Yes, marijuana is a plant you grow from the ground. No, it’s not an agricultural crop. Confused yet?
In what is believed to be the first ruling of its kind in the state, a judge in California has ruled that a marijuana collective can’t operate on land zoned for agriculture, reports Lewis Griswold of the Fresno Bee.
In his ruling last week, Tulare County Superior Court Judge Paul Vortmann dismissed a property owner’s argument that a medical marijuana collective’s cultivation of marijuana is legal because it is in an agricultural zone.
“In this state, marijuana has never been classified as a crop or horticultural product,” Judge Vortmann wrote in his ruling. Marijuana is a controlled substance, the judge said.
“The court finds as a matter of law that growing marijuana … is not an agricultural use of property,” the judge wrote.
It’s the first time a court has addressed whether medical marijuana might be an agricultural crop, according to Tulare County Counsel Kathleen Bales-Lange, whose office sued a property owner and collective on behalf of the Board of Supervisors.
Marijuana plants are “agricultural in nature” because they grow like any other crop, according to lawyer Brandon Ormonde of Tulare, who represented the property owner. He acknowledged that medical marijuana has never been legally acknowledged as an “agricultural plant.”
“If it’s not a crop, I don’t know what it is,” said Dale Gieringer, director of California NORML, reports the Associated Press.
The case involved the Foothill Growers Association medical marijuana collective, which rented a building south of Ivanhoe in an agricultural zone. The collective grew plants inside the building and operated a dispensary.
Tulare County sued the collective and the property owner last year, arguing that marijuana dispensaries are only allowed in specified commercial and manufacturing zones.
The group has until Friday to stop using the building. Hanford attorney Bill Romaine, who represents Foothill Growers Association, said on Thursday that he believed the cooperative had negotiated a new site to use in unincorporated Tulare County, reports David Castellon at the Visalia Times-Delta.
Five years ago, an estimate that marijuana was the top cash crop in the United States at $35.8 billion a year made headlines nationwide. The crop’s value is more than corn and wheat combined, according to legalization advocate Jon Gettman, who prepared the 2006 report.
But never mind all that. Marijuana is not recognized by the California Department of Food and Agriculture as an “agricultural commodity.” (Maybe it’s time they catch up to reality.)
No agricultural commissioner in the state — not even in Mendocino and Humboldt counties — lists cannabis in is annual crop reports.
“We don’t regulate or track marijuana at all and regard that as a law enforcement issue,” said Steve Lyle, speaking for the state agriculture agency.
That could all change, though, under a proposed ballot initiative that plans a farming future for marijuana. Among other things, it proposes to apply “existing agricultural taxes and regulations to marijuana” and would prohibit zoning restrictions on cannabis cultivation.
It was recently approved by the Secretary of State’s office for signature gathering in an attempt to get it on the 2012 ballot.
Article From Toke of the Town and republished with special permission.
This is the language from the Regulate Marijuana Like Wine webpage:
Section 1. Findings, Declarations, Purpose, Directives, and Orders
Section 11362.95 is added to the Health and Safety Code:
11362.95. This section shall be known as and may be cited as the “Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Act of 2012,” known hereinafter as the “Act.”
(a) The People of the State of California find and declare all of the following:
(1) Outlawing marijuana has not reduced its availability and has resulted in making it easier for minors to acquire. Adults 21 years and older are responsible to use and cultivate marijuana, and should not be subject to sanctions or criminal penalties.
(2) Marijuana is an untapped revenue source for the State of California, and that the best way to tap into that source for the benefit of all Californians is to tax and regulate it.
(3) The regulation of marijuana will benefit the People of the State of California by reducing criminal gang and cartel activity, promoting agriculture, creating jobs by creating a new hemp industry in the State of California, and reducing the fiscal and overpopulation burdens on courts, jails, and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
(b) This Act does the following:
(1) Amends California Health and Safety Code sections 11357, 11358, 11359, 11360, 11366, 11366.5, 11469, et seq., 11485, Vehicle Code section 23222(b), and all other statutes that restrict or prohibit persons 21 years and older and/or qualifying business entities, from all activities approved herein; such that persons 21 years or older, and approved business entities, shall no longer be prohibited from the use, possession, trade, packaging, gifting, sales, distribution, storage, transportation, production, or cultivation of marijuana. All said statutes state, Òexcept as authorized by law,Ó and this section, notwithstanding any contrary statute or provision, provides exceptions.
