Blowing Smoke About Cannabis Consumption Lounges

CANNABIS CONSUMPTION SPACES ARE NEEDED IN CALIFORNIA 
While it’s legal for adults and medical patients to possess and grow marijuana in California, using it can be a problem.  Unlike tobacco or alcohol, cannabis is illegal to consume in any public place – even in edible form.  That leaves only private establishments and residences as places to enjoy a product made legal by California voters in 2016.
Smoking and vaping are even more problematic. Under current law, they are legal only where tobacco smoking is permitted.  That rules out all private indoor meeting rooms, restaurants, clubs, hotels, convention centers, etc.;  also any businesses with liquor permits.  Some California cities have even gone so far as to pass “no-smoking” bans in multi-unit dwellings, effectively depriving private apartment residents of any legal place to inhale, even for medical purposes.
California cannabis consumers are accordingly in need of more legal spaces where they can socialize and partake.  To this end, state law allows local governments to let licensed dispensaries open “consumption lounges,” where patrons can smoke or otherwise consume marijuana as in Amsterdam’s famous coffee shops. A score of such establishments have opened across California, with local approval and public safety measures in place.
 
PENDING BILLS WOULD BOLSTER CANNABIS LOUNGES, INDUSTRY
Under current law, such lounges can only serve cannabis and pre-packaged foods.   Two bills currently in the state legislature, SB 285 by Sen. Ben Allen (Santa Monica) and AB 374 by Asm. Matt Haney (San Francisco), would authorize local governments to let licensed consumption lounges prepare and sell fresh food and beverages, as well as perhaps entertainment. Tell Your State Senator to Support AB 374 and Tell Your Assemblymember to Support SB 285. 
Innocent as this change might appear, public health groups have voiced opposition on the spurious grounds that secondhand marijuana smoke is as dangerous as tobacco smoke, and would therefore expose workers to unacceptable health risks. Of course, it might well be asked why workers at cannabis lounges would object to smelling marijuana smoke in the first place; many might well welcome the opportunity. As in the case of commercial kitchens, workers can be protected by reasonable ventilation measures.
 
CANNABIS SMOKE IS NOT TOBACCO SMOKE
The scientific evidence is clear that marijuana smoke is not as dangerous as tobacco smoke.  This might seem surprising, since marijuana and tobacco smoke share chemical similarities.  Both are produced by the combustion of dried leaf,  which produces numerous known carcinogens and toxins,  such as benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, et al.    Yet longitudinal studies of human subjects have found that marijuana smoking, unlike tobacco, does NOT cause lung or respiratory cancers, even in long-term heavy users.  [“Cannabis Exposure and Lung Health”].
There are various explanations as to why this is so.  First of all, marijuana users typically smoke far less than cigarette smokers  – on the order of a half gram or two per day,  versus twenty grams for one pack of cigarettes.  Secondly, there are significant chemical differences between cannabinoids and nicotine:  tobacco contains potent nicotine-related carcinogens not found in cannabis, while cannabinoids have distinctive anti-carcinogenic properties.[1]  There may also be differences in how the two kinds of smoke are absorbed by the lungs.  It is notable that the odor of marijuana typically clears the room the next day, while nicotine leaves a lingering, stale odor.
An exhaustive review of the health effects of marijuana by the National Academy of Sciences,  accordingly found “no statistical association between cannabis smoking and the incidence of lung cancer.”[2] Other studies have failed to find evidence that cannabis smoking is a significant risk factor in emphysema[3] or cardiovascular disease.[4]
Given that first-hand smoking of marijuana doesn’t cause lung cancer or other serious tobacco-related diseases,  it’s all the less likely that second-hand smoking does.   This is not to deny that marijuana smoke can be irritating, especially to asthmatics and smoke-sensitive subjects.  Chronic pot smoking has been linked to increased risk of bronchitis and infections.   It’s therefore essential that non-smokers have the right to be protected from second-hand smoke of all kinds, and that consumption spaces be well insulated from neighbors.
Some anti-smoking purists have suggested that consumption lounges only serve edibles.  However, edibles are not conducive to social use, since they require a lengthy time to take effect, and they are particularly likely to invite overdoses.
 
VAPORIZATION IS HARM REDUCTION
On the other hand, the hazards of smoke inhalation can be virtually eliminated by smokeless vaporizers and e-cigarettes.   Vaporizers heat cannabis to a temperature below the point of combustion where smoke toxins and carcinogens form, producing an effectively smokeless stream of cannabinoid and terpenoid vapors.   This effectively eliminates toxic particulates and gases, which derive from the 80% of the plant which doesn’t consist of active ingredients (THC and terpenoids).
Vaporizers come in two types.  Herbal vaporizers heat raw leaf and buds to the point where they produce vapor but don’t burn and produce toxic compounds (about 180-200° C).  Herbal vaporizers have been shown to eliminate virtually all of the carcinogens produced in marijuana smoke,[5] and have proven to be a “safe and effective” delivery method in medical cannabis studies.[6]
Vape pens or e-cigs produce vapor from concentrated cannabis oils, which are distilled to eliminate non-active constituents of the plant.  Vape cartridges typically contain very high concentrations of THC (~80%+),  but are designed to deliver it in modest dosages per puff like a regular joint.   As a result, users obtain a moderate dose of THC and terpenoids with virtually no smoke contaminants. Vaping THC concentrate was shown to eliminate over 99.9% of the cancer risk of smoking in a lab study of e-cigs,[7]
It is important to note that the safety of vape concentrates depends on their purity.  An epidemic of fatal EVALI lung disease was caused in 2019-20 by vape concentrates from the underground market which contained a toxic additive to make them vaporize better.  No problems were reported with California-regulated vapes.  Subsequent improvements in technology have since eliminated the need for additives. Most vape concentrates now consist of virtually pure cannabinoids and terpenoids.
Vaporizers have further advantages in reducing second-hand smoke.   Unlike cigarettes and pipes, they emit vapor only while users inhale, eliminating the sidestream smoke generated by burning cigarettes.  They likewise eliminate the need for lighters, matches, and ashtrays.
 
CONCLUSIONS
State-funded anti-tobacco groups have misinformed Californians that second-hand marijuana smoke and vapes pose the same harms as tobacco cigarettes.   This notion is false.  The scientific evidence clearly shows that marijuana is safer than tobacco, and vaporization is safer than smoking.  Not a single epidemiological study has shown that second-hand marijuana smoke, much less vapor, is a workplace exposure hazard.
There is no reason that California cannot accommodate safe social consumption spaces for marijuana use while protecting non-users from unwanted smoke exposure.   As in the case of commercial kitchens, which also produce smoke, workers can be protected by reasonable ventilation measures.  Consumption lounges have a long history in Amsterdam as well as San Francisco, where the S.F. Cannabis Buyers’ Club offered over 10,000 medical patients a safe place to medicate and socialize in the days before Prop. 64.[8]
California NORML advocates the expansion of consumption spaces not only for consumers and medical users, but also visitors in search of a safe and friendly place to inhale.
See a List of Cannabis Consumption Lounges in California. 
Also see: Cannabis Consumption Lounges: Mitigating Risks
Information about opening and operating a consumption lounge from Cal NORML board member and attorney Lauren Mendelsohn.
 
