Cannabis Laws Don’t Change Themselves…
…but with your help, we can and will enact the policy reforms needed for the cannabis industry to flourish and for its consumers to be treated fairly and with dignity under the law.
The National Cannabis Industry Association, the voice of Main Street Cannabis, and California NORML, the voice of the California cannabis consumer have teamed up to provide California cannabis operators a platform to support the state and federal lobbying necessary for the industry to prosper.
We invite you to join our efforts and amplify your voice by becoming a member of Cal NORML and NCIA through our new unified membership plan offered at the discounted annual rate of $1,200.
Your dual membership will support the work Cal NORML is doing in the state to defend cannabis businesses and support consumers, while also providing a much-needed investment in the national lobbying work NCIA is doing to end the harmful effects of federal prohibition on the cannabis industry.
JOIN NOW
Not sure about joining just yet? Set up a call with someone on our team to learn about the benefits of supporting both these organizations.
California NORML has been advocating, educating, and lobbying on behalf of the cannabis consumer for 50 years and counting. Our recent legislative successes include winning Pain Patients’ Rights and Employment Rights for California consumers.
Cal NORML is the only statewide advocate for all California cannabis consumers. By protecting and expanding the rights of the consumer, our essential work positively impacts the entire cannabis industry. There are over 30 cannabis-related bills this year we are focusing on that will affect you and your business.
Join us to amplify the voice of the cannabis consumer in Sacramento! Cal NORML business members are featured in the Cannabis Marketplace directories on CaNORML.org, and are also invited to join our site with a guest blog post, among other promotional benefits.
Founded in 2010, the National Cannabis Industry Association is the most trusted and most effective national trade association in the cannabis space. NCIA is the only voice for small and independent cannabis businesses in our nation’s halls of power and has made incredible strides advancing congressional support for issues such as 280E reform, banking access, and federal de-scheduling over the last several years. As a show of appreciation for their support for Main Street Cannabis, NCIA members receive a host of networking, educational, and marketing benefits to help them succeed in the competitive cannabis marketplace.
We hope you’ll invest in the future of cannabis as well as your own success by joining the growing list of businesses that have already signed up with NCIA and Cal NORML. If you’d like to learn more about how you can help advance good cannabis policy with us, feel free to reach out any time.
Sincerely,
Kharla Vezzetti, California NORML
Aaron Smith, NCIA
The post Amplify Your Voice in Sacramento and DC! appeared first on CaNorml.org.
Weekly Newsletter of The California Chapter of the
National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws
Subscribe to Get This Newsletter in Your Email Inbox
Sponsor a Cal NORML Eblast and Reach our 32,000 Weekly Readers
Download and read Cal NORML’s White Paper, Blowing Smoke About Cannabis Lounges:
Onsite Consumption No Danger to Public Health
You can also download and distribute Cal NORML’s newly updated literature:
Cannabis Tax Fairness in California
CA Cannabis Consumption Lounges
Medical Marijuana Patients Protected From Discrimination By Doctors in California
California Cannabis Consumers’ Employment Rights
Cal NORML Membership Pamphlet
California Cannabis Laws (printable on 8 1/2 x 14″ paper.)
News of the Week
STATE
California cannabis regulators conducting sticky-note consumer research at state fair
And right next door is this Cal NORML poster, shown here with activist Richard Miller.
State allows cannabis delivery sales in Visalia (and Everywhere in California)
Due to a state mandate that goes into effect next year, the city of Visalia must join other local jurisdictions in adapting their ordinances so they allow for delivery-only medical cannabis businesses to operate in the city. In order to comply with California Senate Bill SB 1186, also known as the “Medicinal Cannabis Patients’ Right of Access Act,” all cities and counties will need to update zoning ordinances that currently prohibit the operation of any cannabis business.
Watch a Webinar and See a Presentation from Cal NORML Legal Committee attorneys Lauren Mendelsohn and Omar Figueroa about SB 1186.
CMB’s New Pain Prescribing Guidelines Advise Physicians to Ignore New State Law, Continue Stigma Against Cannabis Users
Although the new pain prescribing guidelines from the California Medical Board are co-signed by Gov. Newsom, there’s no mention the law he signed last year outlawing discrimination against patients solely on the basis of the presence of THC in urine tests. Instead, it stigmatizes cannabis users as prone to overdose and opioid use disorder, and advises doctors treating cannabis users to consult with an addiction medicine specialist. The guidelines greatly downplay the scores (if not hundreds) of studies finding that cannabis use can lower need for opioid medications for pain, and state that cannabis “is a legal substance so a positive [urine test] result should not directly result in dismissal of a patient from care unless the use conflicts with the terms of the pain management agreement.” There is no such exception in the law, sponsored by Cal NORML and ASA last year. Download a flyer about Medical Marijuana Patients Rights in California.
