As California cannabis businesses are being targeted for violent robberies across the state, the CA Bureau of Cannabis Control is asking for an 87-member police force to beef up its crackdown on unlicensed cannabis operations. It would create the law enforcement branch by hiring 29 more cannabis cops, and absorbing 58 positions from the Department of Consumer Affairs’ Cannabis Enforcement Unit, which has 47 police and 11 non-sworn personnel on staff.

According to The Sacramento Bee, the bureau seized nearly 24 tons of illicit cannabis in 2019, while the California Highway Patrol in 2018 seized more than 80 tons. California’s illicit market made an estimated $8.3 billion in sales in 2019, compared to the $3.1 billion the legal market, according to projections from BDS Analytics and Arcview Market Research.

Quoted in the SacBee story is George Tiongson of the California Association of Criminal Investigators, an affiliate of the union that represents the bureau’s employees who “are often behind enemy lines gathering necessary intelligence to thwart illegality” for crimes like human trafficking. CACI is part of the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association (CSLEA), which, along with various local and state agencies, has been involved in raids of several large marijuana grows across the state. CSLEA is part of PORAC, the Peace Officers Research Association of California, which represents over 930 associations, and is a heavy lobbying presence in the state.

The Governor deployed the National Guard against marijuana grows last year, and the Attorney General’s office reported that the Campaign Against Marijuana Planting (CAMP) eradicated 953,459 marijuana plants from 345 raided grow sites across the state in 2019, an increase from 2018’s reported take of some 600K plants, but not as many as 2017’s reported take of 1,260,000 plants, or 2016’s over 1.5 million claim. The DEA claims it eradicated over 3 million plants from California in 2019.

“We wish the state would do more to support legal cannabis operations, first by finding and arresting the criminal gangs that are robbing them, and next by reducing taxes and regulatory burdens and lowering barriers to licensing, rather than focusing on endless punitive measures that have never proved successful,” said Cal NORML deputy director Ellen Komp.

DEA Given More Powers Over Protesters
As first reported by Buzzfeed News, the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is expanding its law enforcement powers so that it can better assist “to the maximum extent possible in the federal law enforcement response” to the wave of ongoing, nationwide protests currently taking place. Also called in were the National Guard, Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Bureau of Prisons; active duty military were put on standby.

The DEA is not asserting its existing authority to arrest those participating in peaceful protests who may be in violation of federal drug laws. Rather, it is exerting newly expanded police powers to take action against those for whom it perceives to have engaged in the violation of any federal law.

“Given the DEA’s long track record as an overzealous, ideologically driven agency, this rapid expansion of its policing authority should be discomforting to us all,” wrote NORML Political Director Justin Strekal. “The DEA has long misused its drug enforcement powers, and especially its powers to enforce federal marijuana prohibition, to target dissident groups and populations of color.”

NORML wishes to remind those who are engaging in these peaceful protests that despite changes in the legal status of cannabis in the majority of US jurisdictions, marijuana possession and use remains a violation of federal law. Because we know that the DEA is playing a more prominent role in surveilling these activities and taking law enforcement actions, NORML reminds anyone participating in these events to refrain from the possession or use of cannabis while doing so.

Congressional Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA), among others, sent a letter to Attorney General William Barr telling him that the temporary expansion of DEA power is unwarranted and their “narcotics interdiction tactics” are inappropriate to deal with protestors.

Meanwhile, the district attorneys of San Francisco, Contra Costa and San Joaquin counties, along with former SF DA George Gascon (a candidate for LA DA), have sent a letter to the State Bar Assn. asking them to prohibit District Attorneys from accepting donations from police unions, citing the possible conflict of interest this poses “in the wake of mass protests following the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officers.” And Los Angeles is looking at cutting $150M from its police budget to invest in communities “left behind.”

Racism Persists in the War on Marijuana
A recent report from the ACLU shows that racial disparities in marijuana possession arrests continue in California and across the nation. Another recent study found people of color are still disproportionately targeted for traffic stops. 

California Senator Kamala Harris noted at a Judiciary Committee hearing on Prison Safety and the Coronavirus this week that 70% of those in US prisons are black and brown people, and while Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen qualified for home detention due to COVID concerns, 62-year-old Fidel Torres died of COVID-19 in a federal prison while serving the final two years of his 20-year sentence for a marijuana offense.

Cal NORML wrote to the committee and testified against the bill, and promulgated an Action Alert that generated hundreds of letters to lawmakers in opposition. Thanks to all of our members and supporters who took action!

