturers, and cultivators; 3% on distributors and nurseries; 0% on testing laboratories; and 8% on microbusiness estimated to generate $300,000 to $600,000 annually until repealed by the voters?”

 

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY

Measure R asks: “Shall the County tax cannabis (marijuana) businesses in the unincorporated area at annual rates up to $7.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation (adjustable for inflation) and up to 4% of gross receipts for all other cannabis businesses including retailers, to generate an estimated $1.7 to $4.4 million annually to fund general County expenses such as public safety, health services, and environmental protection, and levied until repealed by the voters or Board of Supervisors?” Endorsed by Contra Costa NORML.

 

DEL NORTE COUNTY

“Shall Del Norte County establish taxes upon commercial cannabis activity in the following amounts: 2-6 percent of the gross receipts of a non-medicinal cannabis retailer, 1-3 percent of the gross receipts of a cannabis manufacturer, $1 per square foot of outdoor cultivation area and $3 per square foot of indoor cultivation area?”

 

EL DORADO COUNTY

El Dorado County has five different measures on the ballot; in addition, the city of Placerville has its own measure.

  • Measure N would regulate and impose a general tax on commercial cannabis activity at rates up to: $30 per square foot or 15% for cultivation; 10% for distribution, manufacturing, and retail; and 5% for testing laboratories
  • Measure P would allow for outdoor and mixed-light (greenhouse) commercial cannabis cultivation for medicinal use on parcels of at least 10 acres that are restricted in canopy size, required to pay a County commercial cannabis tax
  • Measure Q would allow for outdoor and mixed-light (greenhouse) commercial cannabis cultivation for recreational adult use on parcels of at least 10 acres that are restricted in canopy size, required to pay a County commercial cannabis tax
  • Measure R would allow for the retail sale, delivery, distribution, and indoor cultivation of commercial cannabis for medicinal use on parcels that are restricted in number and concentration, required to pay a County commercial cannabis tax
  • Measure S would allow for the retail sale, delivery, distribution, and indoor cultivation of commercial cannabis for recreational adult use on parcels that are restricted in number and concentration, required to pay a County commercial cannabis tax

Placerville

Measure M says, “Shall the measure establishing a cannabis (marijuana) businesses tax at annual rates not to exceed $10.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation (adjustable for inflation), 8% of gross receipts for retail cannabis businesses, and 4% for all other cannabis businesses; which is expected to generate an estimated $50,000 to $70,000 annually and will be levied until repealed by the voters or the City Council in order to fund general municipal expenses, be adopted?”

 

FRESNO COUNTY

Fresno (city)

Measure A Marijuana business tax would allow the county to tax marijuana businesses at rates of up to $12 per canopy square foot and up to 10 percent of gross receipts for medical dispensaries and other marijuana businesses, with revenue dedicated to the city’s general fund and a community benefit fund. Endorsed by NORML advocates in Fresno.

 

IMPERIAL COUNTY

Calexico

Measure K seeks to place a 15 percent gross tax on sales of Cannabis cultivated locally and sold outside the area. It would also collect a 25-dollar-per-square-foot tax on facilities used for cultivation.

City of Imperial

Measure I

would impose a cannabis tax not to exceed $10 per canopy square foot for cultivation, 6% of gross receipts for retail businesses, and 4% for all other cannabis businesses.

 

KERN COUNTY

Two measures are on the ballot in Kern; in addition, the cities of Arvin and Bakersfield have their own measures.

  • The first county measure, sponsored by Jeff Jarvis and Heather Epps, would replace the county’s current ban on unincorporated area dispensaries with state regulations and guidelines on the industry. Commercial adult-use recreational sales and cultivation would still be banned, but medicinal sales and cultivation, testing, distribution and other activities would be allowed. Regulation would be done through ministerial land-use permits and levy a 7.5 percent business tax on operations.
  • The second was brought forth by attorney Ben Eilenberg on behalf of the Committee for Safer Neighborhoods and Schools, with the goal to regulate both commercial adult use and medical. Commercial businesses (except retail and testing), such as manufacturing, cultivation and distribution would be required to operate in one of two zones adjacent to the I-5 corridor in western Kern County. It would also cap the number of retail dispensaries to 35, require regulation via ministerial approval of land-use permits, with exception of retail outlets, which would need a conditional-use permit, and provides a mechanism for fees and taxes on cannabis activities, including a 5 percent tax on gross retail receipts.

Arvin

Cannabis Tax Measure would establish a tax of up to 6% of gross revenues on commercial cannabis business operations, excepting cultivation, and a tax of up to $6 per square foot of space used for commercial cannabis cultivation, as adjusted annually by CPI.

Bakersfield

After 32,790 signatures were submitted to the city by Kern Citizens for Patient Rights, the November ballot will read, “Shall the measure amending the Bakersfield Municipal Code to allow medical marijuana storefront dispensaries, cultivation sites, manufacturers, distributors, and delivery operations with a valid permit, and which will impose a 7.5 percent excise tax that will last until terminated by voters, be adopted?”

 

LAKE COUNTY

Measure K

reads, “Shall Article VII be added to Chapter 18 of the Lake County Code imposing a Cannabis Business Tax in the unincorporated areas of the county, which, as of January 2021, shall impose an annual tax of $1.00 per square foot for nursery cultivation, 4% of gross receipts on a cannabis dispensary, micro-business, or delivery business, and 2.5% of gross receipts on a cannabis manufacturing, processing, transportation, distribution, or other type of cannabis business?”

 

LASSEN COUNTY

Measure M

asks, “Shall an ordinance be adopted imposing a Cannabis Business Tax of up to $3.00 per square foot of canopy space, per year for cultivators, and up to 8% on gross receipts of all other cannabis businesses operating in the unincorporated areas of Lassen County, with funds staying in the County general fund for unrestricted general revenue purposes?”

 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Los Angeles (city)

Measure B, to establish a charter bank in the city, is said to be aimed at allowing banking for cannabis businesses.

Malibu

Measure G asks, “Shall the ordinance be adopted to (1) allow and regulate cannabis (marijuana) businesses; (2) permit existing medical marijuana dispensaries to sell and deliver recreational (adult use) cannabis; and (3) impose a new general tax of 2.5% of gross receipts from sales of non-medical cannabis, the revenues from which may be used for general city purposes, until repealed by voters, which tax is estimated to raise approximately $75,000-$ 150,000 annually?”

Maywood

Measure CT: Commercial Cannabis Activity Tax. To fund general municipal expenses such as police, fire, roads, and recreation, shall the City tax cannabis (marijuana) businesses at an annual rate not to exceed 10% of gross receipts for all commercial cannabis activities conducted in the City which is expected to generate an estimated $1.2 million to $1.6 million annually and will be levied until repealed by the voters or the City Council?

Pomona

Measure PC, The Cannabis Business Tax Measure asks: Shall the City tax cannabis (marijuana) businesses at annual rates up to $10.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation, and up to 6% of gross receipts for all other cannabis businesses?

 

MENDOCINO COUNTY

Willits

Measure I – Would set initial tax rates of: $7 per square foot of canopy space in a facility that uses exclusively artificial lighting, $4 for mixed light, and $1 for nurseries. In addition, it would set taxes of (1%) on cannabis labs, 4% on retailers, 2% on distributors, and 2.5% on processing.

 

MONTEREY COUNTY

Marina

Measure V asks, “Shall the ordinance permitting operation in the City of Marina of certain cannabis businesses and establishing a business license tax for such businesses at rates not to exceed 5% of gross receipts, to continue until repealed by the voters and, according to proponents, potentially generating $40,000 to $200,000 annually be adopted?

 

PLACER COUNTY

Colfax

Would tax cannabis businesses at annual rates not to exceed $10.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation (adjustable for inflation), 6% of gross receipts for retail cannabis businesses, and 4% for all other cannabis businesses.

 

PLUMAS COUNTY

Measure B would impose a 2% tax on net profits from cannabis businesses, which can be raised at a rate of 1% per year by the city council for not more than four years. Keep Plumas Green site.

 

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

Banning

Measure O would impose a 10% tax on the gross receipts of cannabis retail businesses in city (with the tax continuing until repealed, and the rate potentially increasing to 15%).

Hemet (2 measures)

  •  Measure Y:  Shall the privately proposed measure be adopted allowing an unlimited number of non-retail cannabis businesses in manufacturing zones without a city-issued discretionary approval, subject to limited separation requirements, giving certain cannabis business operators priority over others in establishing their businesses in the City, and taxing cannabis businesses at the rate of $10 / square foot of space used in connection with commercial cannabis activity, estimated to yield $1,000,000 in revenues annually and in perpetuity.
  • Measure Z:  Shall the City-sponsored measure be adopted establishing a tax on cannabis businesses at the maximum rates of 25% of gross revenues or $30 / square foot of cultivation space, which will apply to illegally operating businesses and, if action is taken after December 31, 2020 to permit cannabis businesses, will apply to legally-established cannabis businesses, estimated to generate at least $3,500,000 annually in perpetuity if cannabis businesses are permitted; and prohibiting cannabis businesses through December 31, 2020?

Jurupa Valley

Measure L asks, “Shall the ordinance which legalizes retail cannabis sales and commercial cannabis activity in certain zones, imposes operational requirements, and imposes an annual general tax of up to $25 per square foot of space used for retail cannabis sales and up to $3 per square foot for space used for other commercial cannabis activity (potentially generating $196,875 annually from retail sales and an unknown amount from other commercial activity and continuing until repealed) be adopted?”

