Marijuana

Bill To Restrict Marijuana Packaging Appealing To Children Gains Support In Assembly

May 19, 2023 By Evan Symon Leave a Comment

AB 1207 currently up for Appropriations Committee vote

A bill to restrict marijuana products with packaging that appeals to children continued to gain traction in the Assembly, with more votes shifting in favor of the bill in recent weeks.

Assembly Bill 1207, authored by Assemblywoman Jacqui Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks), would build upon provisions in the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA), more commonly known as Prop 64, which legalized marijuana in California under a statewide vote in 2016. Under the legislation, AB 1207 would implement provisions of AUMA by prohibiting the sale or manufacture of cannabis or cannabis products that are attractive to children and by prohibiting the advertisement and marketing of cannabis or cannabis products in a way that is attractive to children. The bill would implement AUMA by prohibiting cannabis or cannabis products intended for use by inhalation or combustion from containing any natural or synthetic flavors or descriptors of flavors.

AB 1207 would also further define “attractive to children” by having marijuana products use the images of cartoons, toys, robots, fictional animals, real or fictional humans, as well as any likeness to images, characters, or phrases that are popularly used to advertise to children. Names of products would also be greatly limited under the bill by banning the use of any names similar to cereals, candies, chips, or any other food products sold to kids, as well as variant names with similar spelling.

In addition to the more precise wording of AUMA, the bill would also prohibit any artificial, synthetic, or natural flavoring, similar to a flavored tobacco ban law that went into effect in California earlier this year.

Assemblywoman Irwin wrote the over the increase of marijuana use for those under the legal age of 21. While many factors have been blamed for the rise, with teens 18% more likely to use marijuana following the passage of Prop 64, Irwin specifically targeted product packaging, similar to how tobacco companies had to stop using cartoons and designs on packs during the “Joe Camel” lawsuits in the mid 1990s. In addition, she noted that AB 1207 would help curb any accidental use by young people.

“Since the passage of Proposition 64, pediatric exposures to cannabis have increased exponentially,” Irwin said earlier this year. “These exposures are heavily influenced by the use of features on cannabis product packaging that are explicitly attractive to children. Children who unintentionally consume cannabis consistently require poison control treatment, and in many cases, they can also expose their fellow elementary and middle school peers to cannabis.”

Initially slow in gaining support, the bill quickly gained support last month when it was passed 13-0 with 5 abstentions in the Assembly Business and Professions Committee. In the past month, more Assembly members have also signaled that they would either vote for it or abstain from voting, despite the next Appropriations Committee hearing over it having been delayed.

“No one is really against it, but for many it is mixed,” said “Dana,” a Capitol staffer to the Globe on Wednesday.” On the left, no one really wants to restrict marijuana that much after it was fought so hard to legalize, but they also don’t want kids smoking it. On the other side, no one wants to obstruct the free market, but again, they don’t want kids doing it. Some also can’t resist on curtailing marijuana to some degree. So they are all either voting for AB 1207 or abstaining.”

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: California Politics, Legislature, Marijuana

Emerald Triangle Communities Were Built on Cannabis. Legalization Has Pushed Them to the Brink

March 1, 2023 By Alexei Koseff 2 Comments

It’s shortly before 8 a.m. and a touch above freezing at the Trinity County Fairgrounds. The food bank’s February distribution won’t begin for another half hour, but the line of cars already stretches into a third row of the parking lot.

Joseph Felice, his red Dodge pickup idling with the heat cranked up, arrived around 7 to secure a spot near the front — eighth, to be exact — and ensure that he gets his pick of this month’s harvest: frozen catfish filets, eggplant, winter squash, potatoes, cans of mixed fruit, cartons of milk. Getting here early is crucial, because by the time the final cars roll through some two hours later — 210 families served — all that’s left are a few packages of diapers and noodles.