Cal Chamber’s Midyear Employment Law Update Acknowledges Pending New Employment Rights Law
By contrast, Cal Chamber acknowledges the passages of the Cal NORML sponsored bill AB 2188, which will take effect on 1/1/24. “Though not taking effect until January 1, 2024, employers should be aware of and prepare for some changes with respect to cannabis law and drug screening compliance. Employers will be prohibited from discriminating against an employee or job applicant based on the person’s use of cannabis off the job and away from the workplace. Employers may still conduct preemployment drug testing, and an employer can still refuse to hire someone based on a positive test — but only if it’s a valid preemployment drug screening that doesn’t screen for non-psychoactive cannabis metabolites [e.g. urine and hair tests].”
NATIONAL
MARIJUANA TRAFFICKING OFFENSES HAVE DECREASED BY 61.9% SINCE FY 2018
In fiscal year 2022, 48.6% of marijuana trafficking offenders were Hispanic, 28.6% were Black, 17.4% were White, and 5.4% were Other races. [US Population in 2021: 18.9% Hispanic, 12.6% Black, 59.3% White. The median weight was 176-220 lbs., and the average sentence was 34 months: 77.2% were sentenced to less than 5 years, 17.1% to 5-10 years, and 5.7% to 10 years or more.
Senate Committee Chairman Says Marijuana Banking Bill Actually Won’t Get A Vote This Summer, Despite His Goal, Lobbyist Reports
Senator Objects To ‘War on Drugs’ Bill That Would Require Social Media Companies To Report Users To DEA
DEA’s No.2 quits amid reports of previous consulting work for Big Pharma
Congressional Spending Bill Reports Call For Research On Hemp As Plastic Alternative And Marijuana Impaired Driving Test
Employment Rights
New Congressional Amendments Would End Marijuana Tests For Federal Job Applicants And Encourage Psychedelic Research
Smoking weed after work? A growing number of employers don’t mind.
LOCAL
Public hearing on Redwood Valley cannabis prohibition zone set for Tuesday Mendocino supervisors’ meeting
Cannabis Cheaper In Berkeley Due To Tax Holiday
Growing Dollar Signs Instead of Marijuana Buds in Santa Barbara County
Woodland Cannabis Dispensary holds open house in downtown Woodland
12 Humboldt water restoration projects funded from cannabis enforcement settlement
LA Seeks New DCR Chief
CONSUMPTION LOUNGES
Huge Las Vegas Strip Problem About to Go Up In Smoke
Finding community, changing society: the importance of consumption lounges
See: Cal NORML’s List of Cannabis Lounges in CA
Looking for cannabis doctors, lawyers, stores, products or business services? Visit the Cal NORML Cannabis Marketplace and Support the Businesses that Support Reform!
Join Cal NORML with a business membership or renew your membership today.
BUSINESS / LAW
Police don’t have to tell drivers the real reason they’re being stopped. That’s about to change.
Cannabis Receiverships Are Coming to California
Pot sales approved for events in New York after farmers complain there are too few dispensaries
SCIENCE/HEALTH
DMV/CHP DUI Study Seeks Subjects in Sacramento Area
States With Legal Weed See 37% Drop in Mental Health Treatment
Cannabis use to manage opioid cravings among people who use unregulated opioids during a drug toxicity crisis
Medical Marijuana Linked To Lower Pain And Reduced Dependency On Opioids And Psychiatric Prescriptions, Another Study Shows
Marijuana Is Linked To An Enhanced ‘Runner’s High’ And Lower Pain During Exercise, New Study Finds
CULTURE / MEDIA
Tony Bennett Smoked Pot, Called for Drug Legalization in 2012 After Whitney Houston Died
Bruce Lee: How Green was the Green Hornet?
Coming Events
July 14-30 • 11AM – 10 PM (M-Th); 10 AM – 10 AM (F-Su).
California Cannabis Exhibit at State Fair
Cal Expo Building 6, Sacramento
Stage Schedule
Only adults aged 21 and older are allowed entry, and the consumption and sale of commercial cannabis products is prohibited. (Wine tasting is permitted.) Only clear bags can be brought in. More info.
