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.
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.
Americans for Safe Access is conducting an 11 day – 11 city tour up and down California this month which will end in San Diego on September 1. In light of the recent federal activity against medical cannabis communities across the country, now more than ever, we must join together to prepare our community for the next steps we will take to protect safe access in California.
Learn to protect your rights and the rights of others in the event you are targeted in a raid and participate in creating a strategy that will secure safe access.
Please join ASA Executive Director, Steph Sherer and ASA California Director, Don Duncan for these 2 Free Trainings in San Diego that are open to the community. Attached is a flier. Please feel free to share this with anyone who may be interested in attending.
Thank you and I look forward to seeing you at the training!
Eugene Davidovich
San Diego Area Liaison
Americans for Safe Access – www.safeaccessnow.org
ASA’s upcoming Raid Training on Friday, August 19th from 1 pm to 5 pm in Room 416 at San Francisco City Hall (on Van Ness Avenue between Grove and McAllister Streets), and the Activist training on Friday, August 26th from 7 pm to 9 pm at 847 Howard Street (between 4th and 5th Streets) in San Francisco. Both events are free of cost and open to the public. Please feel free to share with anyone who may be interested.
Thank you.
Raudel Wilson
Community Liaison Director
Americans For Safe Access
510-967-3572
CANNABIS CULTURE – Long-time pot activist Steve Kubby is back with a new marijuana ballot initiative for California. In this interview with Cannabis Culture, he explains why the Golden State should regulate marijuana like wine.
Proposition 19, the ballot initiative to legalize marijuana in California, was narrowly defeated during the November 2010 election. At the time, we figured tenacious activists would start building the next legalization campaign right away. We were right.
Steve Kubby, one of the activists responsible for the successful Proposition 215 that legalized medical marijuana in California in 1996, is back with a new initiative that is already gaining support and making headlines, thanks to the help of some big-name supporters like former US Judge Jim Gray.
In July, Kubby and his team were cleared to begin circulating ballot petitions after the title and summary of their new initiative, The Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Act of 2012, was accepted by the California secretary of states’s office.
Cannabis Culture Editor Jeremiah Vandermeer is pleased to present this interview with Steve Kubby, recorded on Thursday, July 28, 2011.
Cannabis Culture: Great to see all of the positive media attention payed to your proposed initiative in recent weeks. This must be giving the campaign quite a boost.
Steve Kubby: Were pretty happy – I mean we were in USA Today, The Washington Post. I saw a report in Turkey. We were even on a Spanish-language channel in Southern California, so we know there’s a pretty high level of interest.
CC: Does submitting early give you guys an advantage over other ballot initiatives?
SK: We planned all along to submit an initiative in August. I was concerned about how the attorney general would respond to an initiative, and what kind of language they would use, so we submitted this version and sure enough they tried to change our “regulation” initiative to a “legalization” initiative. We know “legalization” doesn’t test at all as high as “regulation”, so we’re going to go back and make sure they give us “regulation”. We’re going to change some terms in our initiative so that it’s more clear-cut that it’s going to be regulated by California’s Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, just as wine is regulated. So it was really very shrewd of us to submit early. We will file early in August which means will be done by the middle of February and the election cycle doesn’t really begin until March. We want to end right there because after March the price for signatures can double and even triple.
Right now if we can complete by March we know that we’ll pay $1.86 a signature, which comes to $1.4 million. We’d rather pay that than $3 or $4 each, which we could get stuck with if we started too late. At the same time we need time to wrap up our fundraising. We have a signed contract with one of the top political fundraisers on the West Coast, we’ve got the Libertarian party helping out, and we’ve got our own network of individuals who believe in our kind of politics.
CC: Have you been in touch with Richard Lee and the activists who ran the Prop 19 campaign? What are their thoughts?
SK: The old Prop 19 folks have created a new organization called the Coalition for Cannabis Policy Reform. We’ve been in touch with them and we’re looking forward to working with them. They have informed us that none of the funders seem interested in funding a California initiate again; they want to put their money in Colorado and Washington. They’re going after the old funders that I was the first one to get when I ran the Proposition 215 campaign in 1996 and I’ve gone on to other funders. We have our own circle of funders and were not under the same restraints that the other reformed organizations are all under.
CC: Why is the wine regulation model the best one suited for regulating cannabis in California?
SK: First and foremost, wine is something that people understand that can be used in moderation and doesn’t automatically lead to violence or impairment. People are used to the idea of a group getting together, having some wine and then going home or whatever else they’re going to do. So we wanted to put it on that level because that, in fact, is how cannabis is used as well.
If you were an alien from another planet and you came to earth and you suck people doing different activities you would classify pot smoking and wine drinking as highly social interactions with a low potential for violence or injury. So we wanted to put it in that context because that’s where it belongs. It doesn’t need to be regulated like nuclear plutonium. Plutonium is probably easier for researchers to get than marijuana. We didn’t want to put it in the category of hard booze because that would be wrongfully portraying what cannabis is all about – and it would be opening us up to attacks as another form of teenage drinking and abuse. So out of those possibilities, treating it like wine makes the most sense.
In addition to that, Judge Gray and deputy police chief Steven Downing from the LAPD told me their buddies are all telling them privately, “why don’t you just regulate it like booze”. They understand this. Well we compromised and said “how would you feel if we treated it like wine” and Judge Gray and chief Downing agreed. So that was the great unification model for bringing police, judges and activists together.