Moreno Valley

Shall an ordinance be adopted maintaining safe, clean public areas/improving local services including neighborhood police patrols, fire, 911 response; gang, youth violence prevention, after-school programs; combat robberies/burglaries; repair potholes; unrestricted general revenue purposes; by establishing a tax not exceeding 8% of gross receipts /$15 per square foot for cultivation, generating approximately $2,200,000 annually until ended by voters, with independent audits, public review, all funds used locally?

Perris

Shall the measure known as the COMMERCIAL MARIJUANA DISTRIBUTION AND MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS TAX MEASURE, estimated to annually collect $2.3 million from commercial marijuana distribution and manufacturing operations (through a maximum tax rate of ten cents for each $1 of proceeds), to be administered and implemented pursuant to Chapter 3.40 of Title 3 of the Perris Municipal Code, with no sunset clause, be adopted?

 

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY

Adelanto

Measure S

would impose a tax of up to $5 / sq. ft. utilized in connection with cannabis cultivation or nursery, subject to adjustment by the city council; and up to a maximum of 5% of gross receipts on cannabis processing, testing, distribution, retail, sale or delivery, etc.

Colton

Measure U

would tax cannabis businesses up to 10% of gross receipts and up to $25 pet sq. ft. of cannabis cultivation.

Hesperia

Measure T

would impose a cultivation tax on commercial cannabis cultivation of up to $15 per square foot; other cannabis businesses would pay a tax of 1%–6% of the proceeds.

San Bernardino (city) (2 measures)

would impose a cannabis cultivation tax of $7 per sq. ft. of canopy for artificial lighting; $4 for mixed-light; $2 for no artificial light; and $1 for nurseries. It would further tax 1% for cannabis testing labs, 2% for distributors, 2.5% for manufacturers, and 4% for retailers or delivery services.

would impose regulations on cannabis businesses, including allowing for fees to be imposed by the city, and establishing penalties for violating the ordinance. The measure was drafted by the city council in response to lawsuits brought against its 2016 measures N and O.

 

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

Chula Vista

Measure Q would impose a business license tax of at least 5%—and up to 15%—of gross receipts on cannabis (marijuana) businesses; and at least $5—and up to $25—per square foot on space dedicated to cannabis cultivation, to “raise an estimated $6,000,000 per year, until voters change or repeal it, to fund general City services, including enforcement efforts against cannabis business that are operating illegally.”

La Mesa

Measure V would allow the city to tax cannabis businesses at annual rates not to exceed $10.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation and 6% of gross receipts for all other businesses, “generating an estimated $1,500,000 to $2,000,000 annually, to fund general municipal expenses including police and fire, roads, and recreation.”

Vista (3 measures)

  • Measure Z, the “citizen measure,” would authorize the commercial storefront retail sales of medicinal cannabis by up to 11 retailers in the city, to be located in any of Vista’s commercial, industrial, business park, and mixed-use zoning districts; and impose a 7% special use tax on gross receipts.
  • Measure AA, the “city council cannabis business tax,” would impose tax on marijuana cultivation at $14/square foot and gross receipts of marijuana businesses at rates not exceeding 8% on manufacturing and distribution; 10% on medicinal retail; 12% on adult-use retail; and 3.5% on testing.
  • Measure BB, the “city council medicinal cannabis business ordinance,” would authorize only the commercial delivery of medicinal cannabis in the City of Vista by up to three non-storefront (delivery only) retailers, plus up to two product safety testing laboratories, limiting these business to industrial-type zones and authorizing and directing the City Council to establish licensing and operating regulations protecting public safety, health, security, and community welfare.

 

SAN FRANCISCO (CITY AND COUNTY)

Proposition D Marijuana Business Tax Increase would tax marijuana businesses with gross receipts over $500,000 at a rate between 1 percent and 5 percent, exempting retail sales of medical marijuana, and expanding the marijuana business tax to businesses not physically located in San Francisco. Opposed by the SF Chronicle, Sen. Wiener, and the Brownie Mary Democratic Club of SF. Taxes cannabis at rates far higher than comparable businesses.

 

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY

Measure B reads: “To support early childhood education, drug prevention, literacy, and other programs for children and youth; public health; public safety and enforcement of cannabis laws; shall an ordinance imposing a special tax on commercial cannabis businesses in unincorporated San Joaquin County at a rate of 3.5% to 8% of gross receipts, with an additional cultivation Square Footage Payment of $2.00 per square foot of cultivation space annually adjusted by Consumer Price Index (CPI) thereafter, be adopted?”

Tracy

Measure D would allow the City of Tracy adopt an ordinance establishing a special tax on cannabis businesses at annual rates, not to exceed $12.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation (adjusted for inflation), 6% of gross receipts for retail cannabis businesses, and 4% for all other businesses; which is expected to generate an estimated $35,000 to $100,000 annually to fund police and code enforcement services and that shall be levied until repealed by voters.

 

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY

Measure B would impose a Cannabis Business Tax of up to 10% on gross receipts of cannabis businesses operating in unincorporated areas of San Luis Obispo County.

San Luis Obispo (city)

Measure F would establish a cannabis business tax up to 10% of gross receipts for retail and businesses and up to $10.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation.

Paso Robles

Measure I would enact tax on cannabis-related activities of up to $20 per square foot for cultivation/processing; up to 10% of gross receipts for transportation; up to 15% of gross receipts for manufacturing, testing, and distribution; and up to 10% of gross receipts for dispensaries.

 

SAN MATEO COUNTY

Daly City

Measure UU

would establish a tax of up to 10% for cannabis businesses that may be permitted in the future.

Half Moon Bay (2-5 measures?)

would impose taxes not to exceed $2-$10 per square foot for cultivation, and 6% of gross receipts for retail, 2.5% for testing, 3% for distribution, and 4% for manufacturing.

asks if existing commercial greenhouses in the city can be permitted for cannabis nurseries.

In addition, advisory measures Measure EE

, Measure SS

and/or Measure MM

ask voters about regulating and licensing cannabis businesses, limited to two retail facilities.

Redwood City

This measure will impose a maximum tax of 10% on all commercial cannabis activities in Redwood City, with initial rates set for various types of businesses.

San Carlos

Measure NN

asks: Shall an ordinance be adopted establishing an ongoing excise tax on any cannabis business that opens, up to 10% of gross receipts of each business?

South San Francisco

Measure LL

would permit taxation of up to 5% on gross receipts for cannabis businesses, with varying rates depending on the type.

 

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY

Goleta

Measure Z asks, “Shall an ordinance be adopted establishing a Cannabis Business Tax on gross receipts of cannabis businesses from the sale of cannabis and related products, whether at wholesale or retail, at a rate not to exceed 10%, with initial rates of 5% (retailers), 2% (manufacturers), 4% (cultivators), and 1% (distributors and nurseries) estimated to raise $334,000 to $1,423,000 to fund general municipal services such as street repair, parks and police, until ended by voters?”

Lompoc

Measure D reads, “Shall a measure imposing a CANNABIS TAX of six cents per $1.00 of non-medical retail sales proceeds, one cent per $1.00 of cultivation proceeds, flat $15,000 for net income less than $2 Million and $30,000 for net income of $2 Million and more of manufacturing/distribution proceeds, a total aggregate tax of six cents per $1.00 of microbusinesses proceeds, no tax on testing, with no sunset clause, estimated to collect $130,000 to $470,000, annually, be adopted?”

Solvang

Measure F asks, “Shall an ordinance be adopted establishing a cannabis business tax on gross receipts of cannabis businesses from the sale of cannabis and cannabis products, at a rate not to exceed 10%, with initial rate of 5% and a maximum annual increase of 1% up to the maximum rate, to fund general municipal services such as street repair, parks, and law enforcement, until ended by voters?

 

SANTA CLARA COUNTY

Morgan Hill

Measure I would authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at annual rates up to $15.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation and up to 10 percent of gross receipts for all other marijuana businesses.

Mountain View

Measure Q would allow the taxation of marijuana businesses up to 9 percent of gross receipts to fund general city purposes.

Santa Clara (city)

Measure M would authorize the city to tax commercial marijuana businesses up to 10% of gross receipts and up to $25 per square foot for cultivation.

 

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY

Capitola

Measure I would authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at a rate of up to 7 percent to fund general city purposes.

 

SHASTA COUNTY

Redding

Shall the City of Redding adopt a business tax on cannabis cultivation businesses up to $25 per square foot of cultivation area and on cannabis manufacturing, processing, laboratory testing, delivery, storage, distribution, and retail sale up to 10% of gross receipts, to enhance and maintain vital public safety services, reduce crime, and protect other general services with all funds to be spent for unrestricted general revenue purposes, generating approximately $750,000 annually?

 

SISKIYOU COUNTY

Dunsmuir

Would impose a cannabis industry tax at a rate not to exceed up to $3.50 per dry-weight ounce of cannabis flower, cannabis leaves, fresh cannabis plant, and up to 10% of gross receipts per quarter for other commercial cannabis businesses.

Mt. Shasta

Measure S

asks voters if an ordinance shall be adopted to “impose a Cannabis Industry Tax on the privilege of commercially cultivating, manufacturing, processing, storing, laboratory testing, labeling, packaging, distributing, or sale of cannabis and cannabis products?”

 

SOLANO COUNTY

Benecia

Measure E

would impose a cannabis business tax at annual rates not to exceed $10.00 per canopy square foot for commercial cannabis cultivation (adjustable for inflation) and 6% of gross receipts for all other cannabis businesses.

Suisin

Measure C would impose a local general tax on cannabis businesses at rates not exceeding 15% of gross receipts and $25 per square foot of space used for commercial cannabis activities (annually adjusted by CPI).