July 27
Cannabis Drinks Expo
San Francisco
August 4-5 • 10 AM – 5 PM
Join OC NORML at CannaCon
Long Beach
September 2
Medical Cannabis Conference
Brought to you by Society of Cannabis Clinicians & The ReLeaf Institute
UCLA
Take 15% off on the registration fee with code SCCAffiliate15
September 9-10
Cannifest
Eureka
December 1-3
National Interdisciplinary Cannabis Symposium 2
Portland, OR
February 2024 (rescheduled)
Lift Cannabis Expo & Conference
San Francisco
Cal NORML has been the voice of the cannabis consumer in California for 50 years, and we need your help to keep fighting for your rights in Sacramento and across the state.
JOIN CAL NORML WITH A PERSONAL OR BUSINESS MEMBERSHIP AND SUPPORT OUR ADVOCACY EFFORTS IN 2023.
Follow California NORML on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
The post Cal NORML News of the Week – July 25, 2023 appeared first on CaNorml.org.
Weekly Newsletter of The California Chapter of the
National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws
Sponsor a Cal NORML Eblast and Reach our 32,000 Weekly Readers
Take Action
AB 374(Haney) would authorize local governments to let licensed cannabis consumption lounges and retailers prepare and sell fresh food and beverages, as well as sell tickets for concerts and other events.
This bill would help bolster the overtaxed and regulated cannabis industry in California, and allow consumers who often lack places where they can consume safe and friendly spaces to do so. It is heading for a floor vote in the CA State Senate sometime in August.
There has been some opposition to AB 374 from anti-smoking groups that conflate the dangers of tobacco smoke with that of cannabis. Cal NORML issued a release, Blowing Smoke About Cannabis Consumption Lounges, discussing the safety and need for consumption spaces in California.
Tell Your State Senator to Support AB 374
News of the Week
STATE
The state legislature has begun its summer recess until mid August. Most of the bills we are tracking will have hearings in Appropriations committees, starting on 8/14, and a few will go straight to floor votes. The legislature has until 9/14 to pass bills, after which the Governor will have until 10/14 to sign or veto them.
SB 512 (Bradford), to end double taxation on cannabis by include state and local excise taxes when calculating sales tax, was held in the Assembly Revenue and Taxation committee and will likely not advance in its current form this year.
Committee chair Jacqui Irwin, who sponsored a bill in 2021 to ban cannabis billboards and whose bill this year, AB 1207 to restrict cannabis packaging and flavorings, is opposed by some cannabis industry groups, commented at the hearing that it’s too soon to evaluate the results of AB 195 (2022), which eliminated the cannabis cultivation tax and shifted the responsibility for paying state excise tax from the distributor to the retailer, while making the changes SB 512 sought to correct.
Cal NORML supporters have sent in nearly 900 letters in support of the bill and our director Dale Gieringer spoke up in its favor at the hearing. We will continue to advocate for cannabis tax reform in California. Stay tuned.
Passing on to Appropriations committees are these bills:
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. The Stern bill would extend these protections to patients 65 and over with chronic diseases. Write A Letter to Your Assemblymember in Support of SB 302.
SB 700 (Bradford) would amend the employment rights bill Cal NORML sponsored last year to add, “It is unlawful for an employer to request information from an applicant for employment relating to the applicant’s prior use of cannabis.” Tell Your Assemblymember to Support SB 700.
AB 1111 (Pellerin) requires the DCC to issue small producer event sales licenses that authorize them to sell cannabis cultivated by the licensee at specified state-licensed temporary events. Ask Your State Senator to Support AB 1111.
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 Assemblymember to Support SB 51.
AB 1565 (Jones-Sawyer) would require disbursement of up to $15,000,000 beginning in FY 2028–29 to support local equity programs. Tell Your State Senator to Vote Yes on AB 1565.
Cal NORML’s Progress on Enforcement Bills
In order to support the legal cannabis industry and in the interest of public safety, Cal NORML is not opposed to enforcement against the type of large, unlicensed cannabis operators that are often also guilty of human rights and environmental laws. However, we are watchdogging these proposed enforcement bills to ensure that they are not applied against small personal or medical grows. It is generally better to lower barriers to licensure and lessen taxes and regulation rather than spend endless dollars in enforcement, which has never worked well in all the decades of cannabis prohibition.