REFERENCES
[1] Melamede R. “Cannabis and tobacco smoke are not equally carcinogenic,” Harm Reduction Journal 21  (2005).
[2] National Academy of Sciences,  The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids (2017), p. 143.
[3] Ware, M. “Cannabis and the Lung: No More Smoking Gun?” and Tashkin DP “Effects of marijuana smoking on the lung.” Ann Am Thorac Soc 2013; Vol. 10, Issue 3.
[4] Theerasuwipakorn N et al, “Cannabis and adverse cardiovascular events,” Toxicol Rep. 2023; 10: 537-43 10.1016/j.toxrep.2023.04.011;
Ravi D et al. “Association Between Marijuana Use and Cardiovascular Risk Factors and Outcomes,” Ann Intern Med. 2018 Feb 168(3): 187-94 10.7326/M17-1548.
[5] Gieringer D et al:  “Cannabis Vaporizer Combines Efficient Delivery of THC with Effective Suppression of Pyrolytic Compounds,” Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics 4 (1) 2004.
[6] Abrams D et al, “Vaporization as a Smokeless Cannabis Delivery System: A Pilot Study,”  Clin. Pharm. & Ther. April 2007.
[7] Meehan-Atrash J et al., “Aerosol Gas-Phase Components from Cannabis E-Cigarettes and Dabbing: Mechanistic Insight and Quantitative Risk Analysis,” ACS Omega Sept 16, 2019.
[8] Feldman HW, Mandel J, “Providing medical marijuana: the importance of cannabis clubs,” J Psychoactive Drugs 1998 30(2) 179-86.
The post Blowing Smoke About Cannabis Consumption Lounges appeared first on CaNorml.org.

Clearing of Past Marijuana Crimes Moves Forward Across California

UPDATES
7/5/23: Thanks to the excellent (as always) reporting by Marijuana Moment, some of these figures and tables have been revised from an earlier release.
California’s Attorney General has issued a second report on statewide expungements for marijuana crimes, reporting on county compliance through April 6, 2023 and finding that 206,052 of an estimated 227,650 potential resentencing/dismissals have happened statewide. That number is up from 197,205 in the March report, with 8,847 convictions sealed in 2023 and 21,598 still waiting to be sealed as of April.
Six counties (Alpine, Lake, Mono, San Luis Obispo, Siskiyou, and Shasta) were in full compliance as of April, according to the DOJ, with San Francisco and a few others nearly in compliance with only a few outstanding cases. San Diego brought its compliance rate up to 99.3% by sealing 1,506 cases this year so far; a remaining 190 have not been reported sealed. Los Angeles county had no reported sealed cases in 2023; it has 2,226 yet to be acted on.
Some other counties aren’t making much progress this year, notably Orange County with 4,052 convictions yet to be addressed by April, San Bernardino with 3,717, and Alameda with 2,080. Marked progress was seen in El Dorado, Kern, Madera, Napa, Riverside, Sacramento, and Sutter counties, with small gains in other counties. Imperial County brings up the rear with only 14.6% compliance, clearing only 258 of its potential 1,767 convictions, followed by Amador (31.1%), Marin (38.8%), Trinity (47.6%), San Joaquin (59.1%). Humboldt was only at 61% compliance, but has cleared 272 convictions this year. (See Table below).
Under state law, all counties must comply fully by July 1, 2023. The next quarterly AG’s report on compliance is due in September. The AG is also charged with informing the public about the new law and its progress.

County
Eligible Convictions
Sealed by Jan. 3
Sealed in 2023
Sealed by April 6
% Compliant
Remaining to be Sealed

Alpine
39
38
1
39
100.0
0

Lake
654
650
4
654
100.0
0

Mono
90
88
2
90
100.0
0

San Luis Obispo
1,229
1,220
9
1,229
100.0
0

Siskiyou
560
557
3
560
100.0
0

Shasta
2,022
1,994
27
2,021
100.0
1

San Francisco
7,804
6,506
1,294
7,800
99.9
4

Sonoma
3,303
3,296
0
3,296
99.8
7

Ventura
1,732
1,727
0
1,727
99.7
5

Merced
946
926
17
943
99.7
3

Monterey
1,797
1,772
14
1,786
99.4
11

San Diego
29,074
27,378
1,506
28,884
99.3
190

San Mateo
2,688
2,597
71
2,668
99.3
20

Santa Barbara
1,834
1,810
9
1,819
99.2
15

Riverside
8,164
6,766
1,317
8,083
99.0
81

Mendocino
1,468
1,453
0
1,453
99.0
15

Stanislaus
2,448
2,407
12
2,419
98.8
29

Inyo
225
203
19
222
98.7
3

Sierra
69
68
0
68
98.6
1

Tulare
2,665
2,589
34
2,623
98.4
42

Butte
1,448
1,237
187
1,424
98.3
24

Yuba
383
359
16
375
97.9
8

Yolo
846
802
24
826
97.6
20

San Benito
340
331
0
331
97.4
9

Los Angeles
70,097
67,871
0
67,871
96.8
2,226

Calaveras
338
326
1
327
96.7
11

Colusa
298
286
2
288
96.6
10

Tehama
1,020
975
0
975
95.6
45

Santa Cruz
1,552
1,381
99
1,480
95.4
72

Contra Costa
3,407
3,044
183
3,227
94.7
180

Solano
2,210
2,085
0
2,085
94.3
125

Mariposa
286
245
22
267
93.4
19

Fresno
3,575
3,183
121
3,304
92.4
271

Sutter
303
185
95
280
92.4
23

Santa Clara
10,193
9,377
3
9,380
92.0
813

Madera
1,052
472
493
965
91.7
87

Kern
3,832
2,568
843
3,411
89.0
421

Sacramento
6,755
5,158
828
5,986
88.6
769

El Dorado
1,047
506
408
914
87.3
133

Modoc
141
123
0
123
87.2
18

Glenn
381
321
3
324
85.0
57

Alameda
10,007
7,893
34
7,927
79.2
2,080

Tuolumne
593
468
1
469
79.1
124

Placer
1,430
1,089
20
1,109
77.6
321

Kings
698
384
138
522
74.8
176

Nevada
691
507
2
509
73.7
182

Orange
14,355
10,063
240
10,303
71.8
4,052

Napa
834
438
148
586
70.3
248

San Bernardino
11,121
7,138
266
7,404
66.6
3,717

Del Norte
358
225
6
231
64.5
127

Lassen
252
128
34
162
64.3
90

Plumas
187
115
0
115
61.5
72

Humboldt
1,658
739
272
1,011
61.0
647

San Joaquin
3,822
2,256
2
2,258
59.1
1,564

Trinity
658
304
9
313
47.6
345

Marin
608
236
0
236
38.8
372

Amador
296
91
1
92
31.1
204

Imperial
1,767
251
7
258
14.6
1,509

TOTAL
227,650
197,205
8,847
206,052
86 % AVG
21,598

4/23: As mandated by last year’s bill AB 1706 (Bonta), the DOJ has issued its first report on county-by-county compliance with sending their expungement data to DOJ.
The report is current through January 1 and shows that many counties still had not complied with the law by that date, or had only partially done so. The Last Prisoner Project has produced a map of the counties and their compliance rates, based on the DOJ report. It shows for example that as of January 1, Orange County was only 48% compliant, Alameda County only 56%, Marin 15%, and Humboldt only 14%. See LPP’s landing page on expungement
Under AB 1706, counties had until March 1, 2023 to send in their cases to be resentenced or cleared, but this is not reflected in the DOJ report, which only goes through January 1. The next DOJ report on county compliance is due in June, and DOJ has until July to actually clear past marijuana convictions, based on county data.
9/22: Asm. Mia Bonta’s bill AB 1706 to expedite clearing of marijuana records in California has been signed into law.
12/21: AG Bonta Pledges DOJ Help to Clear Past Marijuana Convictions in California
1/22: LA Times: California was supposed to clear cannabis convictions. Tens of thousands are still languishing
10/21: Why Is California Failing Thousands of People With Cannabis Records?
(The lede seems to say that a deadline has passed to clear records; in fact, as the article says further down, the courts still have no deadline to act.)
Marin County DA drops, reduces 500 cannabis cases
People with past marijuana convictions in Marin County can check their eligibility for expungement by reaching Marin’s Assistant District Attorney Otis Bruce at (415) 473-6450.
9/21: Los Angeles District Attorney to Vacate Some 60,000 Marijuana Convictions

