California Cannabis News

macbill

Oh No! Mr macbill!!
Staff member
macbill,
  • Wow
Reactions: Gunky

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
Remember, kids, even if it is legal in California does NOT mean the feds have to follow the state's rules.

Border Patrol Seizing Cash and Cannabis From Legal California Operators

Legal operators allegedly taking product and cash to labs to get it tested under state law pass through border checkpoint. Border patrol finds cash/cannabis and seizes it. Completely legal; no recourse. Hope you don't get charged federally.
 
Tranquility,
  • Like
Reactions: macbill

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
It might get more expensive to by indoor grown.
Proposed LED mandate could cost California’s indoor marijuana growers millions
Many California marijuana growers are up in arms over a recent proposal before the state Public Utilities Commission that would require all indoor cultivation operators to use only LED lights by 2023.

If implemented, the proposal could cost cannabis businesses hundreds of millions of dollars, the growers say.

The proposal is part of a lengthy report issued this month by the Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Program. It would force indoor growers to transition away from lower-efficiency grow lights, such as metal halide or high-pressure sodium (HPS), which are favored by some indoor growers over costlier LEDs.


The report:
Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative2022 California Energy CodeControlled Environment Horticulture
 
Tranquility,

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
I'd use the phrase from Animal farm, but worry about how it would be interpreted.
Divide opens over L.A. cannabis social equity licenses, management contracts

Months of anger over prized marijuana social equity licenses in Los Angeles boiled over recently, when the California Minority Alliance (CMA) accused a Black cannabis executive and his company of exploiting other minorities through “predatory” business deals.

The CMA made the accusations against 4thMvmt in an email to the L.A. City Council and the Department of Cannabis Regulation.

4thMvmt, founded in 2018 to help applicants navigate L.A’s social equity program and fund their efforts, is headed by CEO Karim Webb, who is Black.

The dispute highlights just how competitive and vitriolic Los Angeles’ cannabis licensing has become, with applicants who share a history of discrimination finding fault with each other’s bids to obtain the coveted permits.

In its allegations, the California Minority Alliance charged that Webb and 4thMvmt “tried to take advantage of their social equity partners with predatory agreements.”...
 
Tranquility,

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
Plain view may not be probable cause for cannabis in CA.

From a former DA's write up (https://www.sdsheriff.net/legalupdates/):
People v. Johnson (June 15, 2020) __ Cal.App.5th __ [2020 Cal.App. LEXIS 533] Rule: The plain sight observation of a legal amount of marijuana, enclosed in a container not open at that time, even with the odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle, fails provide the necessary probable cause to search for more marijuana. Proposition 64 and H&S § 11362.1(c) provide an adult person in lawful possession of less than ounce of marijuana protection from being detained, searched, or arrested.