Things are getting desperate in this remote, mountainous community in far northern California, where cannabis is king — the economy, the culture, the everything. Over the past two years, the price of weed has plummeted and people are broke.

The monthly food bank distribution moved from a church to the fairgrounds last summer to accommodate surging demand. There’s only one sit-down restaurant left in town, a Mexican joint that closes every day at 6. Some residents have fled for Oklahoma, where it’s easier for cannabis cultivators to get licensed. Others are stuck, unable to unload their properties amid an abundance of supply and a dearth of demand.

“I don’t see the same faces that I did before,” said Felice, 67, who performed maintenance work for a local grower for five years, until they called it quits at the end of last season.

Felice lost not just his income, but also free housing on the farm. The food distribution is now a crucial bridge between Social Security checks and trips to Redding, 60 miles away, where he can get cheaper groceries.

Click here to read the full article at CalMatters

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: California Politics, emerald triangle, Marijuana

How California Deputies Became Highway Robbers

February 12, 2022 By Steven Greenhut 5 Comments

San Bernardino County deputies stopped the same armored-car driver twice and took nearly $1.1 million in cash owned by legal marijuana dispensaries.

An organized group of Southern California bandits has brazenly hijacked armored cars and grabbed hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash. The heavily armed thieves reportedly have damaged trucks, hassled their victims, covered up video cameras—and even celebrated their haul. “Wowee!” and “way to go, buddy,” they allegedly cheered, after pulling a recent heist.

You’d be forgiven for assuming that this is the latest example of California’s ongoing crime wave, epitomized by “third world” scenes of pilfered freight trains and brazen smash-and-grab robberies. But it’s nothing of the sort. Actually, it’s more pernicious than the usual crime spree because a sheriff is the mastermind and his deputies are looting the armored cars.

For instance, San Bernardino County deputies stopped the same Empyreal Logistics armored-car driver twice and took a total of nearly $1.1 million in cash owned by legal marijuana dispensaries, per news reports. The government has not charged the armored-car company nor the cannabis firms with any crimes, but the sheriff keeps the cash, anyway. Critics are right to call it highway robbery.

Welcome to the dystopian world of civil-asset forfeiture, a drug-war relic that allows police—often at the behest of district attorneys—to take people’s cash, cars, and properties based on their suspicion that the property was involved in a crime. Officials never have to prove that the property’s owner was involved in a crime.

The agencies have every incentive to employ this strategy routinely given that they keep the proceeds and spend the money on vehicles, guns, and whatever. News reports found police so adept at abusing this process that they sometimes target people who own the kind of fancy SUVs and sports cars that they’d like to have available in their motor pool.

Not only does this process deprive Americans of their Fourth Amendment right to be safe against the government’s searches and seizures, but it undermines the credibility of law enforcement by turning cops into our adversaries. San Bernardino County Sheriff Shannon Dicus claims that “80 percent of marijuana at dispensaries was grown illegally.” If that’s true, then the sheriff simply needs to, you know, go to court and prove it.

Did I mention that the police agencies—not the drivers, nor the cannabis companies—may be breaking, or at least severely twisting, the law? California law requires police to gain a conviction in the underlying drug case before seizing private property. Furthermore, federal law forbids sheriffs from targeting licensed marijuana businesses and from using forfeiture proceeds to supplant current revenues.

Why should police follow the law when they can take what they want and force victims to file lawsuits to get their property returned? Police often target victims without the wherewithal to fight back. Criminal enterprises can be amazingly creative, as anyone who has studied the cartels would know. Likewise, American law-enforcement scofflaws have come up with a creative workaround to pesky rights-upholding laws.

The “equitable sharing” program allows local agencies to “partner” with federal bureaus to conduct forfeiture operations. By magically turning a local raid into a federal one, sheriffs can circumvent their own state laws. Then the feds and locals split the loot. In this situation, the San Bernardino department can keep 80 percent of the seized $1 million-plus. And who is going to enforce the federal law when the feds get 20-percent of the action? If you wonder how justice works in countries where the police are untrustworthy, then this should provide insight.