6/21: California’s Expungement Battle: What’s Working & What’s Not in the Fight for Cannabis Record Clearance
In a statement provided to Ember, Attorney General Bonta noted that “too many Californians have been treated unfairly as a result of the many broken parts of our criminal justice system. They deserve more justice, more humanity, and a second chance.” He added that AB-1793 “is a bill that seeks to right a historic wrong,” and that he is “excited to play a role in seeing through as Attorney General.”
“The California Department of Justice and local agencies have been hard at work since the law’s passage in 2018, but there’s much still to be done,” he added. “As the People’s Attorney, I will do all I can to ensure all those with qualifying cannabis-related convictions have their records dismissed, sealed, or redesignated.”
Watch Cal NORML’s April 7, 2021 Zoom meeting with Alia Toran-Burrell, Associate Program Director, Criminal Justice at Code for America.
UPDATE 3/21: Code for America reports that half of California counties have used their Clear My Record tool, resulting in 140,000 past marijuana convictions identified as qualifying for being reduced or dismissed. In addition to the government-facing application, Clear My Record has also created a user-facing app that helps residents in 14 California counties find attorneys to help with the petition process to clear records. (Those counties are: Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno, Marin, San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Ventura & Yolo. Cal NORML’s legal committee attorneys can also help with expungement processes.
Code for America recommends that someone who thinks they have an eligible conviction (to be automatically cleared) contact the DA or public defender in the county in which their conviction is to see whether their conviction has been identified by the DA to be automatically cleared. They’ll then have to confirm with that county court the status of that cleared conviction (i.e. has it already been cleared by the court, is it in the process of being cleared, etc.)
Thousand of marijuana convictions officially reduced, others dismissed in San Diego County
Excerpt: With the wave of a pen by a Superior Court judge, nearly 26,000 people with felony marijuana convictions on their records had them reduced to less-onerous misdemeanor convictions last month. In addition some 1,000 people with misdemeanor marijuana convictions had those cases completely dismissed. The moves came in a three-page order signed by San Diego Superior Court Judge Eugenia Eyherabide on Feb. 5. 
While the charges have been altered it may take some time to update individual court records to reflect the changes and the court system is now working through those logistics. The Public Defender’s Office through its Fresh Start program can help people clearing their records, said Deputy Public Defender Kate Braner. Though Eyherabide’s order took effect immediately, the lag time to update individual records could cause problems for people who undergo background checks or license or checks for certain licenses that rely on scouring court records. That program can be contacted at Fresh.Start@sdcounty.gov.
A follow-up story from the same reporter found that of the 5000 cases eligible for resentencing or dismissal announced by the San Diego city attorney, only 500 have qualified for action. 
UPDATE 1/21: Four years later, California courts are failing on key promise of marijuana legalization – Sacramento Bee Editorial Board
Excerpt: Today, thousands of Californians could still be rejected by an employer, denied a loan, disqualified from housing or deemed ineligible for public benefits because of marijuana convictions that remain on their records. Under state law, such convictions should have been removed.
Assembly Bill 1793, authored by Democrat Rob Bonta of Alameda, was designed to help affected Californians clear their records. The bill created an automatic expungement process that gave the state Department of Justice and local prosecutors until last July to reduce, dismiss or contest marijuana convictions.
Unfortunately, courts in most of California’s 58 counties — which must take the step of clearing old convictions before the process is complete — were given no such deadline and have not prioritized the issue. Now, as many as 113,000 residents may still have marijuana convictions on their record in the court system. This is an inexcusable failure by California’s justice system.
June 28, 2020 – Proposition 64 (the Adult Use of Marijuana Act or AUMA), which California voters passed in November 2016, allowed people with past marijuana convictions to petition the court for expungement or resentencing. AB 1793 (Bonta), to automatically expunge or resentence certain past marijuana crimes without requiring the filing of a petition, passed and was signed into law in 2018, and is codified as Ca Health & Safety Code 11361.9.
Under the new state law, the state Department of Justice identified past convictions that are potentially eligible for recall or dismissal of sentence, dismissal and sealing, or redesignation pursuant to Section 11361.8. The DOJ notified county District Attorneys of all cases in their jurisdiction that are eligible, and the prosecutors had until July 1, 2020 to review all cases and inform the court and the public defender’s office in their county that they are challenging a particular case.
The law states, “If the prosecution does not challenge the recall or dismissal of sentence, dismissal and sealing, or redesignation by July 1, 2020, the court shall reduce or dismiss the conviction pursuant to Section 11361.8. The court shall notify the DOJ and the department shall modify the state summary criminal history information database accordingly….The DOJ shall post general information on its Internet Web site about the recall or dismissal of sentences, dismissal and sealing, or redesignation authorized in this section.”
HOW ARE COUNTIES COMPLYING?
Even before the state law took effect, SF District Attorney George Gascon announced in February 2019 he would release over 9,000 past marijuana convictions for resentencing or expungement. After Gascon challenged Los Angeles DA Jackie Lacey for re-election, she announced LA will move to expunge 66,000 past convictions.
In Santa Clara County, a judge has already signed off on more than 13,000 marijuana convictions, affecting more than 9,000 people, well more than the 3,068 cases released by DOJ. Santa Cruz county’s DA announced he would release 1,169 marijuana cases involving 1,085 defendants, fewer than the 2,187 DOJ-released number.
Cal NORML legal committee attorneys Bill Panzer and Omar Figueroa point out that some marijuana crimes are still being charged as felonies, or not expunged, under Health and Safety Codes 11366 [maintaining a place] & § 11366.5 [storing], along with Penal Code Sections 182 [conspiracy], and 32 [accessory after the fact], not to mention civil asset forfeiture over marijuana. The DOJ sent a supplemental list of marijuana cases under these codes plus PC 644 [attempted crime], citing People v. Medina, which says a court has discretion in resentencing  marijuana conspiracy crimes (while refusing to do so for defendant Medina, who had prior convictions and pleaded guilty to possession 35 pounds for sale). Another case, People v. Boatright allowed resentencing for marijuana cultivation despite 4 grams of methamphetamine being found on the site.
Humboldt County‘s DA chose to include H&SC 11366 & 11366.5 violations in releasing cases to the court; however, she released only half the number cases identified by DOJ. By contrast, Mendocino‘s DA released three times as many cases as DOJ found, using his own computer program to find eligible cases.
The Orange County Register reported that the LA DA’s is challenging 2,142 convictions flagged by the DOJ. Under the law, the public defender’s office, upon receiving notice from the DA, shall “make a reasonable effort to notify the person whose resentencing or dismissal is being challenged.” If the prosecution does not challenge the recall or dismissal of sentence, “the court shall notify the department [of justice],” which “shall post general information on its Internet Web site about the recall or dismissal of sentences, dismissal and sealing, or redesignation authorized in this section.”
Contra Costa County, which released cases for resentencing in January, has set up an email address where people may write to find out if their case is among those sent to the court. Sonoma County says, “To find out if your record has been cleared, contact the Law Offices of the Sonoma County Public Defender or the Sonoma County Superior Court.” The DOJ says, “If you are looking for information regarding a past conviction and want to know if the prosecuting agency is reviewing your case, please contact either the district attorney’s office or the public defender’s office in the county of conviction.” You can also request your own criminal record.
Below is a table with the number of past convictions released to each county by the DOJ, with links to their status (as we know it).