In introducing the bill, Asm. Cooley noted that he has been involved in both cannabis and local control issues for many years, citing his success as mayor of Rancho Cordova in enacting a local tax on cannabis businesses (however, that tax is overly high and was objected to by Cal NORML). Several times he referred to locals getting past a “parade of horribles” and tried to argue that passing the bill would somehow encourage locals to license cannabis businesses. He conceded that Prop. 64 allowed locals to ban adult-use cannabis businesses, not medical ones.

Unsurprisingly, the League of Cities, Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC), and California Association of Counties (CSAC) expressed support for the bill, as did the City of Santa Monica.

Amy Jenkins of the California Cannabis Industry Association testified that the CCIA must “sadly and regrettably” oppose. She gave statistics on the abysmal failure of local jurisdictions to license an adequate number of cannabis retail outlets as the reason that delivery access must be permitted.

Ellen Komp of Cal NORML and Sabrina Fendrick of Berkeley Patients’ Group challenged Asm. Cooley’s assertion that patients who required access would be able to grow their own, citing restrictive local cultivation ordinances, the lack of renters’ rights, and the inability for disabled patients to grow their own.

Also opposing the bill were representatives from Epilepsy CA, the CA Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Weedmaps, and the city of St. Helena, as well as a score of veterans.

After the public testimony, Asm. Grayson (D-Concord) spoke first, saying that while he is in favor of local control, he wouldn’t be able to support the bill because delivery is necessary for those who need cannabis. “No doubt that my mother would be alive today had she had access,” he said. “I thought delivery allowed people to have access when locals banned storefronts.”

Asm. Eggman (D-Stockton) then spoke up, saying, “I don’t think you can take something away from people after you have provided access.” Noting she is also a veteran, she mentioned the opioid crisis as a consideration.

Asm. McCarty (D-Sacramento) then chimed in saying he could not vote for the bill, noting that while Sacramento was “killing it” bringing in tax revenue from licensed dispensaries, people were driving as much as 100 miles to those dispensaries, and many don’t have access to transportation. “By having more jurisdictions shut it down, it just means fewer tax dollars coming into California and perpetuates the illegal market,” he said.

Committee chairman Evan Low (D-San Jose) announced that he would be voting in favor of the bill in order to keep the conversation going, but said he would vote against it in future if it was not amended.

The vote fell on bipartisan lines, with Republicans Bill Brough (Dana Point), Vince Fong (Bakersfield), and Jay Obernolte (Hesperia), and Democrats Jacqui Irwin (Oxnard), Jose Medina (Riverside) and Kevin Mullin (San Mateo) joining Low in voting Aye.

Voting No were Assemblymembers Bloom, Chen, Cunningham, Eggman, Gloria, McCarty, and Ting; Chiu, Dahle, Gipson, Grayson, Holden and Wood abstained. The final tally was 7 in favor and 7 against, with 6 members not voting.

In the meantime, 24 cities and the county of Santa Cruz have filed suit against the Bureau of Cannabis Control over its regulation allowing state-licensed delivery services to deliver cannabis statewide. Cal NORML has begun an online survey to access the need for delivery services across California. Take the survey.

It’s a new day, but there is still much work to be done!  Here are some of the areas where Cal NORML continues to be active for your rights.

– We still don’t have our full human rights: currently, you can lose your job in California for using cannabis, even for medical use. We are working to change that. 

– Dozens of laws are being introduced in Sacramento yearly to address various aspects of the regulated system. Cal NORML watchdogs these proposed laws and submits testimony in favor, or in opposition, while activating our members to reach out to their elected officials. We hold an annual Lobby Day to gather activists in Sacramento, arranging meetings with their legislators’ offices and giving our members a voice in their government.

– Currently, most cities and counties in the state have not licensed cannabis businesses, despite widespread support among voters for legalization. Cal NORML and local NORML chapters throughout the state are working towards opening up cannabis retailers and consumption rooms, by countering misinformation about public safety concerns and assisting with the writing and implementation of local ordinances.

– Federal law remain an impedance on issues like banking, research, and other rights. We work closely with our national NORML office on these issues and attend the national Lobby Day, scheduled in 2019 for September 8-10.

Read more about Cal NORML’s 2018 Accomplishments and Plans for 2019.

Join Cal NORML and help us win your full rights! Members receive our quarterly newsletter and discounts on events.

