What do Californians (and the rest) think of AUMA?

ClearBlueLou

unbearably light in the being....
Typical regulatory mess. That's what happens when you rely on the Big Government, Big Tax party to legalize cannabis, or really, do anything.
So, you’re saying we are *incapable* of self-government?

If you rely on the small-government/taxes-are-evil party to legalize cannabis, all the ‘rights’ will go to the wealthy and the poor will still go to jail, and Industry will take over. Yay?
 

analytika

Well-Known Member
So, you’re saying we are *incapable* of self-government?

If you rely on the small-government/taxes-are-evil party to legalize cannabis, all the ‘rights’ will go to the wealthy and the poor will still go to jail, and Industry will take over. Yay?
I'm not too worried about income inequality resulting from zeroing out California's absurd 15% excise tax on cannabis.

It's like other big government favorites, excise taxes on tobacco and alcohol, incredibly regressive taxes borne mostly by lower income people. Except for, you know, the whole medically beneficial thing.

Tell me the name of one cannabis dispensary proprietor who thinks the excise tax is sticking it to the Man, and restraining competition from RJ Reynolds. Your argument is absurd.
 
analytika,
  • Like
Reactions: looney2nz

ClearBlueLou

unbearably light in the being....
I can’t tell you the name of any cannabis dispensary, period: I don’t live in Califrasco, I live in the Confederacy.

As far as ‘absurd arguments’ go, yours beats mine: reflexive dump on “conservative” shibboleths like ‘Big Government Party!’ and ‘Big Tax Party!’...SMDH....
 

analytika

Well-Known Member
I can’t tell you the name of any cannabis dispensary, period: I don’t live in Califrasco, I live in the Confederacy.

As far as ‘absurd arguments’ go, yours beats mine: reflexive dump on “conservative” shibboleths like ‘Big Government Party!’ and ‘Big Tax Party!’...SMDH....
Government taxes cannabis almost 25% in California. 78% expected (California legislature joint committee on taxation) to be paid by folks below the medium income.

Equality! Are we there yet?
 
analytika,
  • Like
Reactions: looney2nz

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
Government taxes cannabis almost 25% in California. 78% expected (California legislature joint committee on taxation) to be paid by folks below the medium income.

Equality! Are we there yet?
Arithmetic tells us ANY tax calculated as a single percentage is going to be regressive. I'm not sure that's a bad thing when we're talking about a voluntary exchange of money for product but understand how some might find it a problem.

However, where did you get your numbers?
(They're not in the most current or last year's papers: )
https://ahea.assembly.ca.gov/sites/ahea.assembly.ca.gov/files/Feb 20 Background paper.pdf
https://ahea.assembly.ca.gov/sites/ahea.assembly.ca.gov/files/FINAL Feb 7 Background Paper.pdf
 
Tranquility,

ClearBlueLou

unbearably light in the being....
To pick up where it left off: no, we’ve not achieved “equality”, apparently we aren’t even *trying* to get there, not even before the law. Equality before the law ought to be the basic level of equal treatment - the least that any of us can expect; in fact we seem to be headed in the opposite direction - and what the bleeding bagseed does that have to do with government and taxation? Those are flaws in our character as individuals and as communities.

I’m sure there’s a great many points you could have made, but you made no point at all other than to demonstrate that “government” to you is some kind of personal opponentPersonally, I’m not willing to return to the days of PRIVATE government, there were KINGS involved ‘n’ shit, and the taxes were considerably worse than today. I’ve not lost hope for the eventual success of the “American Experiment” in self-government. Have you?

Not trying to rag on you, the conversation seemed...unfinished
 
ClearBlueLou,

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
To pick up where it left off: no, we’ve not achieved “equality”, apparently we aren’t even *trying* to get there, not even before the law. Equality before the law ought to be the basic level of equal treatment - the least that any of us can expect; in fact we seem to be headed in the opposite direction - and what the bleeding bagseed does that have to do with government and taxation? Those are flaws in our character as individuals and as communities.