Cal NORML with the help of our board member, attorney Lauren Mendelsohn, scored a victory by managing to insert language protecting medical gardens into AB 1684 (Mainschein), which expands local governments’ ability to immediately fine for cannabis cultivation to other cannabis activities. After meeting with the author’s office and committee staff, both H&SC 11362.5 (the Compassionate Use Act) and B&PC 26033 (protecting 5-patient gardens) were explicitly excluded from the bill, along with other protections in the language. It now goes to the Senate floor (sometime in August).
Another enforcement bill, SB 753 (Caballero), which would have felonized cannabis gardens as small as 50 plants with attendant water violations, was greatly amended after Cal NORML, DPA, and other groups opposed it. ACLU brought in Hmong farmers from Siskiyou County to testify about the discrimination and heavy-handed enforcement they have seen over water rights, even though it had removed its opposition due to the amendments. We also got amendments to SB 756 (Laird) clarifying that a physical method of delivery must be used for water violations around cannabis cultivation.
SB 820 (Alvarado-Gil), is now a two-year bill after Cal NORML objected to bringing back forfeiture against unlicensed cannabis cultivators. The bill was amended in committee, at our suggestion, to increase the plant count from 50 to 1000 plants before taking any action. Cal NORML legal director, attorney Bill Panzer, attended Cal NORML’s Lobby Day and met with the author’s staff, explaining the multiple problems with the bill, before the author decided to delay further hearings.
NATIONAL / INTERNATIONAL
Marijuana Company Stages Boston Tea Party-Style Protest Over Federal Tax Code 280E That Troubles Industry
It’s Been 10 Years Since The First Congressional Marijuana Banking Bill Was Filed, Marking A Milestone As Lawmakers Make What They Hope Is A Final Push
Schumer’s weed plan hits bipartisan resistance
Justice Department Report Shows 61 Percent Decline In Federal Marijuana Prisoners As States Started Legalizing
Ukraine draft medical cannabis law passes first hurdle
LOCAL
New Markets Within California Staggeringly Slow to Open
Monterey County’s cannabis industry is struggling to survive — and claims overtaxing and burdensome regulations are to blame
San Luis Obispo seeking applicants for third retail cannabis store
Backlash prompts San Diego to retreat from proposed vast expansion of where dispensaries can open
After yearslong wait, lawsuit filed as cannabis retailers ready to open in Ventura
Cannabis Mitigation Grant Authorized by Humboldt County Board of Supes
Chico police officer charged with felony, accused of supplying marijuana to minor
SF’s most famous pot brand sued for fraud
CONSUMPTION LOUNGES
High-end experience: Ventura County’s first cannabis lounge opens in Port Hueneme
Drink Your Weed: Inside Rose Mary Jane, Oakland’s first and only Black woman-owned social equity cannabis bar and lounge
Gen Z Fuels Rise in Cannabis Over Alcohol
See: Cal NORML’s List of Cannabis Lounges in CA
Blowing Smoke About Cannabis Consumption Lounges
Cannabis Consumption Lounges No Danger to Public Health: A Cal NORML White Paper
Looking for cannabis doctors, lawyers, stores, products or business services? Visit the Cal NORML Cannabis Marketplace and Support the Businesses that Support Reform!
Thank you to attorney Chris Andrian of Santa Rosa for renewing your membership.
Join Cal NORML with a business membership or renew your membership today.
BUSINESS / LAW
California cannabis companies tied to fake union could lose their licenses
Commercial Cannabis Permit Program and Overlay District Statutorily Exempt Under CEQA Guideline Section 15183
California Gives Up on the Illegal Cannabis Market
The UCETF program written about here Is only one of three eradication efforts in CA.
New Mexico revokes license of local marijuana retailer for selling cannabis from California
Celebrity marijuana brands outperform traditional brands, data suggest
SCIENCE/HEALTH
ASA Report: Regulating Patient Health: An Analysis of Disparities in State Cannabis Testing Programs
Study: Cannabis Use Enhances ‘Runner’s High’ During Exercise
Science Reveals How to Roll the Perfect Joint
As more states legalize pot, their uneven safety rules can pose a risk
FDA, USP Advance Standardization, Regulation of Cannabis Nationally
CULTURE / MEDIA
Check Out These Cannabis Markets in LA and SF This Summer, If You Know Where to Look
DEA “Celebrates” 50 Years, Pushes Social Media Addiction
Coming Events
July 14-30 • 11AM – 10 PM (M-Th); 10 AM – 10 AM (F-Su).