The Mountain View planning commission had voted to amend the ordinance to only allow one cannabis business in the city’s downtown area, prohibit the businesses in and around the San Antonio Center shopping area and mandate a 600-foot buffer zone between storefront cannabis businesses. Source. 

March 6, 2019 – At a six-hour hearing held on March 5 in Mountain View, the city council voted against banning cannabis dispensaries in the city, and directed staff to bring back potential amendments to their ordinance allowing for four cannabis businesses that has already seen 10 Phase 1 applicants for licenses.

The council voted to delay the lottery scheduled for March 27 to determine which applicants could enter the next application phase. The City Attorney will prepare an Urgency Ordinance, requiring six votes, to suspend the application process. In the meantime the existing ordinance is in place.

The epic meeting came after newly elected councilwoman Ellen Kamei agendized an urgency measure to repeal the existing ordinance. That measure wasn’t brought to a vote; instead several amendments will be voted on at a future meeting, possibly on March 19 (unless they go to the Planning Commission first).

Staffer Clarissa Burke reminded council members that 68% of Mountain View voters had approved Prop. 64, and that the council had held 8 public meetings / study session plus conducted a survey that found 1/3 of respondents wanted no limits on the number of cannabis businesses in Mountain View, 1/3 wanted some limits, and 1/3 did not want canna businesses. The council subsequently approved their ordinance allowing for four cannabis retailers in October 2018 by a 5-2 vote.

The November 2018 election that saw 81% of Mountain View voters approving a tax on cannabis businesses also saw a shakeup of the council, and a new mayor is in town.

Vice Mayor Abekoga asked City Attorney Jannie Quinn about the legal ramifications of making changes to the ordinance. Quinn replied that since the city has not yet issued business permits, the legal concept of “vested rights” is not in play.

The room and hallways were packed with both supporters and opponents, and all were asked to indicate if they lived in Mountain View when they took the mike for their two-minute comments. Those in opposition argued that the majority vote in Mountain View did not mean that people wanted cannabis stores in their neighborhoods. However, the survey said otherwise. One opposition speaker said, “Data always lie. Follow your heart.” He accused those giving facts as having a vested interest.

Bruce Humphrey, President and CEO of the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce, spoke on behalf of a member he said had made a substantial investment in opening a business. “It’s a matter of trust between government and business,” he said. “Please keep fairness in mind.”

Jim Araby of United Food and Commercial Workers also spoke in support of the existing ordinance, which he said would bring “good jobs and careers in an industry that in 10 years will be a multimillion dollar industry.” This comment drew some scoffs from the opposition, which argued again and again that the money brought into the city wasn’t worth the harm to public safety and children they feared dispensaries would bring.

Both sides pointed to the fact that delivery services located in neighboring cities were making cannabis available in Mountain View. That may not be the case if a bill pending in the state legislature allows locals to ban deliveries made by state-licensed businesses situated outside their borders (though Mountain View would be hard pressed to pass an ordinance to ban such a thing after what was said at the meeting). Many in opposition said they were in favor of medical marijuana, but not recreational, and argued that those with medical need could get their cannabis somewhere besides Mountain View.

Several Mountain View residents spoke out in support of the existing ordinance, asking city council to respect their vote and pointing out the benefits of regulation in keeping untested cannabis away from children and others.

Ellen Komp from California NORML brought summaries of studies showing that crime, traffic incidents, and youth use have not increased following medical or recreational legalization. She pointed out that results of the Biennial State California Healthy Kids Survey are consistent with data from other states that have legalized marijuana, where students have also reported declining or flat cannabis use rates following the end of prohibition for adults. Lifetime marijuana use declined of 4 points in 7th grade and 6 points in both 9th and 11th grades, the survey’s authors found. (See Cal NORML’s letter to the Mountain View council.)

Jackie McGowan of K Street consulting said that the eyes of the statewide cannabis industry were on Mountain View. She questioned the tactics of opposition that had derailed licensing efforts in Milpitas. Sean Kali-rai of the Silicon Valley Cannabis Alliance pointed out that the number of dispensaries proposed in Mountain View was far less per capita that those existing in San Jose.

Former Mountain View mayor Manny Siegel summed it up well when he said, “We’ve heard a lot of things about marijuana. I know a lot of people who live in Mountain View who use marijuana they are productive and moral members of our community. No one is convincing you to use marijuana.” He pointed out that the topic of marijuana was never brought up in candidate forums. Saying he had no personal agenda, he pledged to take the matter back tot he voters should the council reverse course.