I’m sure there’s a great many points you could have made, but you made no point at all other than to demonstrate that “government” to you is some kind of personal opponentPersonally, I’m not willing to return to the days of PRIVATE government, there were KINGS involved ‘n’ shit, and the taxes were considerably worse than today. I’ve not lost hope for the eventual success of the “American Experiment” in self-government. Have you?

Not trying to rag on you, the conversation seemed...unfinished
I believe the Los Angeles Times also tends towards thinking the government is the problem--at least on cannabis.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-marijuana-year-anniversary-review-20181227-story.html
“The cannabis industry is being choked by California’s penchant for over-regulation,” said Dale Gieringer, director of California NORML, a pro-legalization group. “It’s impossible to solve all of the problems without a drastic rewrite of the law, which is not in the cards for the foreseeable future.”
Regulators gonna regulate.

I don't think it makes a difference to those with 1/260,000,000 of The Vote if the bureaucrat that regulates is the King's or the American Experiment's. (Before we go down the path of, "but we get a choice", I assure you the King fears 1/2 of the population wanting something different from him every bit as much as the politician does.)
 

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
The Great State of California, in its infinite wisdom, has determined creating a bank where cannabis businesses can get financial services would cost too much and would be too hard under current federal regulations to make happen. The state does not feel it is important to have its legal business be assisted to overcome federal limitations on financial activities. Well, with the exception of:
designate a state agency to help improve how the state handles cash-based tax and other marijuana-related payments​

Whew! I thought for a second the state was not going to find a way to get free money without providing any services. Now they're here to help. Help find a way to pay them.

https://mjbizdaily.com/california-bank-for-marijuana-businesses/
 

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
YOU MANIACS! YOU BLEW IT UP! AH, DAMN YOU! GOD DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!!

The Great State of California has just pointed its regulatory guns at the one place cannabis worked in the state--medical co-ops.

https://mjbizdaily.com/california-unlicensed-medical-marijuana-collectives-illegal-jan-9/
On Jan. 10, California’s legal cannabis industry is expected to get even smaller.

Medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives will become illegal without a state license that day, per guidance that the Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC) issued in January 2018.

Cannabis industry experts have suggested the impact of the deadline has already made its mark on the California marijuana industry by forcing nonprofits to either get licenses or close up shop......​
 

macbill

Oh No! Mr macbill!!
Staff member
Marijuana is legal in California. So why is the CHP arresting delivery drivers?

Cannabis may be legal in California, but the new rules of the road are so confusing that even former California Highway Patrol officers are struggling with them.

That became clear on a September morning when a pair of former CHP officers who now run a licensed cannabis distribution business found themselves arrested after a traffic stop on Interstate 5 in Stanislaus County.
 

ClearBlueLou

unbearably light in the being....
I believe the Los Angeles Times also tends towards thinking the government is the problem--at least on cannabis.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-marijuana-year-anniversary-review-20181227-story.html
“The cannabis industry is being choked by California’s penchant for over-regulation,” said Dale Gieringer, director of California NORML, a pro-legalization group. “It’s impossible to solve all of the problems without a drastic rewrite of the law, which is not in the cards for the foreseeable future.”
Regulators gonna regulate.

I don't think it makes a difference to those with 1/260,000,000 of The Vote if the bureaucrat that regulates is the King's or the American Experiment's. (Before we go down the path of, "but we get a choice", I assure you the King fears 1/2 of the population wanting something different from him every bit as much as the politician does.)
What can one say to that, except...bye, Felicia! :wave:
 

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
They just released California's Cannabis Advisory Commission's report for 2018.

https://cannabislaw.report/californ...mmittee-annual-report-for-2018-now-published/

While I haven't read it yet, on a quick skim a statement stood out. (My copy won't allow a cut and paste but the paragraph is in "Background" section and starts "Second, ensuring...") The claim is that the cost of regulations on a pound of "marketable dry flower" is $408.

Using super math skills I think that comes out to about $25.50 per ounce or less than a dollar a gram.

I hate to doubt their numbers and know flower is not flower is not flower, but, it seems the cost of flower from a recreational dispensary BEFORE taxes is more than a dollar more per gram than from a less...regulated-type sale. $5-10 dollars an eighth more seems along the lines I've been paying.