 

SONOMA COUNTY

Sonoma (city)

Shall the Initiative Measure amending the Municipal Code to permit personal cannabis cultivation on all residential properties and establishment and operation of cannabis businesses within the City, including commercial cultivation, manufacturing, retail, delivery, distribution, testing, and special events be adopted?

 

STANISLAUS COUNTY

Patterson

Shall the measure adopting an ordinance authorizing the City Council of the City of Patterson to impose a business license tax at a rate of up to fifteen percent (15%) of gross receipts on cannabis businesses and dispensaries, to help fund general municipal services, be adopted?

Riverbank

Measure B would impose a business license tax at a rate of up to ten percent (10%) of gross receipts on cannabis businesses and dispensaries.

 

TULARE COUNTY

Lindsay

“Shall an ordinance be adopted authorizing a commercial cannabis business tax in the City of Lindsay on commercial cannabis businesses up to $25 per square foot (annually adjusted by CPI) or up to 10% of gross receipts, as set by City Council, to maintain essential public safety and general City services including, but not limited to, police, drug addiction and gang prevention, park maintenance, street maintenance for Lindsay residents, generating undetermined revenue, potentially up to $500,000 to $3.5 million until repealed?

 

VENTURA COUNTY

Fillmore

Measure T would regulate and authorize medical cannabis cultivation through a permitting process; require security including cameras, inspections, odor control, record keeping, employee background checks; and limit locations to indoor and only in industrial or commercial zones and 600 feet from schools, day care centers and youth centers.

Oxnard

Measure G reads, “To fund general City services, including public safety, recreation, repairing and improving city streets, library services, and senior services, shall the City tax cannabis (marijuana) businesses at annual rates not to exceed $10.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation (adjustable for inflation), 6% of gross receipts for retail cannabis businesses, and 4% for all other cannabis businesses; which is expected to generate an estimated $1.2 to $2.5 million annually?”

Santa Paula

Measure N reads, “Shall the City of Santa Paula adopt an ordinance enacting a tax on cannabis businesses of up to $25.00 per square foot of space utilized for cannabis cultivation/processing, and up to 10% of gross receipts from the sale of cannabis and related products, potentially generating $500,000 annually for street repair, police enforcement and other unrestricted general revenue purposes, until ended by voters?”

Simi Valley (3 measures)

  • Measure Q reads, “Shall the measure to fund, for unrestricted general revenue purposes such as public safety, infrastructure, and streets, which taxes cannabis (marijuana) businesses at annual rates not to exceed $10.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation (adjustable for inflation), 6% of gross receipts for retail cannabis businesses, and 4% or less for all other cannabis businesses, generating an unknown amount of revenue and levied until repealed by the voters or the City Council be adopted?”
  • Measure R says, “Shall the City Council allow marijuana-related businesses, such as cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, testing facilities, and deliveries to operate in the City?
  • Putting the “seamy” in “Simi,” Measure S asks, “If the City allows marijuana-related businesses to operate in the future, should those businesses be limited to operate only in the City’s Sexually Oriented Business Overlay Zone?”

Thousand Oaks

Measure P says, “To fund general municipal expenses such as police, roads, and libraries, shall the City tax cannabis (marijuana) businesses at annual rates not to exceed $10.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation (adjustable for inflation), 6% of gross receipts for retail cannabis businesses, and 4% for all other cannabis businesses; which is expected to generate an estimated $130,000 to $150,000 annually and will be levied until repealed by the voters or the City Council?

 

Advertisements

SB 829 – The Compassion License

What Is SB 829?

SB 829 (as amended) Senator Scott Wiener’s Cannabis: compassion care license.

“(1) The Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act of 2016 (AUMA), an initiative measure approved as Proposition 64 at the November 8, 2016, statewide general election, authorizes a person who obtains a state license under AUMA to engage in commercial adult-use cannabis activity pursuant to that license and applicable local ordinances. The Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA), among other things, consolidates the licensure and regulation of commercial medicinal and adult-use cannabis activities.

This bill would establish a compassion care license under the act issued to an M-licensee who, for no consideration, donates medicinal cannabis, or medicinal cannabis products, to qualified medicinal cannabis patients who possess a physician’s recommendation. The bill would require the Bureau of Cannabis Control to issue and regulate the compassion care licenses.

(2) Existing sales and use tax laws impose a tax on retailers measured by the gross receipts from the sale of tangible personal property sold at retail in this state, or on the storage, use, or other consumption in this state of tangible personal property purchased from a retailer for storage, use, or other consumption in this state. Those laws provide various exemptions from those taxes.

This bill, on and after January 1, 2019, would exempt from those taxes the gross receipts from the sale in this state of, and the storage, use, or other consumption in this state of, medicinal cannabis or medicinal cannabis products that will be donated, for no consideration, to a compassion care licensee.

(3) The Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law authorizes counties and cities to impose local sales and use taxes in conformity with the Sales and Use Tax Law, and existing laws authorize districts, as specified, to impose transactions and use taxes in accordance with the Transactions and Use Tax Law, which generally conforms to the Sales and Use Tax Law. Amendments to the Sales and Use Tax Law are automatically incorporated into the local tax laws.

Existing law requires the state to reimburse counties and cities for revenue losses caused by the enactment of sales and use tax exemptions.

This bill would provide that, notwithstanding Section 2230 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, no appropriation is made and the state shall not reimburse any local agencies for sales and use tax revenues lost by them pursuant to this bill.

(4) AUMA imposes an excise tax on the purchase of cannabis and cannabis products, as defined, at the rate of 15% of the average market price of any retail sale by a cannabis retailer.

The bill would require that these provisions not be construed to impose an excise tax upon medicinal cannabis, or medicinal cannabis products, donated for no consideration to a compassion care licensee, as defined.

(5) AUMA imposes a cultivation tax on all harvested cannabis that enters the commercial market upon all cultivators. Existing law defines entering the commercial market to mean cannabis or cannabis products, except for immature cannabis plants and seeds, that complete and comply with specified quality assurance review and testing.

This bill would redefine entering the commercial market to mean cannabis or cannabis products intended for sale, in any manner or by any means whatsoever, for consideration. The bill would require that the cultivation tax not be construed to be imposed upon medicinal cannabis, or medicinal cannabis products, donated for no consideration by a cultivator to a compassion care licensee or to a cannabis retailer for subsequent donation to a compassion care licensee.

(6) The Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act, an initiative measure, authorizes the Legislature to amend the act to further the purposes and intent of the act with a 2/3 vote of the membership of both houses of the Legislature, except as provided.

This bill would declare that its provisions further specified purposes and intent of the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act.”

This Bill is supported by, in part, by the California Compassion Coalition

Who Is The California Compassion Coalition?

The California Compassion Coalition is comprised of a number of known compassion organizations who have functioned by giving donated cannabis medicine to indigent cannabis patients across the State of California. The organizations, who make up the California Compassion Coalition are as follows:

Weed For Warriors Project

Caladrius Network

WAMM

East Bay Canna Compassion

Sweetleaf Collective

Operation EVAC

Magnolia Wellness

How YOU Can Help

 

One battle has been won but we have many more to go. SB 829 was voted out of the Committee on Business and Professions, on Monday. It passed with and 11-1 vote. Next, we move onto the Committee on Revenue and Taxation and WE NEED ALL HANDS ON DECK.

Revenue and Taxation Committee

Monday, June 25, 2018

1430 hours (2:30pm)

California State Capitol – RM 126

Debriefing Video

URGENT CALL TO ACTION

Below you will find a sample letter of support for the Compassion Bill, SB 829. We need this post to not only go viral, but we need that exposure to be converted into emails to Senator Wiener’s office by 5pm today. Cannabis and non-cannabis companies carry the most weight with legislators but we should also encourage letters to be sent from those the most affected by the current lack of compassion embodied in the current regulations.
It will take a village to get this bill passed. We really need to step away from the circular firing squad at least until 5pm today. In order to ensure we all focus our energy here for the next 5 hours, we will not be allowing any other posts through. I hope we can lick our wounds and rise up so that the sickest of the sick, the neediest of the needy, are not the recipients of all of our industry’s current resentments. Please let our industry put all of our hurt feelings aside and rise up to honor what this movement has always been about, compassion.
*****THIS CONTENT BELOW NEEDS TO BE SENT IN A PRINTABLE DOCUMENT.
This means that the support needs to come in the form of a Word Doc, or a PDF. The sender will need to date the letter, add in a business logo (if one is available), a digital signature, and the supporter’s contact information.
****INSERT BUSINESS LOGO
June 11, 2018
Dear Senator Wiener,
On behalf of _______ I write to express our support for Senate Bill 829 (Wiener), which would exempt certified compassion care programs from paying excise and cultivation taxes on cannabis that they give away to compassion use patients, thereby allowing them to restart this service without facing prohibitive costs. Exempting the cultivation and excise taxes from the passage on to qualified compassion care programs will allow these organizations to resume donations of medical cannabis that vulnerable patients rely on to manage their debilitating symptoms.
In 1996, California passed Proposition 215, which allowed individuals with certain chronic medical conditions to procure medical cannabis. Following the enactment of Proposition 215, donation-based compassion care programs emerged to meet the needs of individuals who had a physician’s recommendation but also needed help accessing medical cannabis.
The enactment of Proposition 64 in 2018 placed new taxes on all recreational and medical cannabis. While compassion care programs do not operate in the commercial market since no cannabis is bought or sold, ambiguous drafting, unfortunately, does not explicitly exclude them from these taxes. These donation-based programs cannot afford the new taxes attached to cannabis and most have been forced to close their doors. While Proposition 64 did not intend to cut off medical cannabis to these compassion use patients, current policy has forced too many vulnerable people into the unregulated black market.
To rectify this situation, SB 829 would exempt qualifying compassion care programs from the cultivation and excise tax enacted by Proposition 64. After a compassion care program is certified by the state, they would receive a new license exempting them from the cultivation and excise taxes. Doing so will allow them to resume the donations of medical cannabis that compassion use patients rely on to manage their debilitating symptoms.
These programs are essential to the well-being, mental health, and overall quality of life for chronically ill patients. For these reasons, ______ supports SB 829 and requests an “AYE” vote on this important legislation.
Thank you,
****DIGITAL SIGNATURE.  ______________
****SENDER’S CONTACT INFORMATION
cc: Senator Scott Wiener, (11th District)”
COPY & PASTE the above text along with your business or personal name, sign and send to……

IS CBD LEGAL? DEPENDS ON WHO YOU ASK

IS CBD LEGAL? DEPENDS ON WHO YOU ASK

By: Dale Schafer, Esq.