(2) Marijuana, THC, and CBD explicitly and/or by inference, are removed from Health and Safety Code section 11054.
(3) This act does not control, repeal, modify, or change statutes pertaining to:
(A) Operating a motor vehicle;
(B) Using marijuana or being impaired in the workplace or public nonsmoking areas;
(C) Providing, transferring, use, possession, cultivation, processing, sales, distribution, transporting, or storing on premises of marijuana to or by persons under 21 years of age;
(D) Medical marijuana statutes as set forth in Proposition 215 (H&S11362.5) and its progeny.
(4) Amends statutes that criminalize the use, possession, cultivation, processing, transportation, storage, distribution, gifting and/or selling of marijuana in any form, or method of ingestion by persons 21 years of age or older. Legalizes all such for-profit or non-profit activities by these persons, groups, and approved business entities, and does not subject these persons/entities to search, arrest, prosecution, seizure, asset forfeiture, and/or any criminal or civil penalty or sanction. Adds to each statute referenced above in Health and Safety Code Section 11362.95 (b) (1) (in this Section 1): ÒThis statute and its provisions do not apply to any person 21 years or older, or to qualifying business entities and approved activities in Section 11395.Ó
(5) Qualifying or approved business entities include those operated by individuals 21 years and older, any recognized business entity, farm, processor, packager, broker, wholesaler, distributor, retailer, winery, or on-sale and off-sale wine and beer business. To the extent of appropriate jurisdiction, these commercial enterprises or businesses shall be regulated by, and fees paid to, the state Alcohol Beverage Control or Agricultural Commissioner, just as with farming businesses, and alcohol licenses and sales. However, no such agency or employee shall act to delay, defeat, or limit the number of commercial cultivation licenses, nor charge higher fees than in the alcohol or winery industries, for any activity or provision granted herein. Unless by regulating local alcohol sales, local zoning to regulate, limit, or defeat any activity approved herein, shall not be considered by these agencies and shall have no effect on this industry. The Agricultural Commissioner shall be responsible for true weights and measures.
(6) The adult activities for this class enumerated herein have no victim(s) and are not subject to sanctions nor punishment.
(7) All pending court actions under said amended statutes that conflict with the provisions of this Act shall be dismissed with prejudice.
(8) The state and/or local jurisdictions may regulate the processing, distribution, sales, and outdoor use within 600 feet of a public school, and in residential zones.
(9) Experimentation, development, research, testing, cultivation, sales, or possession of genetically-modified (GMO) marijuana, hemp, and its seeds, shall be banned throughout the state of California.
(c) The People of the State of California hereby declare that this Act expressly prohibits the following:
(1) This Act adopts the definitions of marijuana and THC as they are presently set forth in Health and Safety Code Sections 11018 and 11006.5, but those definitions shall be broadly interpreted to include and allow the species Cannabis Indica, Ruderalis, and Americana, as well as any plant part, form, derivative, interspecies hybrids or cross-breeds, and all non-genetically-modified strains of the Cannabis genus and plant.
(2) Existing taxes and regulations which may be similar and may apply in the grape farming and wine industries, produce and processed agricultural products and brokerage industry, distribution, retail sales, and wholesale transactions of agricultural crops and products shall apply to marijuana, regardless of THC level, using the grape farming and winery industry as an example, so long as the results support these declarations, purposes and goals.
(3) All wholesale and retail products with a final THC level below 0.1 percent shall be authorized for sales as hemp products. All marijuana or hemp products with a THC level of 0.1 percent or above shall be restricted for sales to persons 21 years or older and regulated in a manner similar to wine, so long as the results support these declarations, purposes and goals.