How about you? Do your numbers jibe with the state's on the cost of regulation?
 

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
Hemp CBD?

https://www.cannalawblog.com/proposed-california-legislation-may-allow-hemp-cbd-in-foods/
On January 17, 2019, California Assembly Member Cecilia M. Aguiar-Curry kept her promise and introduced a piece of hemp legislation, AB 228. This bill is aimed at paving the way for adding industrial hemp derived cannabidiol (“Hemp CBD”) to foods, beverages, and cosmetics. The text of AB 228 is relatively short and would add the following two provisions to the California Health and Safety Code which contain provisions of the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Laws (the “Sherman Laws”):

110611. A food or beverage is not adulterated by the inclusion of industrial hemp products, including cannabidiol derived from industrial hemp. The sale of food or beverages that include industrial hemp products or cannabidiol derived from industrial hemp shall not be restricted or prohibited based solely on the inclusion of industrial hemp products or cannabidiol derived from industrial hemp.

111691. A cosmetic is not adulterated because of the fact that it includes industrial hemp products, including cannabidiol derived from industrial hemp. The sale of cosmetics that include industrial hemp products or cannabidiol derived from industrial hemp shall not be restricted or prohibited based solely on the inclusion of industrial hemp products or cannabidiol derived from industrial hemp.​

AB 228 thus narrowly targets California regulators’ ability to penalize companies for selling Hemp CBD beverages or foods on the grounds that they are “adulterated” under California law. This is an interesting piece of legislation, as the biggest major legal roadblock to selling Hemp CBD foods in California is the California Department of Public Health’s (“CDPH”) Hemp CBD FAQs, which don’t in fact claim that Hemp CBD makes foods or beverages “adulterated” (and says nothing about cosmetics). The only citation in the FAQs to the Sherman Laws is for the definition of foods (see footnote 1). That said, the Los Angeles Department of Public Health will soon begin taking the position that Hemp CBD foods and beverages are “adulterated” and issuing penalties based on that position.

If AB 228 becomes law, it will take the legs out from under one of the major arguments that could be used against Hemp CBD food products. The law wouldn’t change the federal Food and Drug Administration’s position that Hemp CBD is unlawful in foods, and so it will be interesting to see how California cannabis regulators treat Hemp CBD in the wake of AB 228 passing (if it does).

Ultimately, AB 228 isn’t perfect, but it’s a step in the right direction. Stay tuned to the Canna Law Blog for more updates on this and everything else Hemp CBD.​
 

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
Those in CA who are in the cannabis chain have 6 "extinction events" that might cause closings. They are (https://mjbizdaily.com/california-extinction-events-cannabis-consultant-jackie-mcgowan/):
  • A possible shortage of disposable vaporizer cartridges stemming from lead contamination.
  • A lack of local industry ordinances that help businesses comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
  • Ongoing market consolidation.
  • Upcoming financial and tax audits by state regulators despite “hundreds” of licensed businesses not having yet paid state taxes.
  • Testing-related issues, such as lengthy wait times, faulty equipment and a general lack of labs.
  • Expected problems with both the rollout and maintenance of the state’s inventory track-and-trace system.
The person interviewed believes their will be a 90% extinction rate IN THE NEXT YEAR. She mentioned she had a client that has had individual cartridges tested outside the cannabis system (because it was a component and not directly related) and found, "So far, nine out of 10 have come back with very actionable levels of lead, and this is within the components being broken down."

Good times. Also, the California Grower's Association might be one of the extinction events. https://mjbizdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/CGA-2018-end-of-year-doc.pdf

With a response from the association at https://mjbizdaily.com/leaked-internal-document-california-growers-association-finances-management/ .
 
Tranquility,
  • Like
Reactions: macbill

macbill

Oh No! Mr macbill!!
Staff member
California’s retail marijuana industry is struggling. Will tax breaks and banks help?

Unfriendly banks, high taxes and black-market competitors are some of the obstacles that licensed cannabis companies say hold them back as they try to cultivate a new industry in California.