One of the hottest dilemmas, in the cannabis industry, these days involves the relative legality of CBD. The answer involves the DEA, the Farm Bill of 2014, the myriad state laws, on the subject, and a history of ambiguity in America over jurisdiction, and control, over products that are consumed by humans for benefits to health.  Understanding this quagmire is helped by a glance back in history to see how we all got to this difficult place.

The 19th century was dominated by unrestricted capitalism in many commodities, including drugs. Opium had been known, for millennia, as a pain medication and pleasure producer, but it had a dark side. In 1805 the German pharmaceutical giant Merke isolated Morphine from opium. The British were very successful purveyors of opium and forced the poison onto the Chinese in several Opium Wars in the 1840’s. Opium tincture (laudanum) was a widely available medical, or whatever, product in stores across America. The Civil War brought widespread use of morphine, through hypodermic syringes, and it became a drug problem for many veterans of the conflict.

Coca wine was available circa the war, but it was refined to a crystalline product with cocaine hydrochloride. President Grant used the substance to help with the writing of his memoirs before he died from throat cancer. Doc Pemberton concocted Coca-Cola, from coca leaves, to help him treat his morphine addiction. It was labeled a “soft drink” because it contained no alcohol and was believed, in dry Atlanta, to be less harmful than liquor. By the time Sigmund Freud was treated for cocaine addiction, it was becoming apparent that cocaine had a dark side.

Indian hemp was introduced into European society when Napoleon’s troops returned from the near east with hashish. Dr. O’Shaughnessy brought Indian hemp medical products to England in the 1840’s. It’s medical benefits were widely spread through medical societies and products were developed, principally based on alcohol extraction. The second half of the 19th century saw a rapid expansion of cannabis preparations here in America.

Morphine, cocaine and cannabis were not the only substances that were put into “patent medicines”, but they were the big ones. Alcohol was the solvent, and an ingredient, in many of the medicines. As you probably recall, alcohol was becoming quite the moral dilemma as the end of the 19th century approached. Traveling “medicine men” mixed up their special elixirs and sold them to rural citizens. These medical products, along with many other commercially prepared products, eventually appeared in the Sears and Roebuck catalog to be shipped in plain wrapping to your home. When Bayer developed Heroin, in the late 1890’s, the nation was seemingly flooded with snake oil and “addiction” was part of the national discussion about safety in consumer products.

Not to be forgotten was the invention of nutritional products to bring people back to health. Health sanitariums popped up and inventors like Kellogg developed food products (I’m thinking breakfast cereals) to bring people to optimum health. The health claims of these food products were puffing on steroids and their safety was never guaranteed. The food supply was increasingly uncertain and there were few laws to protect consumers. This situation had gained the attention of Congress and when Upton Sinclair published “The Jungle”, about the meat packing industry, Congress passed the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 (PFDA). The act required truthful labeling of drugs (morphine, cocaine, chloral hydrate and cannabis) and alcohol and is still considered the beginning of the FDA. However, those products that were not considered drugs were not treated as harshly. This would turn out to be the beginnings of the modern battle between drugs and nutritional supplements.

Over the decade that followed the PFDA, morphine was criminalized. The International Convention of 1912 lead to the Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act of 1914 and federal drug prohibition was off and running. The Treaty of Versailles contained language to prohibit morphine and opium, as did the League of Nations in the 1920’s. States began to enact laws to control poisons and Boards of Pharmacy evolved in all states. As drugs were increasingly controlled, nutritional supplements fought hard to avoid the label of drug. Food, which included supplements, were under the control of the US Department of Food and Agriculture. Consumer safety for foods was viewed differently that the control mechanisms for drugs to protect medical consumers. In the 1930’s Congress added cosmetics to the FDA and today we operate under the FDCA.

America’s attack on cannabis took racial overtones as “marijuana” entered the lexicon of prohibition. When the Mexican Civil War sent refugees fleeing north after 1910, cities and states began to enact prohibitions against marijuana use, but medical use of cannabis was allowed. After alcohol prohibition ended in the administration of FDR, there was increasing pressure for national marijuana prohibition. In 1937, Congress nefariously passed the Marijuana Tax Act and even medical use was made effectively impossible. The Tax Act lasted until 1969 when Tim Leary got SCOTUS to find it unconstitutional. Congress took up the issue of drugs in the Omnibus Controlled Substances of 1970 (CSA). As you know, marijuana was placed in Schedule 1 of that Act and was completely outlawed, except with federal permission. An unfortunate situation that continues today.

In 1994, Congress passed the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act. This act had jurisdiction over products taken orally for supplementing the health. Claims of health benefits were required to prove their claims or cease advertising the benefits. It also put the burden on the FDA to prove a product, or ingredient was to be treated as a drug rather than a supplement. Ingredients like ephedra lost the battle with the FDA and recently, kratom has fallen under such scrutiny. The industry that produces and markets food supplements is vast, politically connected and well funded. If there is a straight-faced argument to keep a supplement a food rather than a drug, massive political pressure can be brought to bear.

MARIJUANA AS A LEGAL TERM IS A PROBLEM

Prior to Dr. Machoulam’s discovery of THC in the early 1960’s, science did not know what was in cannabis that made it psychoactive. By that time, marijuana was the legal term, used by the federal and state governments, to describe the cannabis plant with psychoactive and medical benefits. Once this cannabinoid was discovered, definitions were developed to distinguish between “marijuana” and “hemp”. THC concentration defined the two terms and the figure of 0.3% THC was the line. Less was hemp and more was marijuana. When Congress enacted the CSA, marijuana was defined to include all parts of the cannabis plant, growing or not, seeds, resin extracted, all salts, compounds, derivatives and all the language thought to cover every possible product from the plant. The CSA also excluded the stalks, fiber, oil cakes made from seeds, but resin extracted from stalks was not excluded. (21 USC 802). The use of the term “resin” is a problem in today’s question about hemp derived CBD.

The cannabis plant produces cannabinoids. Prior to the scientific definition of THC, the term marijuana was all inclusive, even though the non-psychoactive phenotypes were defined as hemp for practical purposes. WWII brought hemp production back for a short period of time, but amnesia was imposed for several decades. Hemp and marijuana were treated effectively the same. They were illegal.

As research continued into the multitude of cannabinoids produced by the cannabis plant, it became possible to isolate the cannabinoids. CBD was able to be looked at separately and investigators began the process to identify which of the cannabinoids were responsible for the many medical effects described by patients. Research also proceeded into the health and nutritional benefits of hemp seeds and the oil derived from them. Dating back, to the 1937 Tax Act, whole seeds needed to be rendered sterile. Seed cake was the base for nutritional and health products. It was also determined that some varieties hemp had relatively more CBD than others. It was possible to extract, and isolate, CBD as a commercial by-product of hemp cultivation and processing. Herein lies the present reality that is creating today’s uproar.

The use of the term “resin” in the CSA demonstrates a desire to prohibit, and control, cannabinoids as a drug. The Farm Bill of 2014 was enacted to allow research projects, under state law, to develop agricultural products from hemp. Several states, most notably Kentucky, have moved forward with increasing commercial production of hemp products. As more acres of hemp are grown, increasing amounts of hemp flowers were available and CBD could be extracted commercially. Over the last two decades, CBD products have become increasingly popular and the source of CBD began to be hemp. Domestic hemp production was not enough to cheaply meet demand so international sources were sought out, think China. Many that were in the CBD trade began to believe that CBD was not a drug covered by the CSA, but an industrial hemp product or a nutritional supplement, outside federal criminal enforcement.

The DEA did not suffer from this belief. In early 2017, a statement was issued by the DEA that clarified, at least in their minds, that CBD was a schedule 1 drug under the CSA and that the Farm Bill did not allow CBD production since it was not an agricultural product, but a drug product. Litigation was started to fight this ruling, but the case was dismissed. In December of 2017, the DEA announced a new category of marijuana extract that covered CBD, and all cannabinoids. As far as the federal government is concerned, CBD is treated like THC, it’s all marijuana. It’s not that simple though.

Many states that have legalized cannabis specifically allow, or restrict patients to, CBD as a state legal medical product. If the CBD is produced within the lawful state, it is only the federal government that would take enforcement action. Unfortunately for the federal drug establishment, there aren’t enough enforcement officers to stop CBD as a medical product. CBD products are seemingly available everywhere and states appear to be inclined to not enforce. This creates a situation that defies understanding, logic or currently workable solutions.