Despite Dicus’ blather about fighting illegal grows, it’s clear what’s going on. Sheriffs are exploiting the chasm between state and federal marijuana laws. Thirty-seven states have legalized some marijuana sales (recreational or medical), but the feds obstinately keep weed classified as a Schedule I narcotic along the lines of heroin and LSD.

This is not a partisan issue, by the way, as both the Biden and Trump administrations have been atrocious on the issue.

The libertarian Institute for Justice recently filed a federal civil-rights lawsuit, which makes this compelling point: “(I)t makes no sense to confiscate lawfully collected currency from Empyreal’s vehicles as it is delivered safely to the financial system for greater transparency instead of investigating or enforcing against any businesses suspected to be non-compliant. The real reason Empyreal is being targeted is because it is very profitable for these law-enforcement agencies to seize the cash proceeds.”

In a free society, laws should be logical and promote just outcomes, not create Catch-22 situations that punish honest people who are trying to comply. Yet the nation’s cannabis laws are something out of an Orwell novel. For instance, legal cannabis shops are required to pay taxes, but federal laws restrict their access to the banking system and state laws limit their ability to pay in cash.

Then law enforcement agencies take advantage of the situation to bolster their own budgets. No friend of liberty should be celebrating this outrage.

Click here to read this article in Reason.org.

This article was originally published in the Orange

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Crime, Marijuana, San Bernardino

Double Dealing: Legal, Illicit Blur In California Pot Market

January 18, 2022 By Michael R. Blood Leave a Comment

LOS ANGELES (AP) — On an isolated farm, greenhouses stand in regimental order, sheltered by a fringe of trees. Inside are hundreds of head-high cannabis plants in precise rows, each rising from a pot nourished by coils of irrigation tubing. Lights powerful enough to turn night into day blaze overhead.

In the five years since California voters approved a broad legal marketplace for marijuana, thousands of greenhouses have sprouted across the state. But these, under their plastic canopies, conceal a secret.

The cultivator who operates the grow north of Sacramento holds a coveted state-issued license, permitting the business to produce and sell its plants. But it’s been virtually impossible for the grower to turn a profit in a struggling legal industry where wholesale prices for cannabis buds have plunged as much as 70% from a year ago, taxes approach 50% in some areas and customers find far better deals in the thriving underground marketplace.

So the company has two identities — one legal, the other illicit.

“We basically subsidize our white market with our black market,” said the cultivator, who agreed to speak with The Associated Press only on condition of anonymity to avoid possible prosecution.

Industry insiders say the practice of working simultaneously in the legal and illicit markets is all too commonplace, a financial reality brought on by the difficulties and costs of doing business with a product they call the most heavily regulated in America.

For the California grower, the furtive illegal sales happen informally, often with a friend within the tight-knit cannabis community calling to make a buy. The state requires legal businesses to report what they grow and ship, and it’s entered into a vast computerized tracking system — known as “seed to sale” monitoring — that’s far from airtight.

“It’s not too hard” to operate outside the tracking system’s guardrails, the grower said. Plants can vary widely in what each one produces, allowing for wiggle room in what gets reported, while there is little in the way of on-site inspections to verify record-keeping. The system is so loose, some legal farms move as much as 90% of their product into the illicit market, the grower added.

The passage of Proposition 64 in 2016 was seen as a watershed moment in the push to legitimize and tax California’s multibillion-dollar marijuana industry. In 2018, when retail outlets could open, California became the world’s largest legal marketplace and another steppingstone in what advocates hoped would be a path to federal legalization, after groundbreaking laws in Colorado and Washington state were enacted in 2012.

Today, most Americans live in states with at least some access to legal legal marijuana — 18 states have broad legal sales for those 21 and older, similar to alcohol laws, while more than two-thirds of states provide access through medicinal programs.