Some California lawmakers want to give them a hand, and they’re considering a set of bills that would in ways great and small fine tune the law governing recreational marijuana.
 

invertedisdead

PHASE3
Manufacturer
From my chair it seems like that 25% tax turned out to be a pretty big turnoff... gee, I wonder who could have predicted that. Most people I know LOVE taxes! :rolleyes::D

I've seen eights as high as $75... before the 25% tax :rofl:

I guess if I vape one time a week that can become affordable... :rolleyes: :hmm::huh::wave:
 

looney2nz

Research Geek, Mad Scientist
California’s retail marijuana industry is struggling. Will tax breaks and banks help?

Unfriendly banks, high taxes and black-market competitors are some of the obstacles that licensed cannabis companies say hold them back as they try to cultivate a new industry in California.

Some California lawmakers want to give them a hand, and they’re considering a set of bills that would in ways great and small fine tune the law governing recreational marijuana.

well here's a start, cut the excise and grow taxes in half, and eliminate taxes on medical patients.
 

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
well here's a start, cut the excise and grow taxes in half, and eliminate taxes on medical patients.

While they CAN lower the "fee" (not tax) to get a grower's license, they have to do some gift wrapping to make it all legal like. (The excise taxes are different.) A fee requires some finding there is some governmental service that is reasonably related to the fee that benefits the one paying it. Taxes are more general and have the goal of raising money for governmental functions overall. The difference between the two, and the legalities associated with them, have a good summary here. https://www.bna.com/extras-excise-difference-b17179894455/

If they start changing fees, they will have to have a finding as to how the new amount is still designed to pay for the program. If changing taxes, they need a 2/3 vote.
 
Tranquility,
  • Like
Reactions: looney2nz

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
My goodness, we're not selling enough over-priced pot! What can we do?

Looks like someone needs arrestin'

(It also looks like the new governor is not as much pro-cannabis, but pro-cannabis businesses who donate to his campaign.)

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la...rackdown-pot-black-market-20190219-story.html

Before he was elected governor, Gavin Newsom was instrumental in legalizing marijuana for recreational use in California. Now, as he settles into office, he faces the challenge of fixing a system that has been slow to bloom.

Newsom has urged patience with sluggish growth in the number of state-licensed cannabis businesses, saying he expected that such a complex regulatory system would take at least five years to fully develop.

But a new report from the state Cannabis Advisory Committee on the first year of legal pot sales in California says there is problem that requires urgent action: “Fragmented and uncoordinated” enforcement has allowed the black market to flourish, threatening licensed business with unfair competition.

“Lack of enforcement is creating a thriving environment for the unregulated ‘underground market,’ ” said the 22-member panel, which was appointed by former Gov. Jerry Brown.

Last week, Newsom announced an expansion of efforts by the California National Guard to work with federal officials to target the black market, including illegal drug grows in Northern California operated by international drug cartels.

“There are legitimate concerns in Northern California particularly as it relates to illegal cannabis grows. They are getting worse, not better,” Newsom said.

The governor proposed that at least 150 California National Guard troops would be redeployed from the U.S.-Mexico border to join a federally funded Counterdrug Task Force. The new forces would focus on illicit cannabis activity in Northern California.

Newsom said recently that he would address the black market with a carrot-and-stick approach that would “move expeditiously at licensing more and more dispensaries” while also “making sure we go after the bad actors.”

“I want to see more enforcement,” Newsom told reporters two days after the critical advisory committee report was released.

As much as 80% of the marijuana sold in California comes from the black market, according to an estimate by New Frontier Data, a firm that tracks cannabis sales and trends. Analysts also found that California’s illicit pot market was valued at an estimated $3.7 billion last year, more than four times the size of the legal market.

Enforcement by the state has been hampered by a lack of resources, a decision to give new firms ample time to comply with complex regulations and political disputes, according to state records and interviews with officials and industry insiders.