(4) The State of California, and all branches of its government, shall liberally construe the meaning and implementation of this Act to favor and benefit individuals, and qualifying business entities as follows:
(A) No taxes, fees, laws, rules, regulations, local city or county zoning requirements may be adopted or enacted to defeat, deny, or prohibit the purposes of this Act, or to defeat, deny, or prohibit persons 21 years or older, associations, organizations, commercial, agricultural, or industrial businesses from engaging in the activities protected by this Act. Willful violations of this act shall be considered violations of civil rights as they apply to support these activities and which can result in serious civil fines and penalties.
(B) Adult alcohol manufacturing and use in the winery and beer industries allow for non-commercial home brewing. Any person, association, or collective group not producing more than 12 outdoor flowering plants per adult, or 25 indoor flowering plants per adult, shall be exempt from commercial regulations of the alcohol industry model, excises, fees, and taxes, except for income taxes and sales taxes, if they apply. This act creates and requires statewide standards and preempts and nullifies any conflicting local regulations, while allowing local jurisdictions limited regulation over cultivation in residential zones. However, no local residential regulation shall disallow a maximum total of 12 outdoor or 25 indoor plants per residence in a residential zone.
(C) No regulations, taxes, or fees shall be enacted or imposed for marijuana for qualifying persons and entities, which are more severe or restrictive than those comparable and reasonable in the commercial wine grape farming and winery regulations of the alcohol industry model, including but not limited to, farming, planting, cultivating, irrigating, harvesting, processing, brokering, packaging, processing, storing, selling, distributing, and establishment of retail businesses, cooperatives or collective associations
(5) Regardless of jurisdictional arguments, all state, local, elected, appointed, hired employees, officers, and officials shall refuse to and shall not cooperate with or assist federal, state, or local officials, volunteers, or employees who eradicate marijuana, act for seizure or forfeiture, or defeat any liberally construed purpose of this Act, or to operate under any contract or arrangement to repeal or circumvent this Act directly or indirectly, or to follow or abide by any federal laws or regulations that are in conflict with this Act. Further, no such person acting alone, or with any other person, judicial, legislative or executive body, may contract or agree to cooperate with or assist federal officials, employees, agencies or departments to obtain any revenue, reimbursement, money, property, gain, or advantage by the arrest, prosecution, conviction, or deprivation or seizure of property of anyone acting within the age/qualifying business entity provisions of this Act. This does not apply to federal lands.
(6) Within 30 days of passage of this Act, the offices of both the state Attorney General and the Department of Public Health shall inform the United States Department of Health and Human Services, the United States Attorney General, Congress, Drug Enforcement Agency, and Food and Drug Administration that in 1996 the state of California recognized the current medical use of marijuana in treatment in the United States, and since 1996 has approved a state-regulated physician medical marijuana practice. Physicians have evaluated thousands of patients who have used marijuana with no reported addiction or adverse consequences, and for that reason demands or petitions as is appropriate (see 21 CFR 1308.43, 21 USC 811-812) that marijuana and tetrahydrocannabinols as defined in §21 USC 802(16) be removed from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, 21 USC 800 et seq., where it is currently listed as an addictive drug with no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(7) The State of California is ordered to protect and defend all provisions of this Act from any and all challenges or litigation, whether by persons, officials, cities, counties, the state or federal governments.
(8) Any and all commercial advertising for sales, distribution, and use of marijuana, except for medical marijuana and products that contain less than 0.1 percent THC. This provision shall be enforced hereafter by penalties to be set forth by the Legislature.
(d) This Act shall become effective immediately upon passage.
Section 2. Severability
If any of the provisions of this Act, or any part thereof, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining provisions shall not be affected, but shall remain in full force and effect, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable.
SECTION 3. Conflicting Measures
If this Act is approved by the voters but superseded by law by any other
conflicting ballot measure approved by the voters at the same election, and the
conflicting measures are later held invalid, this Act shall be self-executing and
given the full force of law.
And the stupidity continues with stupid decisions like this going on. Who knew a plant wasn’t a plant apparently?
It grows in the ground, requires sunshine and water to blossom and earns California growers an estimated $17 billion a year. But don’t call marijuana an agricultural crop in Tulare County.