To make matters even more difficult, hemp probably is not the best source of CBD for human consumption. The cannabis plant will extract many toxins from the soil and it takes acres of hemp to commercially produce CBD. The toxins can show up in the CBD and that is problematic for consumer safety because of a lack of testing. Additionally, the cannabis chemotypes that produce high concentrations of cannabinoids, traditionally called marijuana, include a fuller profile of cannabinoids and contain terpenes. Most cannabinoid experts, I’ve talked with, believe that full spectrum cannabinoid products are medicinally superior to hemp derived CBD. This particular topic cries out for research to determine the best source for medicinal products high in CBD.

Now that I’ve said all that, the central question remains difficult to answer. The DEA considers CBD to be prohibited as a schedule 1 drug and not allowed to be produced from hemp, since it’s not considered an agricultural product. If CBD is shipped through interstate commerce, the federal government may decide to take some enforcement actions to send a message. However, for all practical purposes, the feds can’t stop the CBD trade. If your state is allowing CBD production, odd are you’re safer, but not totally safe. How far one goes with CBD production and sales, depends on one’s willingness to accept the risk. Of course, that’s been the theme involved in cannabis production for many decades now. Welcome back to the wild west.  

El Dorado County – Seven Ad Hoc Cannabis Meetings Announced

Seven Ad Hoc Cannabis Meetings Announced

Seven Ad Hoc Cannabis Meetings Announced

Department:
CAO
Date:
3/5/2018
Contact:
Carla Hass
Phone:
(530) 621-4609

(PLACERVILLE, CA) – The following seven meetings of the El Dorado County ad hoc Cannabis Committee meeting are scheduled between today and May 14th.

WHAT: Ad hoc Cannabis Committee meetings

WHEN: All meetings are from 3:00 pm-5:00 pm

  • Monday, March 5th (Outdoor/Cottage)
  • Monday, March 12th (Indoor/Mixed Light/Cottage)
  • Monday, March 19th (Dispensaries/Deliveries/Distribution)
  • Monday, April 23rd (Microbusiness/Nurseries/Testing)
  • Monday, April 30th (Manufacturing)
  • Monday, May 7th (Tax Rates/Funding)
  • Monday, May 14th (Administering a Program/What does it look like?)

WHERE: All meetings will take place at the County Board of Supervisors Chambers 330 Fair Lane Placerville, CA

WHO: Members of the ad hoc Cannabis Committee, Supervisors Michael Ranalli and Sue Novasel
El Dorado County Staff
Members of the public are invited to attend

UPDATE – Successful Cannabis Business DIY Program

Cannabis Regulations

Workshop Overview

 

  1. Regulations Overview and Local Approval (Approx 3 hours)
  2. Temp. License Application Process – Includes information about all required elements of the temporary license application for the BCC, CDFA and/or CDPH (Approx 3 hours)
  3. Annual License Application 1 – Business Plan & Description, Business Formulation Documents, Fictitious Business Name Process (Approx 3 hours)
  4. Annual License Application 2 – Lists of Funds, Lists of Loans, Lists of Investments, Lists of Gifts, List of every individual with financial interest (approx 3 hours)
  5. Annual License Application 3 – List of every owner, Livescans, Evidence of Legal Right To Occupy, Evidence of Premises Compliance, Labor Peace Agreement (Approx 3 hours)
  6. Annual License Application 4 – Seller’s Permit, Proof of Bond, Standard Operating Procedures (Approx 3 hours)
  7. Annual License Application 5 – Cultivation Plan, Water Board Regs, Prohibited chemicals, heavy metals, etc. (Approx 3 hours)
  8. Annual License Application 6 – Track & Trace, Supply Chain, (Approx 3 hours)
  9. Maintaining Your License – Liability Issues, Potential hurdles, What to watch out for, Maintaining your License. (Approx 3 hours)
  10. Having a successful business – Your website, marketing your business, setting yourself apart in the industry, Branding, Trademarking (Approx 3 hours)

 

*** Between Workshops 2 & 3 there will be a week off to complete your TEMPORARY STATE APPLICATION and sit down with us to review before submitting

OR

Bank that 2-hour appointment for when you are ready to do so

AFTER WORKSHOP 10 THERE WILL BE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A 2-HOUR APPOINTMENT TO REVIEW YOUR ANNUAL APPLICATION 

OR

BANK THAT APPOINTMENT AS WELL

*** Program subject to change based on changes made by the State regulatory agencies

For more information go to Successful Cannabis Business DIY Program

6 Ways to Beat a Local Cannabis Ban

PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED ON LEAFLY.COM

When California’s first adult-use cannabis stores opened on Jan. 1, many of the state’s residents realized they would be shut out. They weren’t happy. Residents of Orange County, where all but one city, Santa Ana, has banned retail sales, shook their heads in disgust. “Orange County will have no retail stores?” one Leafly reader wrote. “What a f joke OC is.”

If cannabis is legal statewide, how come you can’t buy it in your own county?

It’s not just Newport Beach turning its nose up. Retail cannabis may be legal statewide, but California law allows local municipalities to severely limit or ban cannabis companies. Cannabis is banned entirely, for example, in the cities of Redding, Pomona, Crescent City, and Santa Monica, as well as most of Orange, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties. That’s just the start of a long list.

These local bans aren’t entirely unusual—and they usually don’t last forever. During the early days of legalization in Colorado and Washington, many municipal councils enacted bans out of fear and ignorance. Suburban towns shut out retail storefronts, for example, nervous that legal sales could bring more trouble than good. Meanwhile, most local politicians voting on those bans knew very little about cannabis and the legal industry around it. Many bought into old stereotypes about weed, stoners, dealers, and crime.

When Oregon legalized, we saw the same thing. Today, California and Massachusetts are in the thick of it.

Here’s the rub: Many of the communities that initially enacted bans were themselves not anti-cannabis. Some voted overwhelmingly in favor of statewide legalization. In many cases, bans were the response to the vocal outcry of a relatively small number of concerned citizens. In others, local governments were simply unfamiliar with legal cannabis or felt unprepared to appropriately regulate it.

The good news is that bans can be reversed. But they don’t overturn themselves. Here are a few ways you can start opening minds and changing votes.

1. Work With an Advocacy Group (but Not Always)

You don’t need to reinvent the wheel. Connect with an advocacy organization, such as your state chapter of NORML, the National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws. They have a deep well of knowledge, resources, and experience with the local political landscape. The Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) also has a “Block the Ban” initiative up and running; they’ve already successfully overturned the ban in one Massachusetts town.

Connecting with and joining NORML or another group doesn’t mean you become their official representative. Politicians sometimes tune out advocacy groups because they see them as “special interests.” That’s not entirely fair, but it is what it is. If you introduce yourself to a local elected official as a constituent and concerned citizen—or a concerned parent or business owner—you may get more traction.

2. Get Out and Meet the Man

It’s easy to protest The Man and his cannabis ban. But there is no Man. In most cases, there are well-meaning but fallible men and women who haven’t encountered a local constituent eager to talk with them as a cool-headed legalization advocate. (Okay, not all politicians are well-meaning. But you’d be surprised.) There are a number of entry points:

  • Sidle up to your local city council member before or after a weekly council meeting. Introduce yourself, give them your elevator pitch, and tell them you’d like to talk with them further about the issue.
  • Use the New Business or public comment period at the end of the council meeting to air your concern.
  • Write a letter to one or all of the council members.
  • Send a version of that letter to the local newspaper. Call out supporters and opponents of the ban by name.
  • Post about the issue on social media. Again, call out officeholders by name, and consider tagging them or creating a hashtag. You will get their attention.

Before you go: Have your clear, concise talking points ready to deliver. See #3 below.

3. Arm Yourself With Facts

“One of the biggest challenges we as a legislative body are going to face,” Indiana state Rep. Jim Lucas, a medical marijuana legalization supporter, recently told his colleagues, “is coming through all the smoke, all the fear-mongering, all the stigma, the ignorance.”

Luckily, there’s a lot of good evidence that a legal, regulated market works far better for everyone than prohibition.

There’s no shortage of misinformation when it comes to cannabis. Like with a lot of issues that people feel strongly about, it’s common for opportunists to seize on information that supports their preconceptions rather than digging deeper into the issues. Luckily, there’s a lot of good evidence that a legal, regulated market works far better for everyone than prohibition. So when you engage with elected officials, come armed with facts.

The reasons you support legal cannabis might not be reasons your neighbors or your council members find persuasive. If you’re talking to an elected official, learn about the issues that drive them customize your pitch. If you’re talking to a liberal Democrat, lead with social justice concerns. A conservative Republican may be more amenable to a pitch about personal freedom and the waste of taxpayer resources on nonsensical cannabis arrests. Centrists might appreciate the extra revenue to shore up budget holes. This article has a number of further tips.

4. Bring a Positive Proposal to the Table

Guess who writes a lot of the first drafts of legislation? Not the office holder! Seriously. Do some research. Find copies of the local cannabis ordinances adopted by towns and counties similar in size and culture to your own. Present the entire piece of legislation to your local office holder. They are busy, and they’re working on issues ranging from potholes to violent crime. The more work you can do for them, the more likely they’ll seriously consider introducing your measure.

5. Argue From a Position of Strength

Did your county, district, or town vote in favor of statewide cannabis legalization? Well then why is the local town council disrespecting the clearly expressed will of local voters? Do they think the voters are confused children?

70% of Marin County, CA, voters embraced legalization. And yet the county council banned it. That’s got to change.

When you approach an elected official, do so with the knowledge of how your district voted on the state’s ballot initiative. (If you’re working in a county that voted overwhelmingly against legalization, you will want to have an answer to the inevitable question. Often that’s where the experience of people from NORML and other groups comes in handy.)