Facts: Stockton Police Officers Aron Clark and William Hall were on patrol (in uniform and in a marked patrol car) when they observed defendant Dammar Darrell Johnson sitting in a parked car on the side of the road. Noting the absence of a valid vehicle registration tab, the officers decided to stop and check him out. Activating their emergency lights, Officer Clark got out of the patrol car as an agitated defendant got out of his. Defendant refused to return to his car despite being told to do so, demanding to know (as he “yelled” at the officers) why he had to get back into his car. When Officer Clark grabbed defendant’s arm to maintain control, defendant tensed up and pulled away. Defendant continued to pull away and yell at the officers, resulting in his arrest for resisting (i.e., P.C. § 148). Defendant was handcuffed and placed in the patrol car.
Finding the vehicle’s registration to be expired, the officers intended to do an inventory search in preparation for towing it (see Note, below). As Officer Clark approached the driver’s side door, he could smell the odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle. After checking underneath the driver’s seat, the officer “went to the center console where (he) found a small bag,” of “possibly a couple of grams” of marijuana, “knotted at the top.” Believing he now had probable cause to search the entire vehicle for more marijuana, Officer Clark did so, finding a loaded pistol. Charged in state court with being a felon in possession of a firearm (among other charges), defendant’s motion to suppress the gun was denied. After pleading “no contest” to this charge, defendant appealed. Held: The Third Circuit Court of Appeal reversed. With the People failing to argue the possible applicability of an “inventory search” theory, or that the search of defendant’s vehicle was a valid “search incident to arrest” (see Note, below), the sole issue on appeal was whether, given what the officers knew at the time, they have sufficient probable cause to search defendant’s car? The magistrate at defendant’s preliminary examination as well as the Superior Court trial judge both ruled that they did. The Appellate Court disagreed. Under the so-called “automobile exception” to the search warrant requirement, “police who have probable cause to believe a lawfully stopped vehicle contains evidence of criminal activity or contraband may conduct a warrantless search of any area of the vehicle in which the evidence might be found.” The “totality of the circumstances” must be considered in determining whether such probable cause exists. On November 8, 2016, prior to defendant’s arrest, California’s voters passed the “Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act of 2016,” also known as “Proposition 64.” Prop. 64 included the enactment of Health & Safety Code § 11362.1(a)(1), legalizing the possession of up to 28.5 grams (an ounce) of marijuana (aka; “cannabis”) by adults, 21 years of age or older. Subdivision (c) of Section 11362.1 provides marijuana users with protection from being detained, searched, or arrested, when all that is known is that the user has in his or her possession a legal amount of marijuana. Specifically: “Cannabis and cannabis products involved in any way with conduct deemed lawful by this section are not contraband nor subject to seizure, and no conduct deemed lawful by this section shall constitute the basis for detention, search, or arrest.” Thus the legal possession of marijuana is not to be considered when assessing whether “probable cause” exists. The People argued, however, that Section 11362.1(c)’s protection from detention, search, or arrest is inapplicable in this case because defendant was not in lawful possession of marijuana, having violated both H&S Code § 11362.3(a)(4) (operating a vehicle with an open container of marijuana), and/or Vehicle Code § 23222(b) (driving a vehicle with an unsecured container of marijuana). Although the record was not clear, the Court assumed for the sake of argument that defendant’s baggie of marijuana was both observed in plain sight (i.e., before any search of the car had been initiated) and “knotted” at the top. Based upon these assumptions, what Officer Clark knew at the time he initiated the search of defendant’s car that ultimately resulted in the recovery of the gun was that there was an odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle and that under an ounce of marijuana was observed in plain sight. The People cited three pre-Prop. 64 cases, all indicating that possession of marijuana in under these circumstances was illegal. In People v. Strasburg (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1052, the odor of marijuana coming from defendant’s car—
...(more)
 
Tranquility,

macbill

Oh No! Mr macbill!!
Staff member
California Must Turn Over Marijuana Documents To DEA, Federal Court Rules

DEA initially asked for unredacted documents concerning three licensed cannabis distributors and people associated with the businesses last year. But when officials with the California Bureau of Cannabis Control didn’t turn them over, the federal agency issued the subpoena in January. The state declined to comply, prompting the feds to take the dispute to court.
 
macbill,

Gunky

Well-Known Member
They must turn over the docs to the DEA. Would that be the same way that the president's tax returns 'shall' be turned over to congress when congress demands them?
 
Gunky,

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
You can legally buy, possess and use cannabis in the City of San Francisco. But, you won't be able to smoke or vape it in public (under current law) OR in your apartment (if the building has more than three units). I don't think there is a public use option in that you can go to the cannabis club and use with others--at least during the pandemic. It seems like only the rich who have their own, separate, homes will be able to imbibe. Go Elon!

San Francisco Considers $1,000 Fines for People Smoking Tobacco or Cannabis in Their Apartments
 
Last edited:

bulllee

Agent Provocateur

Wholesale marijuana, hemp oil prices fall nationwide amid growing supply of raw material​

Published November 13, 2020 | By Bart Schaneman


Chart showing a snapshot of wholesale marijuana oil prices per gram
Wholesale prices of marijuana and hemp oil have fallen from a year ago, according to industry executives, reflecting rising oil production nationwide that has more than offset an uptick in cannabis sales amid the coronavirus pandemic.

The drop in wholesale oil prices reflects multiple market factors working simultaneously – and sometimes at odds with one another.




Marijuana demand, for starters, rose after dozens of states declared MJ businesses essential and allowed them to stay open during the pandemic. Consumers stocked up and have continued to drive marijuana sales month-over-month.