Kristi Knoblich Palmer, co-founder of top edibles brand KIVA Confections, lamented that the migration of business into the illegal market was damaging the effort to establish a stable, consumer-friendly marketplace.

“To have this system that now appears to be failing, having people go back into the old-school way of doing things … it does not help us get to our goal of professionalizing cannabis and normalizing cannabis,” she said.

In California, no one disputes the vast illegal marketplace continues to dwarf the legal one, even though the 2016 law stated boldly that it would “incapacitate the black market.” Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who was lieutenant governor at the time the law was approved, called it a “game changer.”

But California’s legalization push faced challenges from the start. The state’s illegal market had flourished for decades, anchored in the storied “Emerald Triangle” in the northern end of the state. Not since the end of Prohibition in 1933 had an attempt been made to reshape such a vast illegal economy into a legal one.

In October, California law enforcement officials announced the destruction of over 1 million illegal plants statewide but said they were finding larger illicit growing operations. In the cannabis heartland of Humboldt County, many illegal growers are moving indoors to avoid detection. Investigators are making arrests and serving search warrants every week, but with so many underground grows “we may never eliminate the illegal cultivation,” Sheriff William Honsal said in an email to the AP.

California’s illegal market is estimated at $8 billion, said Tom Adams, chief executive officer of research firm Global Go Analytics. That’s roughly double the amount of legal sales, though some estimates are even larger.

Click here to read the full article at AP

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: Marijuana, taxes

This Republican’s Marijuana Legalization Bill Aims To Build Bipartisan Support for Repealing Federal Prohibition

November 18, 2021 By Jacob Sullum 1 Comment

When Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) unveiled a “discussion draft” of a marijuana legalization bill last July, he said he wanted to start a conversation that would eventually produce legislation resolving the longstanding conflict between the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and state laws that allow medical or recreational use of cannabis. But his 163-page Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act was full of unnecessarily contentious provisions that seemed likely to alienate potential Republican allies. A bill unveiled today by Rep. Nancy Mace (R–S.C.) tries to address that problem by outlining a simpler and less burdensome approach that entails less federal involvement, lower taxes, and greater deference to state policy choices.

Mace’s bill, the States Reform Act, has five initial co-sponsors: Reps. Tom McClintock (R–Calif.), Peter Meijer (R–Mich.), Don Young (R–Alaska), Kenneth Buck (R–Colo.), and Brian Mast (R–Fla.). It is endorsed by Americans for Prosperity, the Cannabis Freedom Alliance, and the Global Alliance for Cannabis Commerce.

Mace says the bill is designed to accommodate state marijuana policies, which range from complete prohibition to general legalization for adult use. “Every state is different,” Mace says in a press release, noting that her own state, South Carolina, has gone no further than allowing medical use of the nonpsychoactive cannabinoid CBD, while “California and others” allow commercial production and distribution of marijuana for recreational use. “Cannabis reform at the federal level must take all of this into account. And it’s past time federal law codifies this reality.”

Thirty-six states have legalized marijuana for medical use, while 18 states, accounting for more than two-fifths of the U.S. population, also allow recreational use. The latest Gallup poll found that 68 percent of American adults favor legalization, which matches last year’s record level of support. “Washington needs to provide a framework which allows states to make their own decisions on cannabis moving forward,” Mace says. “This bill does that.”

Geoffrey Lawrence, director of drug policy at Reason Foundation (which publishes this website), provided model language for the bill and technical feedback on Mace’s drafts. He hopes the States Reform Act will prove more appealing to Republicans than Schumer’s bill, which so far has not attracted any GOP support, and the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, which the Democrat-controlled House approved last December with support from just a handful of Republicans. “The States Reform Act is a relatively simple bill that gets to the heart of what most people can agree on when it comes to legalizing cannabis at the federal level,” Lawrence says.