The Fresno Bee (http://bit.ly/pwDIGg) reports that a judge ruled this week against a medical marijuana-growing collective that wanted to operate on land zoned for agriculture.
Tulare County Counsel Kathleen Bales-Lange says it’s the first time that courts have addressed whether marijuana can be classified as an agricultural crop. California voters legalized pot for medicinal purposes in 1996.
The case began when the county Board of Supervisors sued the Foothill Growers Association, which operated in an agriculture-zoned building.
In a ruling finalized Tuesday, Judge Paul Vortmann said the act of growing a controlled substance is not an agricultural use of property.
With medical marijuana legal in 16 states and counting, there is little doubt that legalized medical marijuana will soon become the norm all across the United States. And there is no better example in the entire United States of how successful and profitable medical marijuana can be then in a tiny area in Northwestern California known as the Emerald Triangle. Tucked away in beautiful Northern California, between the Pacific Coast and the Redwood forest, the Emerald Triangle has risen to prominence in recent years and has become infamous for having some of the highest quality medical marijuana in the world.
The Emerald Triangle consists of three notorious California counties Humboldt, Mendicino and Trinity. With a population of just 225,000 spread sparsely across this beautiful woody hills Northern California landscape, it is almost impossible to imagine that this small area of the country is one of the best areas to grow marijuana in the Northern Hemisphere. While there aren’t many plants that will flourish in this hilly, tucked away Northern California landscape, the cool winds and the fertile soil make it an ideal place for growing cannabis.
Since the middle of the 1960’s the infamous Emerald Triangle has become a ground zero of sorts for people looking to make a comfortable living in the cannabis growing industry. Even though growing marijuana is still illegal at the Federal level, California’s friendly medical marijuana laws enable citizens all over the Emerald Triangle to make a small fortune growing and selling marijuana. The Marijuana trade has even become so lucrative that in most areas in the Emerald Triangle one half to 2/3 of their entire economy is based off marijuana. With this kind of volume comes enormous profits, not to mention enormous scrutiny.
With over 1 billion dollars funneling into the Emerald Triangle every year, it is little wonder why the government has begun to take a second and third look at the impact of medical marijuana and the legalization of pot altogether. With the United States government in complete fiscal crisis, the $40 billion dollar a year marijuana industry could bring substantial revenue back to the government. Legalizing marijuana would not only bring substantial tax revenue back to the state, but the government would also save an additional $13 billion a year by simply not enforcing marijuana prohibition.
Taking out marijuana from the Emerald Triangle economy would be a devastating blow not only to the local residents who rely on the growing and selling of weed to support themselves, but also to the local and state governments who rely heavily on their tax revenue. And with new medical marijuana dispensary’s popping up all across California every day, the medical cannabis industry has become a large and integral part in California’s diverse economy.
While many Emerald Triangle citizens walk a fine line between growing marijuana legally and triggering a legal crackdown from the federal government and DEA, many Emerald Triangle growers are undeterred. In an area still reeling from the decades long decline of the timber and manufacturing industries, marijuana has become a mainstay in the Northern California economy and a lifesaver for many Emerald Triangle residents.
The California secretary of state’s office on Monday cleared a group to begin circulating ballot petitions to bring marijuana legalization to a state wide vote in 2012.
This time they will argue that pot growers should be treated the same as vineyard owners or microbrewers, according to AP reports. Those who grow marijuana for their own use would not be taxed, but those who sell it would be regulated by the state Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.
On Monday, the secretary of state’s office said proponents can begin gathering the 504,760 signatures they’ll need to collect by Dec. 19 to put the initiative on the June or November ballots next year. The timing depends on how quickly the signatures are submitted and verified, although Kubby said proponents plan to submit revisions that would likely push the measure to the November general election.
Proposition 19, which fell 6 percentage points short of the majority vote it needed last November, would have potentially created a patchwork of marijuana policies by letting local governments permit and tax commercial cultivation and sales.
Kubby’s proposal would require statewide regulation.