That might have to be the solution, since Measure Q did not specifically address dispensaries. Meanwhile, the small operator is being bled nearly to death by lack of regulatory and market stability, and 2/3 or more of cities and counties haven’t figured out if and how to regulate. A delay for the 10 applicants could be another nail in the coffin of the California cottage cannabis industry that has raised so many boats, now facing overregulation and corporatization.

At 9:30 PM, four hours after the public comment began, there were 58 who spoke in favor of the ordinance and 57 who spoke against it. It was hard not to notice that almost all of those in opposition were older people of Chinese decent, although a few younger Asians spoke in favor. One said he had been taught that cannabis was just like cocaine or heroin, but he had come to learn that it had benefits.

At the end of the public testimony, Councilwoman Kamei said she is in favor of marijuana decriminalization and only agendized the issue because of new information that had come in: that there would be a new school in the San Antonio district, and that the 10 applicants were clustered in the downtown area.

Mayor Lisa Matichak said she had been listening to residents on the issue, and had concerns about the survey taken, which included people who only worked in Mountain View. She opined that those who voted in favor of the tax on the November ballot may have wanted to drive businesses out by taxing them. However, the 9% tax in Measure Q is in line with other cities in the Bay Area.

Matichak said she was in favor of zero dispensaries; however a motion to ban failed to carry the council, gaining only her vote and Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga. Several other votes carried to direct staff to bring back language limiting the number of dispensaries to one in the downtown area; establishing a buffer of one-half mile between dispensaries; and changing the buffer zones from sensitive uses to the San Jose model using 1000 feet instead of 600 from schools, and adding other sensitive areas like drug rehab facilities. Staff said that model could make citing nearly impossible in Mountain View; they were asked to bring back maps to demonstrate.

With Councilmember Ramirez recused, the Council voted 6 to 0 to ban cannabis businesses from the San Antonio area (None have been proposed there). And council voted unanimously for Councilmember Kamei’s proposal to require a report-back on program progress one year after each business receives a police permit.

Vice Mayor Abe-Koga took offense to someone saying that Asians are against cannabis because of the Opium Wars. She admitted she didn’t know what the Opium Wars were, saying she had to ask her daughter, who was studying it in history. (In the Opium Wars, the British forced opium upon the Chinese in order to restore their balance of trade over tea. The result was an addicted population.) She also took offense to a former councilperson saying he thought much of the opposition didn’t necessarily live in Mountain View. She pointed out that speakers had identified that they lived in the city and opined that this charge wouldn’t have been made against whites.

The hearing was strikingly similar to those held in San Francisco, Contra Costa County, and Milpitas where large numbers of Asians turned out holding signs and opposing cannabis, some of them apparently bussed in and given meals in exchange for testifying (in SF; in Contra Costa it was residents who spoke and it seems it was the same in Mountain View). In San Francisco, the Pacific Justice Institute took credit for fighting off dispensaries in predominately Asian districts of the city here and here. The Southern Poverty Law Center identified PJI as an anti-LGBT hate group in 2014.

Last week, Frank Lee, who has been a spokesperson for PJI, held a dubious press conference in Mountain View along with Lynn Fox, a former Special Education professor with no particular expertise in drugs, and Chad Norris of the CNOA (California Narcotics Officers Assn, a group that profits from the drug war), all making specious claims about marijuana and legalization. (The only outlet that seemed to cover it was The Epoch Times.)

A Silicon Valley NORML organizing meeting will be held soon; those interested in attending can write here.

Teaming with the nonprofit technology company Code for America, the DA’s office said it has identified 9,362 eligible cases dating back to 1975 using the company’s “Clear My Record” technology. Gascón will present the cases to a judge in the coming weeks for final approval.

“It was the morally right thing to do,” said Gascón. “If you have a felony conviction, you are automatically excluded in so many ways from participating in your community.” Convicted felons face barriers to education, housing and employment, and may even be barred from a child’s school field trip because of a conviction.

Prop. 64, which voters passed in November 2016, legalized recreational marijuana in California for adults. The law allows people to petition to have misdemeanor convictions expunged, as well as allowing for certain felony marijuana convictions to be reclassified as misdemeanors. Those with prior violent felonies and registered sex offenders are not eligible to have their felonies reclassified.

Before Gascón announced plans to wipe out eligible marijuana cases, only 23 people had come forward to petition to have their cases reclassified or expunged. People with prior convictions usually needed to hire an attorney, and the process was complicated and time consuming, Gascón said.