For example, the map below shows how California counties voted on Proposition 64, the 2016 statewide measure to legalize the adult use of cannabis. Check out Marin County in the map below. Marin embraced legalization with 70% of the vote. Three months later the Marin County Board of Supervisors banned all cannabis-related business activity in unincorporated Marin. There’s your conversation starter, Concerned Marin Constituent.

6. Run Your Own “Beat the Ban” Initiative

When local elected officials won’t listen to your well-reasoned argument, you still have Option B: The local initiative. Find out how to get a local initiative on the ballot in your area, if it’s an option (different jurisdictions often have different rules). Reach out to groups like NORML and the Marijuana Policy Project, which have a lot of experience running and winning these “Beat the Ban” measures.

Local voters love to cast their ballots in favor of these initiatives, because they’re kind of like telling local politicians: “Yes, I did actually mean it when I voted for statewide legalization. It wasn’t a mistake.”

Often it’s just a matter of persistence. In Oregon, roughly a year after legal sales began, 15 municipalities that initially prohibited cannabis businesses voted to undo those bans. And in Massachusetts, which is readying for adult-use sales to begin this summer, a growing number of communities are voting to allow cannabis businesses, bucking an early trend of local bans.

“We got a lot of support from people who don’t use cannabis, but might want to someday,” Scott Winters, an Amesbury resident who spearheaded opposition to an anti-cannabis referendum that was defeated in November by a nearly 2-1 margin, told the Associated Press. “From users to non-users to just folks who want revenue for the city, we had a lot of support.

Bruce Barcott & Ben Adlin

Bruce Barcott is Leafly’s deputy editor. He is a Guggenheim Fellow and author of Weed the People: The Future of Legal Marijuana in America. Ben Adlin is an editor at Leafly who specializes in politics and the law. Together with editor Dave Schmader, they host Leafly’s weekly politics podcast, The Roll-Up.

Successful Cannabis Business DIY Program

Announcement

The purpose of this announcement is to gauge the interest in the DIY Program. The DIY Program is still being created and some of the elements of the program may change. The intent is to offer the DIY Program in Northern California (In the Sacramento Area), between March and May, and Southern California (Location TBD), between June and August, for approved participants.

 

Attorney Dale Schafer is a pioneer in the cannabis industry, practicing attorney of more than 30 years and expert on the california cannabis regulations. Since 1999 Mr Schafer has been working hard to help small cannabis business owners to follow california state law and bridge the gap between medical cannabis businesses and policy makers in local municipalities. As California moves into a regulated and legal market, Mr. Schafer is focused on helping small cannabis businesses to be successful and sustainable, not only in the application process but also in their first years of official business.

 

The average consultant/attorney charges approximately $25,000, per license, to complete the necessary paperwork to obtain the temporary and annual state cannabis license. That fee does not include the necessary education to be successful and sustainable, in the california cannabis industry, over the next 5+ years. It is the objective, of the Law Office of Dale Schafer, to participate in training and educating cannabis business owners to not only complete their paperwork but also to understand the landscape, of the up and coming cannabis industry, so as to be as successful as possible. It was with this objective, in mind, that we created the Successful Cannabis Business DIY Program and set the fee at approximately ¼ of that $25,000 cost.

 

The Successful Cannabis Business DIY Program is a pilot program, offered by the Law Office of Dale Schafer, to help cannabis business owners, who would only be prohibited by the cost of hiring an attorney to handle their paperwork needs in order to successfully open a legal state cannabis business within California. The program has been created to walk the applicant through the entire temporary and annual application process as well as many issues, the applicant will face, within the first year of business. The applicant will receive a 3-ring binder with resources to help with your application and business set-up process, sections and notes for each workshop, as well as section for the applicant’s business plan and standard operating procedures.

 

The objective, of the Successful Cannabis Business DIY Program is to help cannabis business owners, struggling to come up with all of the funds to obtain and maintain their temporary and annual state license, obtain all of the necessary tools to be as successful as possible in their application process as well as within their first year of business.

 

The goal, of the Successful Cannabis Business DIY Program is to offer each of the cannabis businesses, admitted into our program, all of the necessary one-on-one appointments, workshops, physical and online resources, etc. to obtain their temporary and annual license as well as maintain their license through the first year of business.

 

Who Will Benefit From The Program:

  • California cannabis business owners looking to transition from a non-profit mutual benefit model to a state licensed, for-profit, cannabis business.
  • New cannabis business owners looking to open a legal, state licensed, cannabis business in the State of California.
  • Operations Managers and/or Compliance Officers for licensed cannabis businesses

 

Please Note:

  • Only 25 applicants will be admitted into the Successful Cannabis Business DIY Program per program phase
  • The first phase will begin in March of 2018
  • Each program phase will be 12 weeks in total
  • Each and every client, of The Law Office of Dale Schafer, is required to complete an initial consultation. The initial consultation is approximately 2 hours, in length, and is billed at a rate of $500. Should Mr. Schafer determine that you are a candidate for the Successful Cannabis Business DIY Program, the initial consultation fee will be applied to the $7,500 program fee and your initial consultation requirement will be checked off as completed.
  • The order of workshops and/or content discussed within the workshop is subject to change based upon changes made within the state regulatory systems, development within the industry and/or subject matter which is found to be beneficial to the applicant.

 

Applicant Requirements:

  1. Applicant must sign a contract and pay a $7,500 fee to begin the program.

 

  1. Applicant must participate in a consultation which will be approximately 2 hours in length. Discussed at the consultation will be the desired license(s) to obtain, any potential hurdles to obtaining said license(s) and a basic plan to obtaining and maintaining said license(s).

 

  1. Applicant must attend and participate in the required workshops as follows:
    1. Regulations Overview (Approx 3 hours)
    2. Temp. License Application Process – Includes information about all required elements of the temporary license application for the BCC, CDFA and/or CDPH (Approx 3 hours)
    3. Annual License Application 1 – Business Plan & Description, Business Formulation Documents, Fictitious Business Name Process (Approx 3 hours)
    4. Annual License Application 2 – Lists of Funds, Lists of Loans, Lists of Investments, Lists of Gifts, List of every individual with financial interest (approx 3 hours)
    5. Annual License Application 3 – List of every owner, Livescans, Evidence of Legal Right To Occupy, Evidence of Premises Compliance, Labor Peace Agreement (Approx 3 hours)
    6. Annual License Application 4 – Seller’s Permit, Proof of Bond, Standard Operating Procedures (Approx 3 hours)
    7. Annual License Application 5 – Cultivation Plan, Water Board Regs, Prohibited chemicals, heavy metals, etc. (Approx 3 hours)
    8. Annual License Application 6 – Track & Trace, Supply Chain, Local Authorization (Approx 3 hours)
    9. Maintaining Your License – Liability Issues, Potential hurdles, What to watch out for, Maintaining your License. (Approx 3 hours)
    10. Having a successful business – Your website, marketing your business, setting yourself apart in the industry (Approx 3 hours)

 

  1. Between workshop’s B & C there will be a required consultation appointment to review all of the client’s collected elements, of the Temporary License Application, and ensure that all of the elements are up to par and therefore is likely to be accepted and approved by the regulating agency. (NOTE – From the date the Temporary Application is submitted there is approximately 30 days to get approved by the regulating agency. From the date the Temporary Application is approved there is 120 days to get the Annual Application submitted and approved by the regulating agency.)

 

  1. After all workshops have been completed their will be a required exit appointment to review all of the client’s collected elements, of the Annual License Application, and ensure that all of the elements are up to par and therefore it is likely that the application will be accepted and approved by the regulating agency. All final questions will be answered and the client will be exited from the program.

 

To Qualify Client MUST: (No Exceptions)

  • Have completed their Initial Consultation before the 1st Workshop date.
  • Have signed their contact before the 1st workshop date.
  • Have paid their program fee before the 1st workshop date.
  • Be willing and able to attend ALL workshop dates. Each date will cover a great amount of information essential to understanding exactly how to be successful in both submitting their application and running their business. However, we should consider allowing the main participant to list up to 2 alternate participants who could attend in their place should an emergency come up and the participant is unable to attend a workshop date.
  • Complete the entire program, including the exit appointment, within the allotted 12 week time period.

 

Program Timeline

  • First Workshop to begin in the 1st week of March
  • Workshops will run every Thursday from March – May:

Regulations Overview TBD

Temp. License Application Process TBD

Annual License Application 1 TBD

Annual License Application 2 TBD

Annual License Application 3 TBD

Annual License Application 4 TBD

Annual License Application 5 TBD

Annual License Application 6 TBD

Maintaining Your License TBD

Having a successful business TBD

*** You have approx. 2 weeks to complete your exit appointment and finish the program ***

 

What The Program Provides For The Applicant:

  • Approximately 30 hours of workshop time with Attorney Dale Schafer.
  • A 3-ring binder filled with cannabis business resources and workshop content.
  • One-on-one appointment to review both the Temporary Application and the Annual Application for the applicant’s cannabis license(s).
  • Access, via email and phone, to Attorney Dale Schafer’s staff, to answer questions, as the applicant completes their application process.

 

Application Process

To apply for the program click the link, below, and we will contact you once we are notified that your application has been received. If you have not heard from our office, within 2 business days, please email daleschaferlaw@gmail.com

https://form.jotform.com/80057095384157

What Is Really Required To File Your State Cannabis Application

My goal, today, is to dispel some of the fears and myths, around the State cannabis application process, and inform about the process of filing your application for a California State Cannabis Permit. Remember, this post does not pertain, specifically, to the local application as those can, and will, be different for the nearly 500 municipalities across California.