DOJ Records Released 7/19
County

7,466
Alameda

37
Alpine

243
Amador

1,377
Butte

274
Calaveras

263
Colusa

2,568
Contra Costa

335
Del Norte

1,013
El Dorado

3,129
Fresno

319
Glenn

1,611
Humboldt

1,632
Imperial

211
Inyo

3,214
Kern

631
Kings

549
Lake

220
Lassen

57,341
Los Angeles

921
Madera

526
Marin

253
Mariposa

1,330
Mendocino

847
Merced

114
Modoc

136
Mono

1,482
Monterey

681
Napa

632
Nevada

12,303
Orange

1,354
Placer

164
Plumas

7,035
Riverside

5,408
Sacramento

280
San Benito

10,176
San Bernardino

1,266
San Diego

2,235
San Francisco

1,271
San Joaquin

7,785
San Luis Obispo

25,991
San Mateo

5,312
Santa Barbara

3,068
Santa Clara

2,187
Santa Cruz

1,781
Shasta

58
Sierra

537
Siskiyou

1,830
Solano

2,272
Sonoma

2,045
Stanislaus

279
Sutter

859
Tehama

558
Trinity

2,540
Tulare

476
Tuolumne

1,514
Ventura

760
Yolo

391
Yuba

191,090
TOTAL

The post Clearing of Past Marijuana Crimes Moves Forward Across California appeared first on CaNorml.org.

Cannabis Collections Cash Crunch

Ron Naulls, Naulls Legal Group

There are clear signs that the macroeconomic environment is causing some financial tightening across the board, and the cannabis industry is not immune. The uncertain times and challenging environment (i.e., lack of access to capital, taxation, regulation/compliance, the illicit market, inflation, and other macroeconomic issues like geopolitical tensions) add to the perfect storm. They are causing the industry to face a cash crunch.
Sticks and stones break bones, but there is a better way to get that pay!
The underground and illicit market may handle business the old way. However, if you are a licensed grower, distributor, retailer, or manufacturer, you probably have more than one instance of an unpaid invoice or balance from another licensee. The issue is so prominent in California that if the legislature has its way, all cannabis contracts will be regulated under a newly proposed bill. Even the Credit Management Association is jumping into the fray.
So what to do? You do not need a regulator to tell you how to handle your business. It all boils down to the four corners of the agreement between you and the other licensed business from the outset. We like to ensure our client’s agreements are explicit about what happens when the other side cannot pay their bill on time. For instance, a clear call out when payment is due and if any grace period applies. In addition, any late fees or costs to collect delinquent debts. Outlining these types of terms provides evidence and clarity to both parties, reducing the likelihood of misunderstandings. Above all, it plainly defines penalties or consequences for late payments to encourage the timely settlement of debts.
Second, communication and solid relationships with other licensed counterparts are crucial. Establishing a positive rapport can lead to a more amicable resolution versus animosity that can spill over to social media. Seek to understand any underlying issues with fellow cannabis enterprises. Having a sense of empathy will foster healthy business relationships within the industry as we collectively navigate financial challenges. It is easier to do business with existing clients than to market and endeavor to find new clients.
Third, if direct efforts fail to yield results, consider engaging an experienced firm that collects debts in the cannabis industry. Law firms have the edge over debt collection agencies in that competent firms in the industry possess the expertise and resources to navigate the legal and regulatory complexities specific to the sector. For example, federal bankruptcy laws are not a remedy for the cannabis industry. Entrusting debt collection to a professional law firm can alleviate the burden on your business, allowing you to focus on core operations while increasing the likelihood of successful recovery.
Finally, in cases where communication and an experienced firm have exhausted collection efforts, legal action may become necessary. An attorney specializing in cannabis law can explore available legal remedies. We guide clients partnered with the Naulls Legal Group through the legal process, including filing lawsuits or pursuing alternative dispute resolution methods, such as mediation or arbitration. These approaches can help resolve disputes without resorting to extended court battles, saving time and resources.
In conclusion, collecting outstanding debts in the cannabis industry requires a strategic and proactive approach. By implementing clear terms and agreements, maintaining open communication, leveraging professional debt collection firms, and exploring legal recourse, cannabis businesses can maximize their chances of recovering outstanding debts from other licensed enterprises. It is crucial to strike a balance between assertiveness and maintaining positive relationships within the industry, ensuring a thriving and sustainable business ecosystem for all stakeholders involved.
Naulls Legal Group is the premier law firm for cannabis-based businesses representing entrepreneurs and organizations nationwide based out of Southern California. We are adept at navigating delicate cannabis compliance, legislation, bureaucratic challenges, and enforcement around the increasingly complex and heavily regulated cannabis laws.
Naulls Legal Group is a California NORML legal committee member. See their listing in the Cannabis Attorneys directory.
The post Cannabis Collections Cash Crunch appeared first on CaNorml.org.

Marijuana Use and Firearms Possession 2023 Update

Marijuana Use and Firearms Possession
Are the Times A-Changin?
C.D. Michel, Michel & Associates, P.C.

INTRODUCTION
In our 2021 article for California NORML, we discussed how federal gun laws intersect with California’s legalization of recreational marijuana use. In that article, we examined Ninth Circuit authority holding that federal law makes it illegal for all marijuana users to possess a firearm.
Since then, however, Second Amendment rights jurisprudence has developed rapidly. In June 2022, the Supreme Court issued its decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. That ruling set forth the legal test that courts must apply when evaluating the constitutionality of laws regulating firearms and the people who can possess them. And it expressly rejected the analysis previously employed by the Ninth Circuit for deciding such cases.
Because a recent federal court held that the law prohibiting marijuana users from possessing firearms was unconstitutional, many have asked whether anything has changed legally for marijuana users who would choose to own a firearm.
The short answer is no. But that could change—and possibly soon.
This memo explains what has happened so far, what could happen next for marijuana users who would like to own a gun for sport or to defend themselves or their families, and how folks can reduce their vulnerability to prosecution.
THE NINTH CIRCUIT HAS CONFIRMED THAT FEDERAL LAW PROHIBITS MARIJUANA USERS FROM POSSESSING FIREARMS
Under 18 U.S.C. 922(g), it is unlawful for certain categories of people to “ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.”
One such category includes people that are “unlawful user[s] of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)).” 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3). Of course, the federal Controlled Substances Act still includes marijuana, effectively banning all current marijuana users from owning firearms or ammunition.
“Firearms” are defined by the law as “(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device.” 18 U.S.C.S. § 921(a)(3). So aside from prohibiting marijuana users from possessing firearms, federal law also prohibits users from possessing starter guns, firearm mufflers and silencers, and destructive devices (bombs, grenades, rockets, and so on).
“Ammunition” is defined by the law as “ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellant powder designed for use in any firearm.” Id. § 921(a)(17)(A).
The Ninth Circuit has held that the firearm prohibition on cannabis users is constitutional, even in the context of those with medical marijuana cards, explaining that “these laws will sometimes burden—albeit minimally and only incidentally—the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are reasonably, but erroneously, suspected of being unlawful drug users. However, the Constitution tolerates these modest collateral burdens in various contexts, and does so here as well.” Wilson v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1083, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2016).
Thus, in the Ninth Circuit at least, even those with medical marijuana cards are essentially considered acceptable collateral damage to this overbroad government policy.
 THE PROCESS OF BUYING A FIREARM
When anyone buys a firearm from or through a firearms retailer, they are required to answer questions on the federal “4473” form. In California, there are other state forms that must also be completed, including the Dealer Record of Sale (DROS) form.
The 4473 form specifically asks if the firearm purchaser is an “unlawful user” of marijuana. Even if marijuana use is legal in your state, it is still illegal under federal law. So to be truthful, you must answer “yes” to this question if you use marijuana.