In response, cultivators have been growing plentiful supplies of raw cannabis, from which oil is derived.

That, in turn, has put downward pressure on oil prices – despite robust demand for oil-derived products such as concentrates, edibles and vape pens.

Michelle Jun, head of sales at Green Mill Supercritical, a marijuana supercritical CO2 extraction equipment company based in Pittsburgh, said extracted products made from oil are taking up more and more market share.

“The demand for oil in general is increasing,” Jun said – though clearly not enough to offset the drop in prices.

Jun credits the increase in demand to a steady migration of consumers moving to concentrates and vape products to achieve more precise dosing when using cannabis for medicine and recreation.

Healthy supply

San Francisco-based Backbone, a supply chain-management software provider for marijuana and hemp producers, is seeing steady demand on the THC side for wholesale cannabis oil.

In California, a kilogram of cannabis distillate oil is selling for around $5,000 per kilogram, down from about $5,600-$6,000 per kilogram before the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States in March.

On the hemp-derived CBD side, THC-remediated crude oil is selling for less than $1,000 a kilogram in California, said Peter Huson, chief of operations at Backbone. Prior to the outbreak it sold for more than $1,000 a kilogram.

Hemp-derived CBD crude oil that still contains THC is selling for below $200 a kilogram, down from $400-$500 a kilogram before the coronavirus outbreak.

Huson attributes much of this increase in supply to marijuana being deemed an essential business when the pandemic first hit the United States.

“Cannabis is thriving right now,” he said.

Marijuana oil

Data from Confident Cannabis, a Palo Alto, California-based software company that tracks wholesale marijuana markets, shows the following average price for a combined category of cannabinoid isolate, distillate, full extract cannabis oil and vape oil:

  • California: $9 a gram.
  • Oregon: $5.64 a gram
James Granger, general manager of Denver-based Clear Colorado Group, a cannabis-extract maker with products in several states, said that a gram of marijuana distillate oil testing at 90% THC is selling in Colorado for around $7-$9 a gram.

That’s down from 2019, when a gram was selling for around $11-$12, he said.

The price can fluctuate depending on the season and how much outdoor-grown marijuana is on the market.

Marijuana distillate oil in Oregon is “much cheaper,” Granger added, selling for around $5 a gram.

The cheaper price reflects a glut of raw marijuana because of overproduction across the state, a situation that is beginning to take hold in Oklahoma.

Granger said medical marijuana distillate is selling for around $7-$9 a gram in Oklahoma, a market that is younger and less established than Oregon.

Like Oklahoma, prices in Arizona for MMJ distillate are around $7-$9 a gram, he said.

Hemp oil

Hemp-derived CBD oil has more of a national pricing structure, given that the crop is federally legal, unlike marijuana.

Shannon Kaygi, CEO and co-founder of Denver-based CBD-products company Eossi Beauty, breaks the oil segment into categories.

For example, hemp-derived CBD crude oil is selling for around $400-$500 per kilogram wholesale. The oil has a cannabinoid content of around 65% and includes fats and lipids and “looks like the stuff on the bottom of a lake,” according to Kaygi.

For all of the different categories of hemp-derived CBD oil, a kilogram would on average sell for about $1,000 more last year, Kaygi said.

More hemp farms are coming online all the time, producing more biomass and forcing down oil prices.

If the crude oil has gone through the decarboxylation and winterization process to activate the cannabinoids and remove the fats and lipids, the crude oil is selling for around $700-$1,000 wholesale.

For hemp-derived CBD full spectrum oil – which is around 80%-85% cannabinoid content and still contains THC – a kilogram sells for around $700-$1,500 wholesale.

Hemp-derived, broad-spectrum CBD oil is selling for $1,500-$2,500 a kilogram wholesale. The broad-spectrum oil has a range of cannabinoids beyond CBD, including CBG, CBN and others, but the THC has been removed.

The extra cannabinoids help to boost the price, according to Kaygi.

As it stands now, Kaygi’s not having any trouble finding wholesale oil, though she admitted that if she was making larger orders – say, a thousand kilograms at a time – it could be more difficult.
 
bulllee,

FlyingLow

Team NO SLEEP!
LOL they did not even want to show Illinois on the map... it would ruin their whole position about falling prices.
 