Though San Francisco is about 5% black, that community saw a third of all marijuana-related convictions. Latinos make up about 15% of the city, but 27% of marijuana convictions, Gascón’s office said. The Los Angeles County district attorney’s office estimates there have been 40,000 felony convictions involving pot-related offenses since 1993, but prosecutors have not said how many of those could be eligible for being expunged.

San Francisco was the first jurisdiction in the country to announce it would clear old marijuana convictions, prompting other district attorneys across the state and country to begin similar work. “I hope that our success with Code for America can act as a catalyst for other leaders looking to engage in similar innovative and out-of-the-box methods to reform and rethink what our criminal justice system looks like,” said Gascón.

“We applaud DA Gascón’s proactive and innovative action to expunge past marijuana convictions in California, and look forward to the statewide enactment of Asm. Bonta’s AB 1793, which was signed into law last year to automatically expunge or resentence such convictions statewide,” said Ellen Komp, Deputy Director of Cal NORML.

February 20 – Governor Gavin Newsom plans to reassign 360 of the state’s California National Guard from the US-Mexico border to tackle wildfire preparedness and illicit marijuana grows in Northern California. In a February 11 press release and his State of the State speech on February 12, the governor announced that at least 150 California National Guard troops will join a federally funded Counterdrug Task Force he said he will be “redeploying up north to go after all these illegal cannabis farms, many of which are run by the cartels that are devastating our pristine forests and increasingly themselves becoming fire hazards.”

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

However, Humboldt County sheriff William Honsal told NBC news, “We’re seeing a reduced amount of trespass grows on public land in the last few years. We’ve had to actually turn away help because we don’t see the trespass grows the way we used to.” The sheriff said cartels are “pulling out” of the business to focus on methamphetamine and heroin trafficking. On the day before Newsom’s announcement, the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office announced its largest one-time seizure of heroin its history—12 pounds found during a traffic stop. Honsal said the suspects were Mexican nationals with cartel ties.

Honsel told the Eureka Times-Standard that, while he welcomes more resources sent to rural areas of California, Humboldt County “only identified a handful of trespass grows last year. We believe this is due to our enforcement efforts and the significant increase in marijuana supply and the rock bottom price (marijuana) is getting on the black market.”

Honsel credited the CAMP program in bringing down the trespass grow problem. CAMP (Campaign Against Marijuana Planting) eradicated over 600,000 marijuana plants in California last year, only half of the plants taken in 2017. The program peaked in 2009 when nearly 4.5 million plants were reportedly taken.

The federal Domestic Cannabis Eradication program claims to have removed 2.5 million marijuana plants in California in 2017, down from 3.8 million in 2016. That program also hit a peak in 2009 when 7.5 million plants were reportedly taken.

Cal NORML joined the Civil Liberties Monitoring Project of Humboldt county in suing over CAMP’s tactics in the 1990s, pushing the program towards public lands. Read more on CAMP.

“Ultimately, the only thing that will stop large-scale profiteers and the environmental and public safety harms they cause is marijuana legalization at the federal level,” said Cal NORML director Dale Gieringer. Cal NORML would like to see lower barriers to entry for farmers seeking licensing under the state’s new regulatory system, as well as lower taxes on the regulated market in California.

Also see: ONDCP ADMITS GROWING BY MEXICAN “CARTELS” IN CALIFORNIA A MYTH

CA’s use of National Guard to target illegal marijuana grows fuels questions, concerns over potential MJ industry fallout

Interviewed on The Breakfast Club radio show in NYC, Harris called for more research into marijuana’s effect on developing brains, and into measuring impairment of drivers using cannabis.

Harris said she smoked joints (not blunts) when she was in college, while listening to music by marijuana-lover Snoop Dogg and Tupac Shakur. (Except that those two didn’t start recording until after she graduated from law school. It was unclear which question she was answering.) “Do you remember the high?” she was asked. “I do,” she replied. Asked if she might start smoking again, she said, “I think it gives a lot of people joy, and we need more joy in the world.”

HOW HARRIS HAS EVOLVED ON CANNABIS

Harris claimed she always supported medical marijuana, although while she was sitting AG she said nothing when the Federal government moved to shut down state-legal medical marijuana shops, including well-respected shops in her own home city of San Francisco where she had been District Attorney.

As DA of San Francisco, Harris opposed Prop. 19 to legalize recreational marijuana in California in 2010. “Spending two decades in court rooms, Harris believes that drug selling harms communities,” said Harris’ campaign manager Brian Brokaw at the time. “Harris supports the legal use of medicinal marijuana but does not support anything beyond that.”