The 4473 form must be signed under penalty of perjury. Committing perjury is a crime.
Federal law also expressly prohibits knowingly making any false statement on the 4473. Doing so is punishable by up to ten years in prison and up to a $250,000 fine. 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(b).
So if you don’t answer the questions on the 4473 form truthfully, you can be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(a)(1)(A) for lying on the form. Prosecutors typically call these cases “Lie and Buy” cases.
A SUPREME COURT DECISION AND LEGAL GAME CHANGER
As a recent Associated Press article explained[1]
 A landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment is upending gun laws across the country, dividing judges and sowing confusion over what firearm restrictions can remain on the books.
 The high court’s ruling that set new standards for evaluating gun laws left open many questions, experts say, resulting in an increasing number of conflicting decisions as lower court judges struggle to figure out how to apply it.
The Supreme Court’s so-called Bruen decision changed the test that lower courts had long used for evaluating challenges to firearm restrictions. Judges should no longer consider whether the law serves public interests like enhancing public safety, the justices said.
 Under the Supreme Court’s new test, the government that wants to uphold a gun restriction must look back into history to show it is consistent with the country’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
Courts in recent months have declared unconstitutional federal laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, felony defendants and people who use marijuana. Judges have shot down a federal ban on possessing guns with serial numbers removed and gun restrictions for young adults in Texas and have blocked the enforcement of Delaware’s ban on the possession of homemade “ghost guns.”
 In several instances, judges looking at the same laws have come down on opposite sides on whether they are constitutional in the wake of the conservative Supreme Court majority’s ruling. The legal turmoil caused by the first major gun ruling in a decade will likely force the Supreme Court to step in again soon to provide more guidance for judges.
THE UNITED STATES v. HARRISON DECISION HOLDS THAT THE BAN ON FIREARMS POSSESSION BY MARIJUANA USERS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
The case of United States v. Harrison began on May 20, 2022, when Mr. Harrison was pulled over for running a red light. A loaded revolver was found in the car, along with a backpack with various marijuana products. A federal grand jury returned an indictment charging Harrison with possessing a firearm with knowledge that he was a marijuana user in violation of USC 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). United States v. Harrison, No. 22-00328, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18397 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 3, 2023).
Harrison asked the district court to dismiss the indictment on various grounds, including that § 922(g)(3), as applied to his marijuana use, violates the Second Amendment. Echoing what the Supreme Court ruled last year in Bruen, Harrison’s lawyers argued that the federal law barring marijuana users from possessing firearms conflicted with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
The prosecution argued, on the other hand, that “disarming presumptively risky persons, namely, felons, the mentally ill, and the intoxicated” is in the public interest.
District Court Judge Patrick Wyrick disagreed, holding that the federal law depriving marijuana users of their Second Amendment rights is unconstitutional. He first explained that the federal government cannot simply exclude marijuana users from “the people” who have Second Amendment rights. If it could, he continued, then the power to exclude people from the protections that constitutional rights provide would be essentially limitless:
Frankly, it’s not even clear this is carving out a “subset,” as much as an outright declaration of the federal government’s belief that it can deprive practically anyone of their Second Amendment right. Who among us, after all, isn’t a “lawbreaker”? For sure, there may well exist some adult who has never exceeded the speed limit, changed lanes without signaling, or failed to come to a complete stop at a stop sign, but they are few and far between.
The government also argued that § 922(g)(3) was constitutional because it is analogous to the Nation’s deeply rooted historical tradition of disarming felons (because unlawful users of controlled substances have engaged in felonious conduct, even if not convicted of it yet). Again, Judge Wyrick disagreed:
Imagine a world where the State of New York, to end-run the adverse judgment it received in Bruen, could make mowing one’s lawn a felony so that it could then strip all its newly deemed “felons” of their right to possess a firearm. The label “felony” is simply “too easy for legislatures and prosecutors to manipulate.”
Judge Wyrick was also amused with the government’s response on this point:
Remarkably, when presented with this lawn-mowing hypothetical argument, and asked if such an approach would be consistent with the Second Amendment, the United States said “yes.” So, in the federal government’s view, a state or the federal government could deem anything at all a felony and then strip those convicted of that felony—no matter how innocuous the conduct—of their fundamental right to possess a firearm. Why? Because courts must defer to a legislature’s judgments about what is and is not a felony, says the United States. It’s as if Bruen’s command regarding the inappropriateness of such deference to legislative judgments has been lost in translation.
According to Judge Wyrick, the Nation’s historical tradition of regulating firearms supports disarming those who have shown their dangerousness through past violent, forceful, or threatening conduct. But a total prohibition on the right to possess a firearm merely because a person is a user of marijuana does not fall within that tradition. While the government made other arguments—including a bizarre effort to protect its law by analogizing to racist laws of the past (a move Wyrick called “concerning”)—ultimately it was this logic that led the court to rule as it did.
It bears repeating that all the United States would have to prove at trial in order to justify depriving Harrison of his right to possess a firearm is that he is a user of marijuana. But the mere use of marijuana carries none of the characteristics that the Nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulation supports. The use of marijuana—which can be bought legally (under state law) at more than 2,000 ordinary store fronts in Oklahoma—is not in and of itself a violent, forceful, or threatening act. It is not a “crime of violence.” Nor does it involve “the actual use or threatened use of force.”
That Congress may have passed § 922(g)(3), as the United States suggests, with some vague relation to public safety or “the public interest” does not change this conclusion. It is not appropriate for a court to “reflexively defer to a [legislative] label when a fundamental right is at stake.” And the use of marijuana does not become a violent, forceful, or threatening act merely because the legislature says it is. 
Having established that marijuana users who possess firearms come within the plain text of the Second Amendment, Judge Wyrick proceeded to the historical analysis now required under Bruen. He noted that while there is some history of laws regulating firearm possession by intoxicated persons, none appear to have prohibited the possession of a firearm in the home for purposes of self-defense.
Where the seven laws the United States identifies took a scalpel to the right of armed self-defense—narrowly carving out exceptions but leaving most of the right in place—§ 922(g)(3) takes a sledgehammer to the right.
Judge Wyrick referenced the Bruen decision when he stated that marijuana use doesn’t make someone a “dangerous lunatic.”
 But the United States’ own conception of the historical tradition demonstrates why §922(g)(3) as applied to Harrison is not analogous to these traditions. Under the United States’ own theory, history and tradition would limit disarmament to dangerous lunatics. And as explained above, the mere use of marijuana does not indicate that someone is in fact dangerous, let alone analogous to a “dangerous lunatic.” There are likely nearly 400,000 Oklahomans who use marijuana under state-law authorization. Lumping all those persons into a category with “dangerous lunatics,” as the United States’ theory requires, is a bridge too far. 
Judge Wyrick also noted that the criminal justice system could have kept Harrison behind bars to ensure he didn’t get his hands on a gun if it concluded that he’s a threat.
 None of this is to say that the government cannot play a role in protecting the public from dangerous persons possessing firearms. It can, and it should. For example, if the State of Texas thought that Harrison’s alleged involvement in a shooting demonstrated that Harrison was a danger to the public, it could have demonstrated to a Texas judge—in an individualized proceeding of which Harrison would have been given notice and the opportunity to be heard—that Harrison ought to be jailed while awaiting trial for that shooting. The Constitution, after all, permits pre-trial detention, and such detention would be a highly effective means of furthering the government’s interest in protecting the public from a gun-toting Harrison. But that didn’t happen; Harrison was released pending trial in Texas. And so here we are, with the federal government now arguing that Harrison’s mere status as a user of marijuana justifies stripping him of his fundamental right to possess a firearm. For all the reasons given above, this is not a constitutionally permissible means of disarming Harrison.