Newsom has a special interest in ensuring that the state-sanctioned cannabis industry flourishes in California a year after the state began issuing licenses. As lieutenant governor, while gearing up to run for the state’s top spot, he chaired the Blue Ribbon Commission on Marijuana Policy, whose recommendations led to Proposition 64, approved by voters in 2016to legalize growing and selling marijuana for recreational use.

His campaign for governor received more than $340,000 from the cannabis industry, which is optimistic that the Newsom administration will address some of the lingering problems with the licensing system.

“We believe that this governor is committed to addressing our concerns, and he has a Legislature that is showing their willingness to author bills that will strengthen the regulated market while minimizing the illicit market,” said Josh Drayton, a spokesman for the California Cannabis Industry Assn.

So far, the number of sellers and growers getting state licenses is significantly less than many in the industry expected — a result of high taxes, city bans on pot businesses and the large underground market, experts said.

“Enforcement in the past has been expensive and ineffective,” said Hezekiah Allen, the chairman of Emerald Grown, a cooperative of 130 licensed cultivators. “If we had a robust and thriving regulated market, it is possible that enforcement might help. We don’t, though.”

The state Bureau of Cannabis Control, which has licensed 634 pot retailers, has sent out 2,842 cease-and-desist letters to cannabis shops and businesses suspected of operating without state licenses.

State regulators have announced five enforcement actions — including cannabis seizures — against retail businesses in Sylmar, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Fair Oaks and Costa Mesa for operating without a license. The state’s actions have resulted in 15 people being charged with violating state law.

Bureau spokesman Alex Traverso said it’s not clear how many other illegal pot shops closed down after getting warnings.

“It’s difficult to say how many of those letters resulted in action,” Traverso said. “Businesses could shut down and relocate.”

The limited action by the state bureau has meant cities, which have strained resources, have had to step in against illegal operators.

The Los Angeles city attorney’s Marijuana Enforcement Unit filed 170 misdemeanor cases last year against 700 defendants for operating commercial cannabis businesses without a license, said spokesman Frank Mateljan.

A year ago, the state bureau sent a letter to tech company and dispensary database Weedmaps, telling it to stop advertising sellers that lack a permit.

“Your website contains advertisements from persons offering cannabis and cannabis products for sale that are not licensed to conduct commercial cannabis activity; therefore, you are aiding and abetting in violations of state cannabis laws,” wrote Lori Ajax, chief of the Bureau of Cannabis Control.

The firm responded to the bureau and argued it is a service site like Google, Craigslist or Yelp and therefore subject to “federally preemptive protections.” No action was taken against the company by the state.

“We continue to engage in constructive dialogue with state and local authorities,” said Carl Fillichio, a company spokesman.

Bureau officials say they are limited in what they can do.

“The issue is out of our hands now since Weedmaps is not a licensee of the Bureau,” Traverso said.
In November, less than a week after Newsom’s election, Weedmaps hired a lobbying firm headed by Kevin Schmidt, who was policy director for then-Lt. Gov. Newsom for five years ending in 2016. The firm more recently hired Jason Kinney, who was a top advisor on Newsom’s gubernatorial transition team, although he plans to focus on non-cannabis clients of the lobbying firm, including AT&T.

Newsom was asked about Weedmaps at his budget briefing on Jan 10.

“I’m not going to get into a specific company,” he said. “But if somebody’s doing something wrong, they should be held accountable. Period. Whoever they are and whatever industry they are.”

Before Newsom took office, other efforts to step up enforcement had failed, including a bill that would have allowed fines against companies that advertise without listing their state license number. Another bill that died, by Assemblyman Tom Lackey (R-Palmdale), would have put the California Highway Patrol in charge of enforcement.

“Enforcement has been a joke,” said Lackey, a retired CHP sergeant. “Right now, you have the state and locals blaming each other as to who should be responsible for enforcement.”

Perhaps the biggest setback for tougher enforcement was a result of a dispute last year between Brown and Democratic leaders in the state Assembly. Brown proposed in his final budget to provide $14 million to create five enforcement teams — each located in a different part of the state — to investigate California’s black market for marijuana, with an emphasis on going after drug cartels and gangs. But negotiations stalled last year in a dispute over how to pay for the program.