FlyingLow,

BrianTL

Westchester, NY
They chose a bad image to use... they even talk about Oklahoma in the article but dont show it on the map.

Also they're only talking about falling wholesale prices, not necessarily retail, although they SHOULD go hand in hand...
 
BrianTL,

macbill

Oh No! Mr macbill!!
Staff member

Industry reacts to California cannabis delivery lawsuit outcome: ‘It’s not a win’

Fresno County Superior Court Judge Rosemary McGuire’s order late Wednesday was twofold:
  • It upheld the state regulation that allows licensed marijuana delivery companies to offer services anywhere in the state.
  • It affirmed that cities and counties can forbid those operations, though enforcement of the bans is also up to the local governments.
“It’s not a loss, but it’s not a win for delivery,” said Zach Pitts, CEO of Los Angeles-based Ganja Goddess and a board member of the California Cannabis Couriers Association.
 
macbill,

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
While not directly related to cannabis, those in Los Angeles have a new DA and some behavior is now....less illegal.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qowrDhMxuZ75bdP31qNrizfAQZ8zbIno/view

It seems that if you have "indicia of a substance use disorder" (Would cannabis qualify?) you will not be charged on any of a number of crimes.

-----
The misdemeanor charges specified below shall be declined or dismissed before arraignment and without conditions unless “exceptions” or “factors for consideration” exist. These charges do not constitute an exhaustive list. Each deputy district attorney is encouraged to exercise his or her discretion in identifying a charge falling within the spirit of this policy directive and proceed in accordance with its mandate. In addition, each deputy district attorney retains discretion to seek a deviation from this policy when a person poses an identifiable, continuing threat to another individual or there exists another circumstance of similar gravity. In such a situation, the deputy district attorney must consult with their supervisor, place their justification for seeking a deviation in writing, and record their supervisor’s determination in the case file. Such a deviation should be the exception, not the rule. In all circumstances, the person’s ability to pay shall be considered. ...

Criminal Threats – Penal Code § 422 a. Exceptions or Factors For Consideration i. Offense related to domestic violence or hate crime ii. Repeat threat offenses over the preceding 24 months iii. Documented history of threats towards victim iv. Possession of a weapon capable of causing bodily injury or death during commission of offense v. No indicia of substance use disorder and/or mental illness

Drug & Paraphernalia Possession – Health & Safety Code §§ 11350, 11357, 11364, & 11377 a. Exceptions or Factors For Consideration i. None identified

Minor in Possession of Alcohol – Business & Professions § 25662(a) b. Exceptions or Factors For Consideration i. None identified Drinking in Public – Los Angeles County Municipal Code §13.18.010 c. Exceptions or Factors For Consideration i. None identified

Under the Influence of Controlled Substance – Health & Safety Code § 11550 a. Exceptions or Factors For Consideration i. None identified

Public Intoxication – Penal Code § 647(f) a. Exceptions or Factors For Consideration i. None identified Loitering – Penal Code § 647(b),(c), (d), (e) a. Exceptions or Factors For Consideration i. Repeat offenses over the preceding 24 months involving substantially similar behavior to that charged

Loitering To Commit Prostitution – Penal Code § 653.22(a)(1) a. Exceptions or Factors For Consideration i. None identified

Resisting Arrest – Penal Code § 148(a) a. Exceptions or Factors For Consideration i. Repeat offenses over the preceding 24 months involving substantially similar behavior to that charged ii. The actual use of physical force against a peace officer iii. The charge is filed in connection with another offense not enumerated above


Pro-tip: The order extends backwards for 120 days from Dec. 8 so anyone convicted under the old DA's theory can get a good hearing if they want another at bat.
 

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
On January 3, 2021, Cannabis sales are at risk if Proposition 65 warnings are not included on all products that can create marijuana smoke or that contain THC. It's not just the regulators, it is the private lawsuits that take place in the private DA provisions. While I think the proposition stupid and of little or no value in how it is done in the state, it is still the law and dispensaries will have to comply or risk litigation.