It also directs the state and local governments to avoid assisting the federal government in prosecuting marijuana crimes and seeks to remove marijuana from the federal government’s list of controlled substances.
Kubby is joined by retired Orange County Superior Court Judge James P. Gray as chief proponent. The third listed proponent is William R. McPike, the Fresno-area attorney who represented Kubby as he fought drug charges.
Kubby, the 1998 Libertarian candidate for governor, helped write the state’s medical marijuana law, approved by voters in 1996.
Text of the proposal:
This Act shall be known as “The Marijuana Regulation and Tax Act of 2012.”
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, recognizing that it is time to tax marijuana and to regulate its use, hereby repeal all California state laws that prohibit marijuana possession, sales, transportation, production, processing, and cultivation by people 21 years of age and older, and thereby remove marijuana from any other statutes pertaining to the prohibition, regulation and scheduling of controlled substances, whether now existing or enacted in the future, except those related to driving a motor vehicle under the influence of marijuana; using or being under the influence of marijuana in public or in the workplace; smoking marijuana in the presence of, or providing, transferring or selling marijuana to, a person under the age of 21; the use, possession, cultivation, sales, transporting, or storing on premises of marijuana by people under the age of 21; and medical marijuana statutes as set forth in California Proposition 215 and its progeny. This act adopts the definition of marijuana as it is presently set forth in Health and Safety Code section 11018.
The People further direct and order the California state legislature to enact reasonable regulations and establish reasonable taxes for the establishment of the farming, industry, distribution, and sales of marijuana with a THC level of 0.3 percent or higher, using the grape winery industry as a model, as long as the results support these intentions, purposes and goals; and to provide for the farming, industry, distribution, and sales of industrial hemp, which is hereby defined as marijuana with a THC level of below 0.3 percent, using the cotton and paper products industries as a model. However, the effect of this act and its direction is to be liberally construed to favor individuals, and business entities regarding the following:
(a) No taxes, fees, laws, rules, regulations, or local city and county zoning requirements can be adopted or enacted to defeat these commercial, agricultural and industrial purposes or those individual civil rights set forth in Civil Code section 54, Food and Agricultural Code sections 54033 through 54035, inclusive, and Civil Code 52.1, and all medical conditions as stated in Health and Safety Code section 11362.5. Any individual, association, or collective group not producing more than 99 plants or 50 pounds of marijuana per year shall be exempt from any winery model regulations, fees and taxes, except for income taxes and state sales taxes, if they apply, and
(b) No regulations, taxes or fees shall be enacted or imposed which are more severe or restrictive than those for comparable and reasonable usage in the commercial wine grape farming and winery industry model, including for farming, planting, cultivating, irrigating, harvesting, processing, brokering, selling, distributing, and establishing of cooperatives or collective associations.
The People further direct and order all state and local government elected, appointed and hired employees, officers and officials to refuse to cooperate with federal officials, or operate under U.S. contract or arrangement, to defeat this act directly or indirectly, or to follow or abide by any federal laws or regulations that are in conflict with this act. Further, no such person acting alone, or with any other person or legislative body, may contract or agree to cooperate with federal officials, employees, agencies or departments to obtain any money, property, gain or advantage by the arrest, prosecution, conviction or deprivation of property of anyone acting within the provisions of this act. Any such governmental or public person who knowingly and intentionally violates these provisions shall forfeit their government employment and office.
The People further direct and order that within 30 days of passage, both the state Attorney General and the Department of Health Services shall inform the United States Department of Human and Health Services, Attorney General, Congress, and Food and Drug Administration that in 1996 California recognized that using marijuana can have some positive medical effects, and for that reason demand that marijuana no longer be listed as a Schedule 1 drug.
The People further direct and order the Attorney General of California to protect the provisions of this act from any and all attacks, whether from individuals, cities, counties, or the state or federal governments.
This Act expressly enjoins the arrest and imposition of any criminal or civil penalties for people 21 years of age and older who are acting within the provisions of this act, including all California penal and nuisance marijuana laws, penalties, and zoning regulations, except for those affecting medical marijuana at Health & Safety Code sections 11362.5, and 11362.7 et seq.