 

Temporary Application Requirements (Only Valid For 120 Days)

Temporary license application (can be filed by hard copy or via www.bcc.ca.gov)

The legal business name of the applicant

The email address of the applicant’s business and the telephone number for the premises

The business’ federal employer identification number

A description of the business organizational structure of the applicant (partnership or corporation)

The temporary license type that is being requested

The license designation requested, A-license or M-license, (all license types other than laboratories)

The contact information for the applicant’s designated primary contact person

owner’s name, title, percentage of ownership, mailing address, telephone number, & email address

The physical address of the premises to be licensed

Evidence that the applicant has the legal right to occupy and use the proposed location (section 5007)

A premises diagram

A copy of a valid license, permit, or other authorization issued by a local jurisdiction

Attestation to the following statement: Under penalty of perjury, I hereby declare that the information contained within and submitted with the application is complete, true, and accurate. I

understand that a misrepresentation of fact is cause for rejection of this application, denial of the license, or revocation of a license issued.

 

Cultivation Applications – Department Of Food And Agriculture

Temporary license applications shall be completed and submitted online at calcannabis.cdfa.ca.gov or mailed to the department at P.O. Box 942871, Sacramento, CA 94271.

The license type, pursuant to section 8201

If the applicant has already submitted an application for annual licensure, the application number

The legal business name of the applicant entity

The full legal name, mailing address, phone number, email address, and affiliation of the designated responsible party who shall:

(A) Be an owner with legal authority to bind the applicant entity;

(B) Serve as agent for service of process; and

(C) Serve as primary contact for the application

The physical address of the premises

A copy of a valid license, permit, or other authorization, issued by a local jurisdiction, that enables the applicant entity to conduct commercial cannabis activity at the location requested for the temporary license. For the purposes of this section, “other authorizations” shall include, at a minimum, a written statement or reference that clearly indicates the local jurisdiction intended to grant permission to the applicant entity to conduct commercial cannabis activity at the premises.

 

Annual Application Requirements (Must Be Filed 120 Days After Temp. Application)

Temporary license application (can be filed by hard copy or via www.bcc.ca.gov)

The legal business name of the applicant

The email address of the applicant’s business and the telephone number for the premises

The business’ federal employer identification number

A description of the business organizational structure of the applicant (partnership or corporation)

The temporary license type that is being requested

The license designation requested, A-license or M-license, (all license types other than laboratories)

The contact information for the applicant’s designated primary contact person

owner’s name, title, percentage of ownership, mailing address, telephone number, & email address

The physical address of the premises to be licensed

The mailing address for the applicant, if different from the premises address

The telephone number for the premises

The website address of the applicant’s business

Evidence that the applicant has the legal right to occupy and use the proposed location (section 5007)

A premises diagram

A copy of a valid license, permit, or other authorization issued by a local jurisdiction

Payment of an application fee (section 5014)

Whether the owner is serving or has previously served in the military. (Disclosure is voluntary)

A list of the license types and the license numbers issued from the Bureau and all other state cannabis licensing authorities that the applicant holds, including the date the license was issued and the licensing authority that issued the license.

Whether the applicant has been denied a license or has had a license suspended or revoked by the Bureau or any other state cannabis licensing authority. The applicant shall provide the type of license applied for, the name of the licensing authority that denied the application, and the date of denial.

The business-formation documents, which may include, but are not limited to, articles of incorporation, operating agreements, partnership agreements, and fictitious business name statements. The applicant shall also provide all documents filed with the California Secretary of State, which may include, but are not limited to, articles of incorporation, certificates of stock, articles of organization, certificates of limited partnership, and statements of partnership authority.

A list of every fictitious business name the applicant is operating under including the address where the business is located.

A list of funds belonging to the applicant held in savings, checking, or other accounts maintained by a financial institution. The applicant shall provide for each account, the financial

institution’s name, the financial institution’s address, account type, account number, and the

amount of money in the account.

A list of loans made to the applicant. For each loan, the applicant shall provide the amount of the loan, the date of the loan, term(s) of the loan, security provided for the loan, and the name, address, and phone number of the lender.

A list of investments made into the applicant’s commercial cannabis business. For each investment, the applicant shall provide the amount of the investment, the date of the investment, term(s) of the investment, and the name, address, and phone number of the investor.

A list of all gifts of any kind given to the applicant for its use in conducting commercial cannabis activity. For each gift, the applicant shall provide the value of the gift or description of the gift, and the name, address, and phone number of the provider of the gift.

A complete list of every individual that has a financial interest in the commercial cannabis business as defined in 5004 of this division, who is not an owner pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 26001(al).

A complete list of every owner of the applicant as defined in Business and Professions Code section 26001(al). Each individual named on this list shall submit the following information:

(A)

The full name of the owner.

(B)

The owner’s title within the applicant entity.

(C)

The owner’s date of birth and place of birth.

(D)

The owner’s social security number or individual taxpayer identification number.

(E)

The owner’s mailing address.

(F)

The owner’s telephone number. This may include a number for the owner’s home, business,

or mobile telephone.

(G)

The owner’s email address.

(H)

The owner’s current employer.

(I)

The percentage of the ownership interest held in the applicant entity by the owner.

(J)

Whether the owner has an ownership or a financial interest as defined in 5003 and 5004 of this division in any other commercial cannabis business licensed under the Act.

(K)

A copy of the owner’s government-issued identification. Acceptable forms of identification are a document issued by a federal, state, county, or municipal government that includes the name, date of birth, physical description, and picture of the person, such as a driver license.

(L)

A detailed description of the owner’s convictions. A conviction within the meaning of this section means a plea or verdict of guilty or a conviction following a plea of nolo contendere. Convictions dismissed under Penal Code section 1203.4 or equivalent non-California law must

be disclosed. Convictions dismissed under Health and Safety Code section 11361.8 or equivalent non-California law must be disclosed. Juvenile adjudications and traffic infractions under $300 that did not involve alcohol, dangerous drugs, or controlled substances do not need to be included. For each conviction, the owner shall provide the following:

(i)

The date of conviction.

(ii)

Dates of incarceration if applicable.

(iii) Dates of probation if applicable.

(iv)

Dates of parole if applicable.

(v)

A detailed description of the offense for which the owner was convicted.

(vi)

A statement of rehabilitation for each conviction. The statement of rehabilitation is to be written by the owner and may contain evidence that the owner would like the Bureau to consider that demonstrates the owner’s fitness for licensure. Supporting evidence may be attached to the statement of rehabilitation and may include, but is not limited to, a certificate of rehabilitation under Penal Code section 4852.01, dated letters of reference from employers, instructors, or professional counselors that contain valid contact information for the individual providing the reference.

(M)

If applicable, a detailed description of any suspension of a commercial cannabis license, revocation of a commercial cannabis license, or sanctions for unlicensed commercial cannabis activity by a licensing authority or local agency against the applicant or a business entity in which the applicant was an owner or officer within the three years immediately preceding the date of the application.

(N)

Attestation to the following statement: Under penalty of perjury, I hereby declare that the information contained within and submitted with the application is complete, true, and accurate. I understand that a misrepresentation of fact is cause for rejection of this application, denial of the license, or revocation of a license issued.

Evidence that the applicant has the legal right to occupy and use the proposed location that complies with section 5007 of this division.

Evidence that the proposed premises is in compliance with Business and Professions Code section 26054(b).

For an applicant with 20 or more employees, the applicant shall attest that the applicant has entered into a labor peace agreement and will abide by the terms of the agreement, and the applicant shall provide a copy of the agreement to the Bureau. For applicants who have not yet entered into a labor peace agreement, the applicant shall provide a notarized statement indicating the applicant will enter into and abide by the terms of a labor peace agreement.

The applicant shall provide a valid seller’s permit number issued by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, if applicable. If the applicant has not yet received a

seller’s permit, the applicant shall attest that the applicant is currently applying for a seller’s

permit.

Proof of a bond (section 5008)

(For testing laboratory applications), the certificate(s) of accreditation as required by section 5702 of this division, or the information required for a provisional license as required by section 5703 of this division.

All licensee applications shall include a detailed description of the applicant’s operating procedures including the following (if applicable):

(A)

The Transportation Procedures

(i)

A description of the applicant’s procedure for transportation of cannabis goods, including whether or not the applicant will be transporting cannabis goods or contracting for transportation services.

(B)

Inventory Procedures

(i)

A description of the applicant’s procedure for receiving shipments of inventory.

(ii)

Where the applicant’s inventory will be stored on the premises and how records of the inventory will be maintained.

(iii) The applicant’s procedure for performing inventory reconciliation and for ensuring that inventory records are accurate.

(C)

Non-Laboratory Quality Control Procedures

(i)

The applicant’s procedures for preventing the deterioration of cannabis goods held by the applicant.

(ii)

The applicant’s procedures for ensuring that cannabis goods are properly packaged and labeled prior to retail sale.

(iii) The applicant’s procedures for ensuring that a licensed testing laboratory samples and analyzes cannabis goods held by the applicant.

(D)

Security Procedures

(i)

The applicant’s procedure for allowing individuals access to the premises.

(ii)

A description of the applicant’s video surveillance system including camera placement and procedures for the maintenance of video surveillance equipment.

Bureau of Cannabis Control Emergency Regulation Text Page 8 of 115

(iii) How the applicant will ensure that all access points to the premises will be secured, including the use of security personnel.

(iv)

A description of the applicant’s security alarm system.

Evidence of exemption from, or compliance with, the California Environmental Quality Act as required by section 5010.