David Malmo-Levine has done an absolutely fantastic job for us and has published a comprehensive article comparing the California wine and cannabis industries. He has helped to educate Judge Gray and Chief Downing. Chief Downing even told him how much he had learned reading his paper. David is our official online director of communications and we all really appreciate having him on our team.
CC: Has the acceptance of the title and summary boosted the campaigns credibility? How much do public perceptions play into things at this stage and are you being taken more seriously?
SK: I probably have the best track record of anyone in town because I’ve only worked on the successful Prop 215 campaign. Of course, when we started that up, not only were people convinced that we wouldn’t succeed, but nobody, not even the sleaziest sex tabloid, would agree to use the term medical marijuana. They wouldn’t print it and wouldn’t say it. Absolutely wouldn’t tolerate it. So when we finally qualified for the ballot I remember getting some of the staff together and sitting down in front of the television. I remember saying “they’re going to have to say it, they’re going to have to say medical marijuana”. We were all just kind of transfixed about the possibility they would actually say that on television. So they did Prop to 213 and 214 and when they got to 215 they said “medical marijuana” – and then they said it again and again and again. They said it like it was just a regular word and our jaws were on the floor. We were just staring at the TV. Ever since, of course, it’s become an everyday word. But there was that day that it went from the taboo word to the everyday word. So I’ve seen firsthand how people’s perceptions can change once you qualify something for the ballot.
And certainly we are very grateful for all the hard work and trail-blazing that Prop 19 has done for us, because they have paved the way. When we came out, we didn’t qualify for the ballot, we just qualified for the title and summary. That should be a non-event but 260 different media outlets picked it up. We were in all of the media we wanted to be and we are now being taken very seriously.
CC: How does the Regulate Marijuana Like Wine initiative differ from others like Prop 19?
SK: Everything the reform movement is currently working on is limited to one ounce. Washington: one ounce. Colorado, recreational legalization: one ounce. California – I’ve seen the draft that one of the reform organizations is working on and honest to God, they are going for one ounce again. Now, one ounce in California is currently an infraction. Who the Hell is going to raise millions of dollars to turn an infraction into a non-infraction for just an ounce? We have no limit on how much pot is legal. It’s all legal. There’s is a 12-plant limit on growing indoors, but that is it – and no criminal penalties for cultivation, period.
CC: And dried personal amounts?
SK: We’re not even getting into that. We don’t want anyone coming around measuring dried amounts. It’s all legal under our system -– or regulated, as we like to call it. The only way you can screw up is if you sell marijuana and don’t pay the regular sales tax, like you do on anything else that you sell. Unlike Prop 19, we don’t invent any new laws or any new taxes. Sales tax is already in place so there is no need to introduce a new tax.
It’s light-years beyond everybody else but it really sounds reasonable when you read it.
CC: Right now, what’s the best way for people to help you?
SK: Everyone wants to get an initiative petition and start signing up people right away, but we are still 60 days away from that stage. When we’re ready to get signatures, we’re not going to have any volunteer signatures. A very painful lesson that I learned during the Prop 215 campaign is that volunteer signature-gathering does not work. Professional signature gatherers are a must.
So what can people do? They can go to our website and they’ll see we have installed the sign-up form where we can get basic information on them and then there in the system. Then they’ll get the latest updates and can take part in our proactive system. What can they do once their in? Well, this is all about money – I’m sorry but that’s just the reality.
What they can do is help us raise the money. Every $1.80 buys a signature – a validated signature. That’s someone who doesn’t just get the signature but also validates that it’s a registered voter. We need 800,000 signatures, so do the math. We need to raise $1.4 million.
We’ve got the big money coming in later on, but right now it’s really critical that the media sees how much money we can raise each day. Giving us money now in the first few weeks of this campaign is going to determine how respectful and interested the mainstream media is going to be in this campaign. If you don’t send any money later but can just send money in the next week or so, you’ve made the biggest impact you could possibly make. The biggest bang for the buck. And what you’ll be making is a contribution to history.
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.
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.
The hearing for Assembly Bill 639 to reform asset forfeiture in California
has fortunately been rescheduled to Tuesday, July 5th. This bill, while not perfect, is an attempt to prevent California law enforcement authorities from using federal authority to perform asset forfeitures. Cutting off this loophole is important; the federal Equitable Sharing program allows state and local law enforcement to ignore state law about the process and disposition of forfeitures. Most dangerously, Equitable Sharing allows state and local law enforcement to directly retain forfeiture proceeds (in other words, policing for profit).
This bill should be particularly important for Drug War reformers; much of Drug War enforcement is paid for by federal forfeiture dollars that get spent by state and local police on military equipment, drug task salaries and bonuses, and the organization infrastructure that allows the existence of the Drug War. California state and local law enforcement now receive upwards of $70 million a year through Equitable Sharing forfeiture dollars alone.
I am working with Christina Walsh of the Institute for Justice to solicit
testimony from forfeiture victims to submit to the California Senate Public
Safety Committee on Tuesday, July 5th. Please contact me if you are
interested in submitting testimony (we can help you draft such testimony).
You can reach me at Eapen@ForfeitureReform.com.
Many thanks
Eapen Thampy
Executive Director, Americans for Forfeiture Reform
3630 Holmes St., Kansas City, MO, 64109
Phone: 573-673-5351
Email: Eapen@ForfeitureReform.com or Eapen.Thampy@gmail.com
Web: http://www.forfeiturereform.com and
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.
Proposition 19, the ballot initiative to legalize marijuana in California, was narrowly defeated during the November 2010 election. At the time, we figured tenacious activists would start building the next legalization campaign right away. We were right.