Judge Wyrick vacated the indictment against Harrison, dismissing it with prejudice. You can read the full ruling here.
In our opinion, the Harrison ruling properly applied the Bruen test. But many state and federal government authorities disagree. Indeed, the federal government appealed the district court decision, so the Tenth Circuit will be deciding on the constitutionality of the marijuana prohibition soon. You can track this appeal here.
UNDERSTANDING PERSUASIVE LEGAL AUTHORITY VS. MANDATORY LEGAL AUTHORITY
The ruling in Harrison was issued by the Western District of Oklahoma. A decision by one federal district court is not considered mandatory authority. So other district courts in Oklahoma (or anywhere else) are not bound by the decision, and they do not have to follow it.
Depending on how well-reasoned and well-written a district court ruling is, however, it can be considered persuasive authority, and the reasoning can be adopted voluntarily by any court.
The U.S. government has appealed the Harrison decision. Oklahoma is in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, so decisions of the federal courts of Oklahoma are appealed to the Tenth Circuit. That may uphold or overturn the district court’s ruling. If upheld, any ruling (a win or a loss) from the Tenth Circuit would only be binding on federal courts within the Tenth Circuit. But again, such a decision could be relied on as persuasive authority in courts outside that circuit.
 RULINGS BY OTHER COURTS
So far, two other court rulings have substantively discussed Harrison.
The first was not favorable. A district court in the Northern District of Indiana stated in a footnote:
The [c]ourt is not persuaded by Harrison in part due to the weight of authority reaching the contrary conclusion, the [c]ourt’s own analysis of the arguments presented in this case, and disagreements with the analysis and conclusions reached by the court in Harrison. For example, the [c]ourt would note that Harrison’s reasoning distinguishing the tradition of disarming dangerous persons from § 922(g)(3) seems reliant on reinterpreting those traditions based on pre-Bruen dissents from circuit decisions. See e.g., Harrison, No. 2:22-cr-328 at *31-*32, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18397. The [c]ourt is not persuaded such a dramatic departure from existing precedent is required given Bruen established it was consistent with Heller, and the first step of the pre-Bruen test was also consistent with Heller. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. at 2127-30.
United States v. Posey, No. 2:22-CR-83, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22005, at *24 n.9 (N.D. Ind. Feb. 9, 2023). No appeal has been filed in Posey as of this writing.
Things went better in the Western District of Texas, where the court cited Harrison repeatedly to support its conclusion that “Section 922(g)(3) breaks with historical intoxication laws by prohibiting not just firearm use by those who are actively intoxicated but also firearm possession by those who use controlled substances, even somewhat irregularly.” United States v. Connelly, No. EP-22-CR-229(2), 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62495, at *30 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 6, 2023).The federal government has appealed.
It is likely that similar challenges will be brought in other district courts in other federal circuits, and those decisions will likely also be appealed. Ultimately, perhaps the Supreme Court will have to address this issue, particularly if two courts of appeal reach different conclusions. Indeed, because Harrison and Connelly are proceeding in different circuit courts, if different conclusions are reached by the respective circuits, the odds of Supreme Court review will increase.
 WHAT COMES NEXT?
For California marijuana users who choose to own a firearm to benefit, a similar challenge would have to be brought in a district court in the Ninth Circuit, which includes California. A district court ruling in California would likely be appealed to the Ninth Circuit—the same circuit that ruled in Wilson that federal law prohibits marijuana users from possessing firearms. Wilson v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1083, 1094 (9th Cir. 2016).  But that decision did not consider whether the ban itself violates the Second Amendment under Bruen. That is, the Ninth Circuit did not consider whether the ban was unconstitutional under our historical tradition of firearm regulation. Rather, it proceeded under the now-defunct tiered-scrutiny approach that gave the government far more deference.
There are legal battles being waged in Second Amendment challenges to various gun control laws across the country right now to determine how to apply Bruen when evaluating the constitutionality of any gun control law. Some of those cases challenge classifications of people who are prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms, like non-violent felons, certain misdemeanants, and people subject to civil restraining orders. Rulings in those cases might influence a court that is weighing the constitutionality of bans on firearm possession because of marijuana use.
TRY TO AVOID TROUBLE AND KNOW YOUR RIGHTS
Remember that if you are using marijuana and possess a firearm, you are breaking federal law.
If you have a medical marijuana card and you own registered firearms, that is evidence that can be used against you. Even if you do not currently use marijuana, the government may assume otherwise if you have such a card or other evidence of marijuana use.
The Bruen decision specifically addressed concealed carry permits, and what states could require from folks applying for one. The decision has made it much easier in all states, including California, to get one of these permits. But people who apply for a CCW are generally asked about drug use, and so forth. If you are not truthful in your application, you could face years in prison and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines if the permit’s existence tips the government off that you are illegally in possession of firearms.
Further, while there is no crime specifically barring lying on a CCW permit application, the standard CCW application form is signed under penalty of perjury. If caught in a lie about marijuana use (or any other information asked on the form), you could be charged with perjury. Even if no such charges are brought, however, getting caught in such a lie would likely mean any future effort to get a CCW permit would be denied based on prior dishonesty.
Also keep in mind that you are vulnerable to being reported by anyone who knows this, and to police if they conduct an investigation for whatever reason. Although prosecuting people for this offense may not currently be high on the list of government priorities, if you possess a firearm and use marijuana, you are at risk right now. The politics of this issue could change.
Know your rights. Remain silent. Don’t incriminate yourself. Anything you say will be used against you, even if you are not read your rights first. Do not answer questions. Give your name and address only. Repeatedly say, “I want to remain silent and call my lawyer.” Do not discuss your case with police, friends, family, cellmates, or anyone but your lawyer. Beware: Police car and jail phone conversations are recorded and many in jail are informants.
Do not consent to give up your rights. A right voluntarily given up is a right lost. Do not be tricked, threatened, or persuaded into giving up your rights. Do not “consent” to a search without a search warrant. If asked for consent to search, politely and repeatedly refuse, and note nearby witnesses. Do not sign any statements without an attorney’s advice.
Ask for a lawyer. If arrested, you may be handcuffed, searched, photographed, and fingerprinted. Do not physically resist a search or arrest. You have a right to have an attorney present during any questioning. Once you say you want to remain silent and ask for a lawyer, questioning should stop. If they keep asking questions, keep silent and keep asking for your lawyer! Call and get your lawyer involved asap!
If you would like a free KNOW YOUR RIGHTS card with the above information to carry in your wallet, email our office at helpdesk@michellawyers.com and we can send you some.
[1] https://apnews.com/article/politics-mississippi-state-government-delaware-california-massachusetts-3983cecfd1107c263d5309ec0d80a966
Related Reading: NORML Legal Committee Submits Amicus Brief in Federal Case Challenging Government’s Gun Ban for Medical Cannabis Consumers 5/26/23
 C.D. “Chuck” Michel is Senior Partner at the Long Beach Law firm of Michel & Associates, P.C. He is the author of California Gun Laws, A Guide to State and Federal Firearm Regulations now in its 10th edition for 2023 and available at www.calgunlawsbook.com.
Michel & Associates, P.C. is a California NORML legal committee member. See their listing in the Cannabis Attorneys directory.
The post Marijuana Use and Firearms Possession 2023 Update appeared first on CaNorml.org.