I, for one, think there needs to be some litigation in the industry. It is not reasonable to demand to be treated as a legal business and still continue to act as rebels in regards to all the little laws everyone else has to comply with. I understand they have a ton of regulations to follow, but, that is a free and open choice. Some around here treat consumers as though the dispensary is doing them a favor by allowing them to buy from them. There is going to be a LOT more litigation from disgruntled customers than from satisfied ones. Dispensaries better get their house in order and start acting like they're selling a commodity (Unless they provide some service or product that is beyond the norm.) rather than some high margin drug or no one will feel sorry for them.

New California cannabis health-warning label requirement could trigger swell of industry lawsuits
 
Tranquility,

macbill

Oh No! Mr macbill!!
Staff member

Legendary California marijuana-growing region Humboldt permanently bans hemp cultivation

A renowned marijuana-growing county in northern California’s Emerald Triangle, Humboldt County, has permanently banned outdoor cultivation of low-THC hemp varieties.

The unanimous vote by the county Board of Supervisors last week comes after marijuana interests in the area argued that hemp could send male pollen onto higher-THC varieties and depress cannabinoid levels, the (Eureka) Times-Standard reported.
 
macbill,
  • Like
Reactions: Adobewan

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
Like the family in Goodfellas, CA is all "Fuck you, Pay me". It seems the state still wants it's money, but, just because you pay under a provisional license does not mean you should have due process or anything.

Most CA marijuana businesses have no right to due process, court filing asserts
California’s attorney general argued in a recent court filing that none of the state’s cannabis businesses operating on provisional licenses are entitled to due process under state law.

The due-process situation arose when Hayward-based Harrens Lab filed suit against the California Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC) after the agency revoked the lab’s provisional business license last month.


The lab argued it was entitled to an appeals hearing to dispute the charges that led to the revocation.

In a response to that suit, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra argued on behalf of the BCC that none of the companies operating on provisional licenses have any right to due process because those same permits were designed to be temporary while businesses awaited a decision about their annual license applications.....

----------------------
Apparently, 'Merica, (Heck, California!) still allows due process. Probably cost a pretty penny though.

California judge rules shuttered marijuana testing lab can reopen
...
Roesch set a hearing for March 25 so the two sides may further argue whether the state has a right to a preliminary injunction against the lab.

That hearing sets the stage for a larger legal question as to whether marijuana companies operating on provisional licenses have a right to due process, said attorney James Anthony, who represents Harrens Lab.

“The lab’s position is that the (83% of the) provisional licensees that form the bulk of the multi-billion dollar California cannabis industry have a constitutionally protected property interest in their licenses. And that therefore the government cannot shut them down without due process of law,” Anthony wrote in an email to Marijuana Business Daily.

“Judge Roesch remarked that it will be an ‘interesting case,'” Anthony wrote, adding that a final ruling in the case might take months if Harrens prevails at the March 25 hearing.

In a response to the lawsuit, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra argued this week that the 8,280 provisional licenses held by marijuana companies have no right to due process under current state law because those permits are designed to be temporary and, thus, those businesses don’t enjoy the same legal standing and rights as full annual licensees...
 
Last edited:

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
CHP report by the "Impaired Driving Task Force".


Lots of recommendations in multiple areas. The law enforcement recommendations:
1. The Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training should consider a requirement that Standardized Field Sobriety Test training (24 hours) be taught in all law enforcement academies in California. 2. All law enforcement personnel assigned to traffic enforcement responsibilities shall receive Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement training within one year of being assigned, and bi-annual continuing education related to impaired driving. Page | 14 3. The CHP should make all efforts to increase the number of Drug Recognition Evaluator (DRE) trained officers statewide by four percent over the next five years. As the statewide Drug Evaluation Classification Program coordinator, the CHP will be responsible for reporting the total numbers of personnel trained each year. 4. Law enforcement shall use Mobile Video/Audio Recording Systems (in-car cameras) and/or body worn cameras to record/capture impaired driving incidents and investigations, whenever available. 5. If utilized, law enforcement should use the best available, scientifically validated, roadside presumptive drug testing technology for possible drug-impaired driving investigations. 6. Further studies should be conducted to determine if oral fluid is a suitable medium for collection of a chemical test sample pursuant to CVC Section 23612.
 
Tranquility,
Top Bottom