At 131 pages, Mace’s bill is just 20 percent shorter than Schumer’s, and it includes several similar provisions. Both bills would remove cannabis from the CSA’s schedules of controlled substances, and both would establish a nationwide minimum purchase age of 21. Both would require automatic expungement of federal criminal records related to nonviolent marijuana offenses, bar the Small Business Administration (SBA) from discriminating against state-licensed cannabusinesses, and allow Veterans Health Administration doctors to recommend medical marijuana. Both would leave states free to ban marijuana but would bar interference with shipments between jurisdictions where cannabis is legal.

One big difference is the level of federal taxation. Schumer’s bill would impose a federal excise tax on marijuana starting at 10 percent and rising to 25 percent by the fifth year, which would be in addition to frequently hefty state and local taxes. The tax would be based on either the wholesale price per ounce or, for “any THC-measurable cannabis product,” the price per gram of THC. Mace’s bill, by contrast, would impose a straightforward 3 percent excise tax, which would remain at that level for at least 10 years.

According to Mace’s summary of the bill, the 10-year moratorium on raising the excise tax is meant to “ensure competitive footing in the market.” In other words, a relatively low tax rate will help legal marijuana businesses compete with black-market dealers, who do not collect taxes.

Schumer’s bill would use revenue from the marijuana tax to create three new grant programs aimed at helping “economically disadvantaged individuals” and “individuals adversely affected by the War on Drugs.” Mace’s bill would create a Law Enforcement Retraining and Successful Second Chances Fund, which would funnel marijuana tax money to three existing programs: the Crisis Stabilization and Community Reentry Grant Program, the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, and the Community-Oriented Policing Services Program. Some of the money also would be assigned to “veterans’ mental health,” “state opioid epidemic responses,” “preventing underage use of cannabis,” and the SBA “for supporting newly licensed small [marijuana] businesses through its various programs.”

Under Schumer’s bill, state-licensed marijuana businesses, which already are regulated by state and local governments, would also be supervised by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Treasury Department’s Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), and the Justice Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Mace’s bill likewise imagines roles for all of those agencies, but it says the FDA “shall have the same authorities with respect to cannabis products that it has with respect to alcohol,” such as label regulation for certain beverages, “and no more.”

According to the summary, that provision “ensures that cannabis products in interstate commerce will be treated like alcohol and that the regulatory issues harming the industrial hemp-derived CBD industry will not be repeated in the cannabis space.” The bill also “grandfathers ‘designated state medical cannabis products,'” including “those produced consistent with state law,” to ensure “continued access” for patients. The FDA “may still prescribe serving sizes, certify designated state medical cannabis products as a ministerial duty, and authorize new drugs or approved new uses of drug applications to create new pharmaceutical grade products, but may not prohibit the use of cannabis or its derivates in non-drug applications, such as in designated state medical cannabis products, dietary supplements, foods, beverages, non-drug topical solutions, or cosmetics.”

Continuing the analogy to alcohol, the TTB “will be the primary regulator of cannabis products in interstate commerce,” while the ATF “will serve as the primary law enforcement agency supporting the TTB’s work, exactly as it does in the alcohol space.” The Department of Agriculture would regulate cannabis crops in the same way it regulates raw materials for alcoholic beverages, such as grain and hops. The bill “applies to cannabis the same recordkeeping, liability, reporting, packaging, and labeling requirement[s]” that apply to the alcohol industry under the Internal Revenue Code. The bill would prohibit cannabis advertising that is false, misleading, or aimed at minors.

Mace is playing up the aspects of the States Reform Act that should appeal to her fellow Republicans without alienating Democrats. A poster she used at today’s press conference says the bill, in addition to descheduling marijuana and regulating it “like alcohol,” imposes a low excise tax, “protects kids,” “protects veterans,” “protects each state’s unique laws & reforms,” and implements “safe criminal justice reform.”