Membership Special: Join Cal NORML and Get a Thank You Gift

Join Cal NORML on with a $42 “420 Club” membership on or before 4/20/23 and get a free thank-you gift: your choice of one of two styles of our popular burlap sacks printed with “USA Homegrown” or “California Red Hair Sinsemilla” (shown).
Usually available only at Cal NORML information tables at events, these 22″ x 36″ bags are parodies of agricultural storage sacks. They look great as wall art, and are useful as laundry bags and more. And they make great gifts!
Click here to join Cal NORML with a donation of $42 or more and indicate which bag you prefer; we will send it to you by mail (in a plain envelope — sorry, the bags won’t be stuffed with weed!). Membership renewals qualify; email here if you are unsure of your membership status.
As another special offer, Peace Dove members ($100) joining or renewing on or before 4/20/23 will receive a free Peace Dove cap.
Cal NORML is completely funded by personal and business memberships and donations from within California. Members receive our printed newsletter and discounts on events and items throughout the year. Read more about Cal NORML. 
 
Donate to Cal NORML

 
 
The post Membership Special: Join Cal NORML and Get a Thank You Gift appeared first on CaNorml.org.

Dale Gieringer Scholarship at Oaksterdam University

In honor of California NORML’s Director Dale Gieringer, and 4/20, Cal NORML is awarding four scholarships courtesy of Oaksterdam University.

Choose from two self-paced online courses:Home GrowValue $295Learn to successfully grow and harvest high-quality cannabis plants from your own garden or tent.BudtendingValue $486Get in on the ground floor at a dispensary and share your passion for the plant with a focus on health, wellness, and customer service.Submit the complete form below by 5/20/2023 to be considered for selection of one of four single course scholarships. One scholarship per person.All entrants will be added to California NORML’s email list; you may unsubscribe at any time; we do not sell or share our email list. In your submission, please address these questions:Specify which course you’d like to receive a scholarship to attend.Tell us a bit about yourself and your background.Why are you interested in this course?How would this scholarship impact your future?

Error: Contact form not found.

The post Dale Gieringer Scholarship at Oaksterdam University appeared first on CaNorml.org.

Join Us at Lobby Day on May 8, 2023 in Sacramento!

Join Cal NORML and ASA (Americans for Safe Access) at Lobby Day 2022 as a citizen lobbyist for your rights as a cannabis consumer in California!

Buy your tickets for Lobby Day and the Afterparty

Sponsor Lobby Day!
This year’s Lobby Day will be held on Monday, May 8, 2023. We will meet in the morning at the Capitol Events Center, where you will learn about pending bills and get lobbying tips. In the afternoon, you will meet with lawmakers or their staffs at appointments we will set for you once you sign up to attend. The day will end with an afterparty and reception on the patio at Cafeteria 15L.
Some of the bills on which we expect to be lobbying include:
• SB 302 (Stern) would extend Ryan’s Law, requiring specified health-care facilities to allow terminally ill patients to use nonsmoked (or vaped) forms of cannabis with a doctor’s recommendation to patients 65 and over with chronic diseases. Write A Letter to Your State Senator in Support of SB 302. 
• AB 374 (Haney) and SB 285 (Allen), which seek to expand on the activities that cannabis retailers may engage in. The Haney bill states that a local jurisdiction may allow activities including, but not limited to, selling non-cannabis-infused food, selling nonalcoholic beverages, and selling tickets for live musical or other performances. The Allen bill would authorize a local jurisdiction to allow for the preparation or sale of noncannabis food or beverage products by a licensed retailer or microbusiness in the area where the consumption of cannabis is allowed. Tell Your Assemblymember to Support AB 374 and Tell Your State Senator to Support SB 285. 
• AB-1094 (Wicks) would prohibit medical personnel from performing a drug or alcohol test or screen on a pregnant person, perinatal person, or newborn without the prior written and verbal informed consent, and would require the test or screen to be medically necessary to provide care.
• SB 51 (Bradford) would allow the DCC to issue a provisional license for a local equity applicant for retailer activities, indefinitely, if the applicant meets specified requirements. Tell Your State Senator to Support SB 51. 
And others, as they are introduced or amended. Read more about this year’s proposed cannabis bills.
SCHEDULE
MORNING
Capitol Event Center – 1020 11th St. (between J and K Streets)
10 AM – 12 PM; doors open at 9:15
Gather for training/legislative overview; pick up your afternoon appointment information
LUNCH BREAK (on your own)
AFTERNOON
1 PM – 5 PM
Attendees will go to the Capitol for appointments with your elected representatives or their staffs. 
EVENING
Afterparty / Reception
5 PM – 7 PM
Cafeteria 15L (UNCONFIRMED)

Lobby Day Ticket 2023
$25.00 – $50.00
Buy now

Sponsor Lobby Day!
To learn more, write here.

The post Join Us at Lobby Day on May 8, 2023 in Sacramento! appeared first on CaNorml.org.

Sponsor Lobby Day – May 8, 2023 in Sacramento

BECOME A SPONSOR TODAY!
California NORML and ASA (Americans for Safe Access) are pleased to announce Citizen Lobby Day, taking place May 8, 2023 in Sacramento, CA. Our members and coalition partners will host a lobby day and training in support of state legislation to better regulate cannabis and protect consumers in California.
The California Citizen Lobby Day offers an exciting and unique opportunity to reach out to the medical and adult-use cannabis community. Becoming a sponsor of the Citizen Lobby Day is an excellent way to maximize your visibility to full or targeted groups of conference attendees. We offer a variety of options to suit every budget and marketing strategy.
Becoming a sponsor is a great way to help get legislation passed that is beneficial to cannabis consumers and the legal cannabis industry. It is also a great way to position and brand your business or organization as one that is helping solve problems and move the cannabis issues forward.
SPONSORSHIP LEVELS
• $5,000 Platinum
• $2,500 Gold
• $1000 Silver
• $500 Bronze
WHAT YOU GET
$500 Bronze
• Text listing in Lobby Day Materials
• Logo with link on the Lobby Day Website
• Thanked on Event Facebook page and Cal NORML LinkedIn page
• Corporate Materials placement on or near the Registration table
• Two free tickets to the event
$1000 Silver
• All of the above, plus:
• Thanked on Cal NORML Twitter account (15K followers)
• One Cal NORML eblast sponsorship (33K followers)
$2,500 Gold
• All of the above, plus:
• One-year Business Marketplace listing on CaNORML.org
$5,000 Platinum
• All of the above, plus:
• One year banner ad on CaNORML.org; any page of your choice
If you have any questions, please email us.
 

Sponsor Cal NORML Lobby Day 2023
$500.00 – $5,000.00
Buy now

The post Sponsor Lobby Day – May 8, 2023 in Sacramento appeared first on CaNorml.org.