Newsom sent a letter to Washington last week asking the federal government for funds to expand the California National Guard’s role in the Counterdrug Task Force.

His first budget for 2019-20 proposes to continue funding for enforcement at about the level of this year, $40 million, said H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for the state Department of Finance.

Industry officials are concerned that the Bureau of Cannabis Control enforcement efforts have also been hampered by a lack of staff. The bureau has filled only 77 of its 147 budgeted positions. Traverso said the agency wants to make sure it hires the right people and denies that the understaffing is impacting enforcement.

Scattered enforcement responsibilities are also an issue, according to the report by the state advisory panel. Cannabis growers are required to get a license from the California Department of Food and Agriculture, but that agency is only authorized to enforce rules with licensed cultivators.

The agency “does not have statutory authority over illegal cannabis cultivation, so we do not issue citations to unlicensed cannabis growers,” said Rebecca Forée, a spokeswoman for the department.

Long before Proposition 64, the state Department of Justice raided and eradicated illegal grows, often in cooperation with federal and local authorities. But that effort, too, has run into bumps.

In 2011, state budget cuts were cited as the reason to eliminate the Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement, which had been working with regional task forces to combat illegal drugs...(10,000 limit)
 

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
https://mjbizdaily.com/california-l...o-consider-nearly-60-marijuana-related-bills/

There are 58 bills pending before the California Legislature in 2019 that include the word “cannabis” or “marijuana,” which means the state’s industry could be in for another tumultuous year of big changes.

Many of the measures touch on significant industry hurdles, ranging from the lack of banking access to reducing state tax rates to an ongoing debate over statewide MJ delivery.

Not all the bills are major legal changes, however, and many are not industry-related.

Some also have been introduced as placeholders but are awaiting full language – such as Assembly Bill 1678, which merely states that its intent is to “enact legislation relating to cannabis” – meaning more legislation has yet to fully take shape.

The California Cannabis Industry Association also lists 47 bills that it’s tracking, which the organization shared with Marijuana Business Daily.

Below are the top 12 legislative measures that could impact California cannabis businesses, what they would do if signed into law and where they stand at the Capitol.

Several require a two-thirds supermajority vote to pass because they amend Proposition 64, the 2016 marijuana legalization measure that is now part of the California Constitution.

Others that only change state law require a simple majority to pass.

• State Assembly

Assembly Bill 37

What it would do: Help offset the federal 280E tax burden by creating a carve-out for business deductions in California’s personal income tax for state-licensed cannabis companies.

Primary sponsor: Assembly member Reggie Jones-Sawyer, a Los Angeles Democrat.

Status: Referred to Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation. Awaiting hearings.

Assembly Bill 953

What it would do: Allow marijuana companies to pay state and local taxes via a cryptocurrency method called “stablecoins.”

Primary sponsors: Assembly members Philip Ting, a San Francisco Democrat, and Kevin McCarty, a Sacramento Democrat.

Status: Awaiting committee assignment.

Assembly Bill 286

What it would do: Temporarily slash the state cannabis excise tax from 15% to 11% and suspend the state MJ cultivation tax until June 2022.

Primary sponsors: Assembly members Rob Bonta, a Democrat from Oakland; Ken Cooley, a Democrat from Rancho Cordova; Tom Lackey, a Republican from Palmdale; and Jones-Sawyer.

Status: Referred to Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation and Committee on Business and Professions. Awaiting hearings. Requires two-thirds support to pass both chambers.

Assembly Bill 1288

What it would do: Require that additional MJ sales data be uploaded into California’s track-and-trace program, including the date of every sale and whether each sale was conducted at a shop or via delivery.

Primary sponsor: Assembly member Cooley.

Status: Awaiting committee assignment.

Assembly Bill 1420

What it would do: Prohibit state regulators from raising application and licensing fees past what was already established as of January.

Primary sponsor: Assembly member Jay Obernolte, a Republican from Big Bear Lake.

Status: Awaiting committee assignment. Requires two-thirds support to pass both chambers.

Assembly Bill 1525

What it would do: Codify that financial institutions such as banks and credit unions that work with cannabis companies are not in violation of state law.