Mace’s bill summary elaborates on that last point, noting that the States Reform Act “provides opportunities for reentry for non-violent, non-DUI cannabis offenders who had no relation to a foreign drug cartel and pose no further threat to society, consistent with the policies of the Department of Justice under President Trump for clemency for non-violent cannabis offenders.” Mace also could have noted that Trump supported drug sentencing reform and, unlike his successor, said he favored reconciling state and federal marijuana laws.

“The States Reform Act completely removes federal prohibition and allows states to compete and decide how they wish to treat cannabis,” Lawrence notes. “It removes federal tax penalties against marijuana companies and opens up banking. It recognizes that legal markets must compete with black markets on price and therefore charges only a 3 percent excise tax, along with licensing fees not to exceed $10,000. Finally, it extends these changes back in time by expunging the records of those who have been arrested for nonviolent federal cannabis crimes.”

Rather than “going too far in any direction by including elements that splinter the realm of agreement,” Lawrence says, “the beauty of the States Reform Act is that it’s both simple and reasonably comprehensive. Enacting major social change requires broad, bipartisan agreement, and the States Reform Act checks that box.”

This article was originally published by Reason.com

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Legislation, Marijuana

Nearly entire CA House delegation – including 4 Republicans – backs cannabis banking

October 2, 2019 By Chris Reed 3 Comments

More than three-quarters of California’s local governments have declined to authorize retail stores to sell cannabis, as permitted by state voters with their 2016 approval of Proposition 64. Opposition has been led by moderate Democrats and conservative Republicans unconvinced that making the drug readily available for recreational use is good for society.

But much of California’s House delegation is supportive of helping the marijuana industry achieve a key goal: access to the banking system. Even with cannabis now legal in some form in 33 states, the great majority of banks and credit unions in the Golden State and elsewhere have declined to do business with marijuana-related businesses because possession and sale of the drug remain illegal under federal law.

Last week, the House passed the Secure and Fair Enforcement Banking Act 321 to 103. Every California Democrat backed the measure and so did four of the state’s seven Republican members: Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield, Tom McClintock of Elk Grove, Devin Nunes of Tulare and Duncan Hunter of Alpine.

The passage of the bill after past efforts went nowhere was widely credited to a change in focus in lobbying. Leading the push this time was lobbyists for the financial services industry itself – not the cannabis industry. They argued that making a multibillion-dollar industry use cash only created headaches and safety risks for the many legitimate, longstanding businesses that dealt with cannabis companies.

Bankers say other businesses shouldn’t be inconvenienced

American Bankers Association President and CEO Rob Nichols told Politico, “The most compelling arguments have been centered around these secondary relationships. It’s the local plumber, it’s the local electrician, it’s the attorney, it’s the accountant who are doing business with a cannabis grower or dispensary who are then having challenges associated with getting banking products and services.”

The American Financial Services Association focused its lobbying on McCarthy and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, also emphasizing the need to stop inconveniencing so many established businesses.

The fate of the SAFE bill in the Senate is unclear. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, has said that he will schedule a hearing on the bill, but his aides said that should not be interpreted as support.

California’s Democratic senators, Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris, are expected to be supportive. After 35 years as a staunch supporter of the drug war, Feinstein reversed course in spring 2018.

“My state has legalized marijuana for personal use, and as California continues to implement this law, we need to ensure we have strong safety rules to prevent impaired driving and youth access, similar to other public health issues like alcohol,” she told a McClatchy reporter.

Harris has also changed her position. In 2010, while running for California attorney general, she opposed an initiative to legalize recreational marijuana use.

“Spending two decades in courtrooms, Harris believes that drug selling harms communities,” her aide told Capitol Weekly. “Harris supports the legal use of medicinal marijuana but does not support anything beyond that.”

But her position softened over the years, and last year she signed on as a co-sponsor of a bill by Sen. Cory Booker, D-New Jersey, that would make cannabis legal under federal law.

This article was originally published by CalWatchdog.com

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Cannabis, Marijuana