This Act expressly enjoins any and all commercial advertising of the sales, distribution and use of marijuana, except for medical marijuana and products made from industrial hemp, as defined herein, and this injunction shall be enforced by penalties as shall hereafter be set forth by the legislature.
This Act expressly does not repeal, modify or change any present laws or regulations prohibiting the driving of a motor vehicle while impaired by marijuana; the use or being under the influence of marijuana in the workplace; the providing, transferring or selling marijuana to, a person under the age of 21; the use, possession, cultivation, sales, transporting, or storing on premises of marijuana by people under the age of 21; or medical marijuana statutes as set forth in California Proposition 215 and its progeny.
The legislature shall not modify, change, add to or subtract from, or amend any part of this Act, and if any part of this Act is found by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or void, that finding shall not affect any of the remaining provisions.
A great-grandmother in Sydney, Australia, has been arrested by police as a drug dealer.
Noelene Edwards, 74, said she’s just a grieving widow, struggling with the recent loss of her husband, reports Clementine Cuneo at The Daily Telegraph.
The Surry Hills woman said she had been on her way into the city to pay for her husband’s funeral on Tuesday when a police dog allegedly detected that she was carrying cannabis.
Police claim a search of Mrs. Edwards’ handbag turned up 40 bags containing marijuana. (No word on how much pot was in each of the “40 bags.”)
The Humboldt County Drug Task Force, straight from the pot-cultivation center of California’s famed Emerald Triangle, may fall prey to the state budget ax, resulting from cuts enacted by the Legislature late last month to balance the state’s 2011-2012 budget.
Oh, whatevershall we do without them? It’d be a shame for all those cops to have to get real jobs which don’t involve stealing people’s pot crops.
One of those cuts slashed $36 million from the budget of the California Department of Justice’s Division of Law Enforcement, and will likely lead to the elimination of 55 state-led task forces, reports Thadeus Greenson at the Eureka Times-Standard. The list includes the Humboldt County Drug Task Force.
Under the budget deal, the cut almost doubles to $71 million in the next fiscal year, which could trigger the loss of $40 million in matching federal funds — at least we can hope.
Under the direction of DOJ Commander Dan Harward, the Humboldt County Drug Task Force is made up of officers from the district attorney’s office, the Eureka Police Department, the sheriff’s office, the Arcata Police Department, the California Highway Patrol and the FBI. The unit works largely on tips from the public, and claims that it “generally targets high-level offenders.”
“The ability we have, as opposed to other investigative teams in the area, is that we are equipped and capable of handling the long-term investigations,” Harward claimed. “We have the time and resources to put into a case and devote to surveillance so that we we do takedowns, we’re getting multiple pounds as just user quantities,” he said, inadvertently revealing that his salary is a complete waste of taxpayer money.
Nothing definite has been decided regarding the cuts, according to California DOJ Division of Law Enforcement Public Information Officer Michelle Gregory. She said all 55 state-led drug task forces could potentially close, and that no process has been formulated to determine which, if any, of the task forces are to be spared.
The $36 million cut — and next year’s $71 million reduction — come from a yearly budget of just $77 million, according to Harward.
Some efforts are reportedly underway in Sacramento to restore some of the cut funds, but local representatives said they didn’t know about them.
“I’m not aware of any specific efforts to do that,” said Sen. Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa). “I think, overall, the Legislature would like to restore all the cuts we made. They’re all very difficult … To put it in perspective, it’s not that law enforcement got targeted. We’re cutting everything. It’s a terrible situation. The cuts are going to be painful for everyone.”
No, Noreen, dear. Not everyone.
In a Wednesday statement, Assemblyman Wesley Chesbro (D-Arcata) said the DOJ cuts won’t result in the layoffs of any local law enforcement officers, but “may result in a reduction of coordination between the Attorney General’s Office and local law enforcement programs.”
Some argue that the elimination of drug task forces — which, in reality, never amounted to much more than a bunch of over-funded, over-armed, sad-sack wanna-be Rambos playing soldier and wasting millions of taxpayer dollars in the process — would disproportionately impact rural counties like Humboldt, where local agencies don’t have the resources to fill the void.