Primary sponsor: Assembly member Jones-Sawyer.

Status: Awaiting committee assignment. Requires two-thirds support to pass both chambers.

Assembly Bill 1530

What it would do: Reverse a controversial policy adopted in 2018 by the Bureau of Cannabis Control that allows marijuana deliveries to be performed anywhere in the state regardless of city or county bans on commercial cannabis activity. Would also establish a competitive grant program through the Board of State and Community Corrections to expand enforcement efforts against unlicensed marijuana businesses and increase consumer education.

Primary sponsor: Assembly member Cooley.

Status: Awaiting committee assignment. Requires two-thirds support to pass both chambers.

• State Senate

Senate Bill 34

What it would do: Allow licensed cannabis companies to give away goods for free to medical patients, essentially relegalizing so-called “compassion programs” that were common for years in California’s MMJ market.

Primary sponsors: Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat; Assembly members Bonta and Jim Wood, a Santa Rosa Democrat.

Status: Referred to the Senate Committee on Governance and Finance and the Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development. Awaiting hearings. Requires two-thirds support to pass both chambers.

Senate Bill 51

What it would do: Allow for the establishment of “cannabis limited charter banks and credit unions” to serve the marijuana industry.

Primary sponsors: Sen. Robert Hertzberg, a Los Angeles Democrat, and Assembly member Bonta.

Status: Referred to Senate Committee on Banking and Financial Institutions and the Committee on Governance and Finance. Awaiting hearings.

Senate Bill 67

What it would do: Extend the life span of temporary business licenses until the end of 2019 for companies that have already submitted annual license applications.

Primary sponsors: Sen. Mike McGuire, a Democrat from Healdsburg, and Assembly member Wood.

Status: Approved by the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee, referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Awaiting hearings. Requires two-thirds support to pass both chambers.

Senate Bill 475

What it would do: Allow the sharing of free-trade samples of cannabis products between licensees.

Primary sponsors: Sen. Nancy Skinner, a Democrat from Berkeley.

Status: Awaiting committee assignment.

Senate Bill 625

What it would do: Legalize marijuana party buses.

Primary sponsors: Sen. Jerry Hill, a San Francisco Democrat.

Status: Awaiting committee assignment.​
 
Tranquility,

looney2nz

Research Geek, Mad Scientist
where's the one that bitches about raping medical patients bank accounts? :(

so, in additional to the cancer, I have to look out for 'the man' :(

commercial charity donations, nice, but let's see what that REALLY brings :(
What flaming hoops do you have to jump through for THAT?
party buses... in the face of medical patients with serious/terminal illnesses, just pisses me off (which it shouldn't!), I know plenty of folks who'd try it!

So you can put a 'ceiling' on how potent meds are, but nobody talked to ME.
It would literally take 6-7x whole 100mg edibles to work on me each time I medicated,
even if I could afford it, that's 6-7x the SUGAR (which oncologists will tell you is NO friend to cancer).
Guess like the ridiculous packaging in the face of a state known for environmental concerns, nobody talked to an oncologist either :( There should be category of patient who can buy 100G of clean concentrate per month, WITHOUT taxation... cancer is a big enough tax, it drives 42% of patients into bankruptcy.

hmm, I guess I'll have to approach the clean concentrate companies and see if they'll donate...
or start making my own :(.
Like I'm rolling in dough.
Jan 1 was a giant prostate test :(

but at the pace things move... lord :(
 

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
where's the one that bitches about raping medical patients bank accounts? :(

so, in additional to the cancer, I have to look out for 'the man' :(

While many felt it would be the case before the vote, it should be clear to all now that voting for the regulatory "legalization" is going to ruin the only thing that was really working in the state, medical.

It's almost like the politicians' only care is how much money they can get. It was never about what was right, fair, or in keeping in constitutional norms--it was about $$$.

im-completely-surprised-this-is-my-shocked-face.jpg


Technical edit:
While I know what you meant, cancer is great friends with sugar. Their intense relationship is how we find the cancer with the PET.
 
Top Bottom