Cal NORML’s Post-64 Reform Agenda

See Cal NORML's analysis of Prop. 64.

The following suggested legislative fixes to Proposition 64 were discussed and agreed upon at Cal NORML’s membership meeting on September 8.

(1) Expand areas where marijuana can be used for medical and adult use, particularly when vaporized.

(2) Protect cannabis users from discrimination in employment, housing, parental and medical rights.

(3) Forbid local bans on deliveries of cannabis from licensed providers to qualified individuals.

(4) Increase tax breaks for qualified medical marijuana patients.

(5) Encourage and protect licensing of small businesses, nonprofits and agricultural cooperatives with financial and regulatory incentives, and discourage monopolization and ownership concentration by large-scale corporate and big-money interests.

(6) Ban local taxes on donations of medical marijuana.

(7) Require the collection of demographic data on applicants and licensees.

(8) Protect the confidentiality of license applications in order to protect privacy and public safety.

(9) Remove cannabis from the state list of controlled substances.

(10) Decriminalize possession of more than one ounce of marijuana.

Versions of this proposal have been endorsed by the San Francisco and Alameda County Democratic Central Committees, the Oakland Cannabis Commission, and the Peace and Freedom Party.


When?

When will revisions be proposed?

When would they take place if approved?

next year

We're talking with legislators now, we hope they will be introduced next year and would probably take effect January 1, 2018.

Pharaphanelia

What about marijuana pharaphenelia sale and possession? The ca normal page shows it is illegal to sell mj paraphanelia and that police can take away mj paraphanelia.

Paraphernalia are legal

Paraphernalia are legal.

Hmm

Again, the state law page on norml.com says it is a mistermeanoer to sell parapanelia and to possess with intent. Hmm. Which is correct... I suggest CA Normal review that page and help out thier parent org with accurate info.

clarification

Thanks for clarifying that it isn't the Ca NORML page, but rather NORML.org, where the discrepancy lies. We will investigate and suggest changes as needed.

Prop 64 and distributor requirement.

How does Prop 64 affect the requirement under the MMRSA for all producer-to-retailer sales to pass through the hands of a licensed distributor?

Distributor requirement

Prop. 64 doesn't affect medical law, only recreational. It doesn't have a distributor requirement. We expect legislation on this topic to be introduced next year.

Hashish

Possession of more than 4 - 8 grams of concentrates should also be decriminalized.

a suggestion

One thing also if Cal norml could try to do is push for a raised growing limit. The largest complaint I hear from some cannabis users is that 6 plants is a small amount. I would recommend a cap of 20 or so flowering plants outside, and for that matter, legal to grow outside throughout the state. If we could get these and the previously stated objectives post prop 64, it would go a long way in assuaging some growers and users that we could obtain a better form of legalization. prop 64 is not ideal but it is a start.

Raising plant limit

We hear you! Remember that you still will be able to grow what's medically needed if you have a doctor's recommendation should Prop. 64 pass, provided your local zoning regulations allow it. We do need to work towards more acceptance at the local and state levels for personal and caregiver medical gardens.

i wish they did this before the election.

this sounds good. why did this not get taken care of before the vote.? we have trust issues with California governme3nt and with VALID reasons. please respond.

why now?

Cal NORML didn't write Prop. 64; we made suggestions to the authors but not all were adopted. The good news is AUMA allows the legislature to make fixes, some portions of it by 2/3 vote and other parts by a simple majority.

Protect Proposittion 215

We also need to remove the language allowing the State the authority to modify Prop 215. By modify they can eliminate Prop 215 all together. I know this has been brought to CAnormls attention so I find it suspect that it was not added to the list. It the funding delivery needs to be completely revised to go to the CA general fund. Creating grants is just a way to funnel the money back into the local police force for unneccessary erradication efforts.

215 language

There is no language in Prop. 64 allowing Prop. 215 to be altered. Rather, throughout it says:

• Nothing in this section shall be construed or interpreted to amend, repeal, affect, restrict, or preempt laws pertaining to the Compassionate Use Act of1996 [Prop. 215]

or:

• The tax imposed by this section shall be imposed on all marijuana cultivated in the state pursuant to rules and regulations promulgated by the board, but shall not apply to marijuanacultivated for personal use under Section 11362.1 of the Health and Safety Code or cultivated by a qualified patient or primary caregiver in accordance with the Compassionate Use Act.

Read it yourself at: https://www.oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0103%20%28Mariju...?

No... MMRSA overrides prop

No... MMRSA overrides prop 215; in collusion with AUMA.

Or are people like Dennis Peron and Letitia pepper lying to us?

Hmmmm. Trust the author of prop 215; or greedy billionaire elitists.

No on AUMA.

#2 is correct

Your second choice is correct - they're lying, or deliberately misleading us.

MCRSA does not "override prop 215" because there's nothing in Prop. 215 for MCRSA to override. Prop. 215 merely provides an affirmative defense for medical need for use & cultivation for personal use of cannabis. MCRSA does supersede SB 420, the previous legislation that provided for a legal market for medical cannabis; and AUMA was crafted to align with MCRSA. AUMA explicitly reinforces Prop. 215 and exempts medical patients from the state sales tax (though unfortunately not the excise or cultivation tax) and from possession and grow limits.

All of this and more are explained here:
http://theleafonline.com/c/politics/2016/08/prop-215-rights-not-affected...