In 2014 while running for re-election as AG, she laughed it off when it was pointed out that her Republican opponent was in favor of full adult-use legalization. “Marijuana can cause the giggles,” jokes Cal NORML director Dale Gieringer.

When the ultimately successful Prop. 64 was on the ballot to legalize adult-use marijuana in California in 2016, Harris declined to comment on any ballot measures, saying as acting AG her office was responsible for writing official titles and summaries of initiatives.

LOOKING TO THE FUTURE

“We’re happy California’s Senator Harris has evolved on the marijuana legalization issue and hope to dialog with her and all candidates as the Presidential campaign moves forward,” said Cal NORML deputy director Ellen Komp. A recent poll showed that 54% of Californians are happy with legalization, and national polls are showing strong support for legalization everywhere.

“Calling for more research is a bit of a dodge,” Komp added. “There have been tens of thousands of studies on marijuana’s effects, going back to the 1970s and even earlier.”

Cal NORML sits on a California Highway Patrol task force that is looking at ways to measure driving impairment from cannabis use, and UCSD is completing a state-funded study this year comparing oral swab tests with a tablet-based computerized test for impairment on the roadway. More on cannabis and driving.

Harris is one of several presidential candidates who favor marijuana law reform, some of whom have advanced bills to legalize it at the federal level, such as Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Tulsi Gabbard. The newly-declared candidate Amy Klobuchar says she has opposed federal moves to dismantle Obama-era protections for state-legal marijuana businesses. As for Joe Biden, he owes us an apology for his past.

Proposition 215, passed by the voters of California in 1996 and still in effect today, protects only the personal use and cultivation of medical marijuana for patients, or their primary caregivers who cultivate for them. Recognizing the need for systems of distribution, the California legislature passed SB420 in 2004, allowing patients to form nonprofit medical cannabis collectives or cooperatives, under which cultivation and distribution were protected under state law. Hundreds of medical cannabis dispensaries and gardens were established under the legal protection of SB 420.

Newer legislation, three bills collectively called the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act, were enacted together in 2015. These established a Bureau to regulate cannabis commerce, requiring new state and local licenses for all commercial operations. The law grandfathered in locally licensed SB420 collectives until one year after the Bureau posted a notice on its website that licenses have commenced being issued. Proposition 64 (AUMA), and the subsequent legislation MAUCRSA, blending both medical and recreational cannabis laws, upheld this requirement.

The Bureau of Cannabis Control published its licensing notice on 1/9/2018, meaning H&SC 11362.775 protecting collective operations is repealed on January 9, 2019. By that date all cannabis collectives must be licensed under the new state laws, except for individual patient and caregiver gardens serving no more than five patients. The caregiver for these gardens cannot receive remuneration other than for actual expenses. (B&P section 26033(b), H&S Code section 11362.765(c).)

The state Health and Safety Code limits the amount of cannabis a patient or caregiver can possess or grow; however these limits were thrown out in the Kelly decision, in which the California Supreme Court ruled that a patient or caregiver may possess or grow an amount reasonably related to their medical needs.

Many cities and counties limit how much and where medical gardens can be grown, and the courts have upheld their right to ban medical marijuana gardens under local ordinances, despite state law. Locals must permit six plants per residence under AUMA, but may “reasonably regulate” how those plants are grown, including forcing them indoors.

Under Prop. 64, the BCC was required to issue a report on nonprofit collectives by January 1, 2018. However subsequent legislation pushed that date back to 1/1/2020, leaving nonprofit operations that supply cannabis to low-income patients and all collectives in limbo throughout 2019.

A newly added code section, Chapter 22, Division 10 of the Business and Professions Code,allows farmers to join together under Cooperative Cannabis Associations that may distribute to their members. CCA’s are incorporated with the Secretary of State and are unrelated to the H&SC “collective” model, but rather based on the agricultural cooperative model. CCA’s require a minimum of three founders who each hold a single Type 1 or Type 2 cultivator license from CDFA. The maximum cumulative growing area for all members is 4 acres, and no member can be licensed to operate a cannabis business in another state or county.

It is imperative that anyone cultivating, manufacturing or distributing cannabis on a commercial basis in California seeks a local and state license for their operations immediately, if they have not already done so. Both civil and criminal penalties will apply to unlicensed operators. Contact a Cal NORML legal committee attorney for more information about becoming licensed.