 

Cultivation Applications – Department Of Food And Agriculture

Nonrefundable application fees for the specified annual license type

(a) Specialty Cottage Outdoor $135

(b) Specialty Cottage Indoor $205

(c) Specialty Cottage Mixed-Light Tier 1 $340

(d) Specialty Cottage Mixed-Light Tier 2 $580

(e) Specialty Outdoor $270

(f) Specialty Indoor $2,170

(g) Specialty Mixed-Light Tier 1 $655

(h) Specialty Mixed-Light Tier 2 $1,125

(i) Small Outdoor $535

(j) Small Indoor $3,935

(k) Small Mixed-Light Tier 1 $1,310

(l) Small Mixed-Light Tier 2 $2,250

(m) Medium Outdoor $1,555

(n) Medium Indoor $8,655

(o) Medium Mixed-Light Tier 1 $2,885

(p) Medium Mixed-Light Tier 2 $4,945

(q) Nursery $520

(r) Processor $1,040

§ 8104. Legal Right to Occupy.

(a) If the applicant is the owner of the property on which the premises is located, the applicant shall provide to the department a copy of the title or deed to the property.

(b) If the applicant is not the owner of the property upon which the premises is located, the applicant shall provide the following to the department:

(1) A document from the property owner or property owner’s agent where the commercial cannabis activity will occur that states the applicant has the right to occupy the property and acknowledges that the applicant may use the property for commercial cannabis cultivation;

(2) The property owner’s mailing address and phone number; and

(3) A copy of the lease or rental agreement, or other contractual documentation.

§ 8105. Property Diagram.

A property diagram shall be submitted with each application and shall contain the following:

(a) Boundaries of the property and the proposed premises wherein the license privileges will be exercised with sufficient detail to enable ready determination of the bounds of the premises showing all perimeter dimensions, entrances, and exits to both the property and premises;

(b) If the proposed premises consists of only a portion of a property, the diagram shall be labeled indicating which part of the property is the proposed premises and what the remaining property is used for.

(c) All roads and water crossings on the property;

(d) If the applicant is proposing to use a diversion from a waterbody, groundwater well, or rain catchment system as a water source for cultivation, include the following locations on the property diagram with locations also provided as coordinates in either latitude and longitude or the California Coordinate System:

(1) Sources of water used, including the location of waterbody diversion(s), pump location(s), and distribution system; and

(2) Location, type, and capacity of each storage unit to be used for cultivation.

(e) The assessor’s parcel number(s);

(f) The diagram shall be to scale; and

(g) The diagram shall not contain any highlighting.

§ 8106. Cultivation Plan Requirements.

(a) The cultivation plan for Specialty Cottage, Specialty, Small and Medium licenses shall include all of the following:

(1) A detailed premises diagram showing all boundaries and dimensions in feet of the following proposed areas to scale:

(A) Canopy area(s) (which shall contain mature plants, at any point in time) including aggregate square footage;

(B) Area(s) outside of the canopy where only immature plants shall be maintained, if applicable;

(C) Designated pesticide and other agricultural chemical storage area(s); (D) Designated processing area(s) if the licensee will process on site;

(E) Designated packaging area(s) if the licensee will package products on site;

(F) Designated composting area(s) if the licensee will compost cannabis waste on site;

(G) Designated secured area(s) for cannabis waste if different than subsection (F) above;

(H) Designated area(s) for harvested cannabis storage; and

(2) For indoor and mixed-light license type applications, a lighting diagram with the following information shall be included:

(A) Location of all lights in the canopy area(s); and

(B) Maximum wattage, or wattage equivalent, of each light.

(3) A pest management plan which shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

(A) Product name and active ingredient(s) of all pesticides to be applied to cannabis during any stage of plant growth; and

(B) Integrated pest management protocols including chemical, biological and cultural methods the applicant anticipates using to control or prevent the introduction of pests on the cultivation site.

(4) A cannabis waste management plan meeting the requirements of section 8108 of this Chapter. (b) The cultivation plan for nursery licenses shall include the following information: (1) A detailed premises diagram showing all boundaries and dimensions, in feet, of the following proposed areas:

(A) Area(s) which shall contain only immature plants;

(B) Designated research and development area(s) which may contain mature plants;

(C) Designated seed production area(s) which may contain mature plants; (D) Designated pesticide and other agricultural chemical storage area(s);

(E) Designated composting area(s) if the licensee will compost cannabis waste on site; and

(F) Designated secured area(s) for cannabis waste if different than subsection (E) above.

(2) A pest management plan which shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

(A) Product name and active ingredient(s) of all pesticides to be applied to cannabis during any stage of plant growth; and

(B) Integrated pest management protocols including chemical, biological and cultural methods the applicant anticipates using to control or prevent the introduction of pests on the cultivation site.

(3) A cannabis waste management plan pursuant to section 8108 of this Chapter.

(c) The cultivation plan for processor licenses shall include a detailed premises diagram showing all boundaries and dimensions, in feet, of the following proposed areas:

(1) Designated processing area(s);

(2) Designated packaging area(s), if the licensee will package and label products on site;

(3) Designated composting area(s) if the licensee will compost cannabis waste on site;

(4) Designated secured area(s) for cannabis waste if different than subsection (3) above; and;

(5) Designated area(s) for harvested cannabis storage;

(6) A cannabis waste management plan pursuant to section 8108 of this Chapter.

§ 8107. Supplemental Water Source Information.

The following information shall be provided for each water source identified by the applicant:

(a) Retail water supply sources:

(1) If the water source is a retail supplier, such as a municipal provider, as defined in Section 13575 of Water Code, identify the retail water supplier.

(2) If the water source is a small retail supplier, such as a delivery service, and is subject to subdivisions (a)(1)(B) of Section 26060.1 of Business and Professions Code:

(A) And if the contract is for delivery or pickup of water from a surface water body or an underground stream flowing in a known and definite channel, provide all of the following:

(i) The name of the contract water supplier;

(ii) The geographic location coordinates in either latitude and longitude or the California Coordinate System of any point of diversion used by the contract water supplier to divert water delivered to the applicant under the contract;

(iii) The authorized place of use for any water right used by the contract water supplier to divert water delivered to the applicant under the contract; and

(iv) The maximum amount of water delivered to the applicant for cannabis cultivation in any year.

(B) And if the contract is for delivery or pickup of water from a groundwater well, provide all of the following:

(i) The name of the contract water supplier;

(ii) The geographic location coordinates for any groundwater well used to supply water delivered to the applicant, in either latitude and longitude or the California Coordinate System;

(iii) The maximum amount of water delivered to the applicant for cannabis cultivation in any year; and

(iv) A copy of the well log filed with the Department of Water Resources pursuant to Section 13751 of Water Code for each percolating groundwater well used to divert water delivered to the applicant. If no well log is available, the applicant shall provide evidence from the Department of Water Resources indicating that the Department does not have a record of the well log. When no well log is available, the State Water Resources Control Board may request additional information about the well. (b) If the water source is a groundwater well:

(1) The groundwater wells geographic location coordinates in either latitude and longitude or the California Coordinate System; and

(2) A copy of the well log filed with the Department of Water Resources pursuant to Section 13751 of Water Code. If no well log is available, the applicant shall provide evidence from the Department of Water Resources indicating that the Department of Water Resources does not have a record of the well log. If no well log is available, the State Water Resources Control Board may request additional information about the well.

(c) If the water source is a rainwater catchment system:

(1) The total square footage of the catchment footprint area(s);

(2) The total storage capacity, in gallons, of the catchment system(s); and

(3) A detailed description of the type, nature, and location of each catchment surface. Examples of catchment surfaces include a rooftop and greenhouse.

(d) If the water source is a diversion from a waterbody, provide any applicable statement, application, permit, license, or small irrigation use registration identification number(s); and either

(1) A copy of any applicable registrations, permits, or licenses or proof of a pending application, issued under Part 2 (commencing with Section 1200) of Division 2 of the California Water Code as evidence of approval of a water diversion by the State Water Resources Control Board;

(2) A copy of any statements of diversion and use filed with the State Water Resources Control Board before October 31, 2017 detailing the water diversion and use; or

(3) A copy of documentation submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board before October 31, 2017 demonstrating that the diversion is authorized under a riparian right and that no diversion occurred in any calendar year between January 1, 2010 and January 1, 2017.

(4) If the applicant has claimed an exception from the requirement to file a statement of diversion and use, the applicant shall provide a copy of the documentation submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board before January 1, 2019 demonstrating that the diversion is subject to subdivision (a), (c), (d), or (e) of Section 5101 of Water Code. Authority: Sections 26012 and 26013, Business and Professions Code. Reference: Section 26060.1, Business and Professions Code; and Section 13149, Water Code.

§ 8109. Applicant Track and Trace Training Requirement.

(a) Each applicant is responsible for registering for state-mandated training, as prescribed by the department, within ten (10) business days of receiving notice from the department that their application for licensure has been received and is complete.

(b) Documentation of training completion shall be provided to the department within ten (10) business days of completion. Applicants approved for an annual license shall not have access to the track-and-trace system until the licensee’s designated account manager has completed, and provided proof of completion, of the track-and-trace training prescribed by the department. Authority: Sections 26012 and 26013, Business and Professions Code. Reference: Section 26067, Business and Professions Code.

§ 8110. Proof of Local License, Permit, or Other Authorization.

When the applicant provides a license, permit, or other authorization from the local jurisdiction where the licensed premises will be or is located, the department will notify the contact person identified pursuant to Section 26055 of Business and Professions Code. If the local jurisdiction does not respond to the department’s notification within ten (10) calendar days, the department may issue a license to the applicant. Authority: Sections 26012 and 26013, Business and Professions Code. Reference: Section 26050.1 and 26055, Business and Professions Code.

California Cannabis Industry

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