Onsite Cannabis Consumption Lounges in California

Under California state law, cannabis retailers can open on-site cannabis consumption spaces, with local approval. Some locals allow vaporizing only indoors (e.g. Oakland). Others, like Los Angeles and Berkeley, have resisted consumption rooms altogether, as anti-tobacco forces have falsely conflated cannabis smoke with tobacco. (Prop. 64 said cannabis smoking must be banned where tobacco smoking is.) Groups like PHI show up at local meetings to fight off our rights. Help us fight them and make cannabis consumption allowed across California!
NEWS:
2/9/2023 – Ukiah Planning Commission Unanimously Passes Ordinance Allowing Cannabis Consumption
2/8/2023 – Palm Springs’ weed lounge game is hot right now — especially compared to L.A.
 
ONSITE CANNABIS CONSUMPTION ROOMS IN CALIFORNIA
JUMP TO: Coalinga, Eureka, Lompoc, National City, Ojai, Palm Springs, Port Hueneme, San Francisco, Santa Rosa, West Hollywood
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO

Moe Greens
1276 Market St

Mission Cannabis Club
2441 Mission St.
Barbary Coast
952 Mission Street, San Francisco
Website 
Instagram
Union Station San Francisco
2075 Mission St
Website 
Urbana Geary
4811 Geary Blvd
 
EMERYVILLE
Ohana Cannabis
5770 Peladeau Street
Black-owned
OAKLAND
FLYT 
Website
(415) 407-2593
Rose Mary Jane (drinks only)
2340 Harrison St. Oakland CA 94610
Website

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

WEST HOLLYWOOD

The Studio Lounge at The Artists Tree
 8625 Santa Monica Blvd 2nd Floor, West Hollywood, CA 90069
(310) 362-1004
Website
The Woods
8271 Santa Monica Blvd
(844) 484-3966
Website

CATHEDRAL CITY
Vault Dispensary Lounge
(760) 866-9660
website
instagram
35871 Date Palm Drive , Cathedral City, CA 92234

PALM SPRINGS
Coachella Valley Green Dragon
353 S. Palm Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, CA 92262
(760) 438-9333
Website
OG Arabian Nights
232 N. Palm Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, CA 92262
(760) 656-0109
Instagram
Four Twenty Bank
A consumption lounge plus two 800-square-foot VIP rooms that can be rented for special occasions plus a fully functioning, 555-person-capacity venue that hosts live music, DJ sets, puff-and-paint events and wellness-weekend drum circles and sound baths.
296 S. Palm Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, California 92262
(760) 318-6877
website
instagram
Holland Pharms
Palm Springs’ first social equity dispensary, on the city’s main drag.
150 N. Palm Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, California 92262
(760) 656-0420
website
instagram
Reefer Madness Dispensary & Lounge
This LGBTQ-owned dispensary and lounge with an Alice in Wonderland theme is one mile from the Palm Springs International Airport.
4693 Ramon Road, Palm Springs, California 92264
(760) 424-8588
website
instagram

The post Onsite Cannabis Consumption Lounges in California appeared first on CaNorml.org.

Ukiah Planning Commission Unanimously Passes Ordinance Allowing Cannabis Consumption

Last night, the Ukiah Planning Commission unanimously passed an amendment to city code allowing for cannabis consumption at licensed retailers in the city. The amendment is limited in that it would allow for smoking or vaping only at outdoor sites, due to the city’s anti-smoking ordinance. It will allow for edibles or drinks to be consumed indoors.
At the meeting during the staff report, a slide was shown indicating that cities currently allowing on-site consumption include San Francisco, Oakland, Santa Rosa, West Hollywood, Palm Springs, Ojai, Port Hueneme, Coalinga, Lompoc, and National City.
Monique Ramirez of the Mendocino Cannabis Alliance, a business group with 100+ members, read a memo in support of the measure, noting, “This amendment will incentivize customers to frequent retail locations, which in turn will create a benefit for everyone, including local farms that supply products to retailers in our County.”
She continued, “Customers having places to consume cannabis safely should be promoted. Just as there are designated places for alcohol consumption, cannabis businesses with the proper zoning should have the same opportunities. Giving tourists a real taste of what Mendocino County producers have to offer will help promote our small businesses across the county and promote economic development. Medical patients especially need safe places to consume cannabis, whether for dried flower, edibles or cannabis drinks. Some patients do not have the ability to smoke/vaporize cannabis in the comfort of their own homes because they may be renters and their landlords disallow it.”
As did Cal NORML, MCA recommended that the Planning Commission expand the indoor use to include inhalable products. Paul Hansberry of Loving and Legally spoke in support, have been to SF where have inside consumption lounges have been “a savior for businesses, and for medical patients esp. because of smoking ordinances.” In a letter to the commission, Cal NORML wrote, “Inhalation is a safer mode of consumption than ingestion for on-site consumption areas. This is because inhalation acts promptly, allowing users to calibrate their dosage in accordance with its effects. There is no reason to believe that indoor smoking or vaping of cannabis presents an undue public safety hazard.”
The Ukiah ordinance was advanced by Kyle Greenhalgh of Heritage Mendocino, who spoke as the meeting, as did a representative from Cannavine. Todd Harp of Fish Peddler, the nearest business to Heritage Mendocino, also testified in support, saying that the business has beautified the neighborhood, increased his business.
Local farmer Susan Tibbon spoke in support, as did farmer John Casale, who said he has a tourism license. Casale spoke about being helped by Heritage Mendocino, where it’s explained and demonstrated, “Why the Emerald Triangle farmers are the Napa Valley of weed.” Nick Caston, director of public policy for Solful, a partner with Heritage Mendocino, spoke of the ability of consumption rooms to innovate and connect with producers, and prevents lawlessness, due to restrictions on places where people can consume cannabis. The sole opponent speaking was an elderly MD concerned about the effect of cannabis on drivers, and the brain.
Public comment was re-opened for a question from commissioner Michelle Johnson for questions about the ventilation system in the ordinance. Greenhalgh clarified that he was not intending to allow indoor consumption, but was open to allowing it elsewhere. Johnson said she could see both sides of the issue, noting that many parts of the city smell like weed these days, and she understood the need for having spaces to consume in “a regulated, safe environment.”
Commissioner Rick Johnson tried to compare it to a tasting room at winery. Greenhalgh said that California has a strict guideline that everything consumed must be purchased, so no sampling is permitted, unlike with wine. It was clarified that under state law, someone can’t bring in cannabis purchased from another sort, like you can pay a corkage fee at a restaurant. (Yet another way that cannabis businesses are penalized in CA.)
Commissioner Alex de Grassi fretted that despite public noticing and an article in the UDJ, and pending city council approval, the public might not be fully aware of the proposal. He proposed an amendment requiring that any modifications to existing businesses for the purposes of consumption be reviewed by the planning commission. Johnson asked about the difference in cost between taking modifications to the planning administrator and taking it before the commission; was told that the cost was $900 to go before the administrator and $2000-$3000 for a planning commission review, to pay for staff time, and possibly more (at $100/hour) due to heavy regulations, e.g. security requirements, for cannabis businesses. The development director can always defer projects to the planning commissioner. DeGrassi’s motion then died for lack of a second.
The original motion that passed with aye votes from all four commissioners present. It will now head to Ukiah City Council for approval.
The post Ukiah Planning Commission Unanimously Passes Ordinance Allowing Cannabis Consumption appeared first on CaNorml.org.