“I think the overall safety of the citizens of Humboldt County would be affected (without the task force),” Harward said.
Yeah, Commander Harward, I agree it would definitely affect the citizens’ safety to no longer have a bunch of hyped-up, over-zealous, microcephalic ass clowns helicoptering onto their property and waving automatic weapons in their faces.
Retail Market Is $1.5 Billion To $4.5 Billion Per Year
There are now more than 750,000 medical marijuana patients in California, representing two percent of the population according to the most recent data, estimates California NORML. At the high end, an estimate of more than 1,125,000 patients, or three percent of the population, is consistent with the data.
This represents a substantial increase from Cal NORML‘s earlier estimates of 300,000 in 2007, 150,000 in 2005, and 75,000 in 2004, but is in line with registration rates in other comparable states that enjoy similar wide access to medical cannabis clinics and dispensaries.
The exact number of patients in California is uncertain, because patients aren’t required to register in the Golden State. Under Prop 215,
California’s medical marijuana law, patients need only a physician’s recommendation to be legal.
Just a tiny fraction of the California’s medical marijuana population is enlisted in the state’s voluntary ID card program, which issued just 12,659 cards in 2009-2010. Therefore, California’s patient numbers must be estimated from other sources.
Among the most salient sources of data are medical marijuana registries in Colorado and Montana, which report patient rates of 2.5 percent and 3.0 percent, respectively.
Because California’s law is older and has more liberal inclusion criteria than in other states, usage there is likely to be higher, according to Cal NORML.
Dale Gieringer, Cal NORML: “The data show that medical marijuana users are becoming an increasingly important constituency”
Despite this, there is no evidence that liberal access to medical marijuana has spurred overall marijuana use in California. According to U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) data, the total number of cannabis users in the state, including non-medical ones, amounts to 6.7 percent of the population (2.5 million) within the past month, or 11.3 percent (4.1 million) within the past year.
This places California only slightly above the national average in marijuana use (6.0 percent monthly and 10.4 percent yearly), and below several states with tougher marijuana laws.
Use of cannabis by California school youth has declined since Proposition 215 passed, according to data from the Attorney General’s Survey of Student Drug Use in California. The increase in medical marijuana use therefore appears to reflect a tendency for existing users to “go medical,” rather than the enlistment of new users.
The total retail value of medical marijuana consumed in California can be estimated at between $1.5 billion and $4.5 billion per year, assuming a market of 2 percent to 3 percent of the population, with average use of 0.5 to 1 gram per day, and an average cost of $320 per ounce.
“Marijuana’s popularity can be explained by its low toxicity, pleasant effects, and remarkably wide range of therapeutic uses, over 250 of which have been reported,” Cal NORML said in a press release.
By far the leading application is chronic pain, which accounts for the majority of all recommendations. Studies by California’s Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research have shown that marijuana is particularly effective for neuropathic pain, an otherwise difficult to treat condition that afflicts up to 7 to 8 percent of the population.
Patients who use marijuana for pain commonly report significant reductions in their use of other medications, in particular prescription opiates.
“The data show that medical marijuana users are becoming an increasingly important constituency,” said California NORML Director Dale Gieringer. “It is time for the federal government to stop ignoring the facts and recognize their right to medicine.”
END OF STOCK SALE!! All 10*gs are now 8*! Both 8*gs are now 5*!! Don't forget about our edible specials & glass… wp.me/p1r6rh-1bG1 year ago
END OF STOCK SALE!! All 10*gs are now 8*! Both 8*gs are now 5*!! Don't forget about our edible specials & glass specials! Stop by before 10p 1 year ago
By Steve Elliott of Toke of the Town
The group has until Friday to stop using the building. Hanford attorney Bill Romaine, who represents Foothill Growers Association, said on Thursday that he believed the cooperative had negotiated a new site to use in unincorporated Tulare County, reports David Castellon at the Visalia Times-Delta.
And the stupidity continues with stupid decisions like this going on. Who knew a plant wasn’t a plant apparently?