California Cannabis Exhibit at State Fair
Cal Expo Building 6, Sacramento
Stage Schedule
Only adults aged 21 and older are allowed entry, and the consumption and sale of commercial cannabis products is prohibited. (Wine tasting is permitted.) Only clear bags can be brought in. More info.
July 27
Cannabis Drinks Expo
San Francisco
September 2
Medical Cannabis Conference
Brought to you by Society of Cannabis Clinicians & The ReLeaf Institute
UCLA
Take 15% off on the registration fee with code SCCAffiliate15
September 9-10
Cannifest
Eureka
December 1-3
National Interdisciplinary Cannabis Symposium 2
Portland, OR
Cal NORML has been the voice of the cannabis consumer in California for 50 years, and we need your help to keep fighting for your rights in Sacramento and across the state.
JOIN CAL NORML WITH A PERSONAL OR BUSINESS MEMBERSHIP AND SUPPORT OUR ADVOCACY EFFORTS IN 2023.
Follow California NORML on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
The post Cal NORML News of the Week – July 17, 2023 appeared first on CaNorml.org.
Weekly Newsletter of The California Chapter of the
National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws
Sponsor a Cal NORML Eblast and Reach our 32,000 Weekly Readers
Take Action
SB 512, to end double taxation of cannabis in California, faces a critical vote in the Assembly Revenue and Tax Committee on Monday, July 10. Only pubic testimony will be taken at the hearing (no call-ins).
Under the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, the cannabis excise tax is set at 15% of gross receipts from licensed retail cannabis sales. Many local governments impose additional taxes on cannabis, ranging as high as 10% in some jurisdictions. Retailers are required to include these excise taxes in the definition of gross receipts when charging additional sales taxes of 7.25 – 10.5%.
SB 512 would end this double or triple taxation on cannabis, delivering much-needed relief to what is currently an unfairly overtaxed industry.
Please tell your lawmakers to support SB 512.
News of the Week
STATE
California Voters Are More Supportive Than Ever Of Marijuana Legalization, And Most Want Retailers In Their Communities, Poll Finds
In a June PPIC Statewide Survey, a record-high 64% of Californians said that the use of marijuana should be legal. A smaller majority (56 percent; 60% of likely voters) say that they want adult-use retailers to operate in their community.
California Assembly Committee Approves Senate-Passed Bill To Stop Employers From Asking About Past Marijuana Use
Tell Your Assemblymember to Vote Yes on SB 700
UPDATE: Find Out How Your County is Complying With Sealing Past Marijuana Convictions
Thanks to the excellent (as always) reporting by Marijuana Moment, some of Cal NORML’s figures and tables about the progress of the expungement of past marijuana crimes in CA have been revised from an earlier release. Read more.
The CA DOJ also released its annual crime report, showing that felony marijuana arrests fell from 825 in 2021 to only 691 in 2022, a 3.4% drop. Misdemeanor arrests for marijuana also continued to fall, to 2,562 in 2022. Racial disparities in arrests continued, with 50.2% of felony marijuana arrests targeting Hispanics, 20.3% whites, and 16.2% blacks. Read more.
California’s Unified Cannabis Enforcement Taskforce (UCETF) reports seizing over $109M worth of unlicensed cannabis products in Q2 2023
UCETF is one of three suppression / eradication efforts against cannabis in California. Read more.
NATIONAL / INTERNATIONAL
Marijuana in the military? A push in Congress would loosen cannabis rules, ease recruitment crisis
Booker Slams ‘Two-Tier System’ Of Marijuana Criminalization That Shields Powerful From Punishment While Discussing Hunter Biden Plea Deal
After 50 Years, the DEA Is Still Losing the War on Drugs
Ukraine’s President Says Legalizing Medical Marijuana Can Help People Impacted By ‘Trauma Of War’ With Russia
LOCAL
Orange County’s City of Seniors May Allow Cannabis Businesses
San Jose Cannabis Tax Revenue Set to Drop Tens of Millions, As Competition Rises from Black Market and Delivery Services
Santa Barbara Cannabis Update: Sniffing Smoke, Where’s the Fire?
Sonoma County cannabis: An uncertain future
CONSUMPTION LOUNGES
The Almost World Famous Crisp Lounge Opens in Eureka
See: Cal NORML’s List of Cannabis Lounges in CA
Blowing Smoke About Cannabis Consumption Lounges
Cannabis Consumption Lounges No Danger to Public Health: A Cal NORML White Paper
Looking for cannabis doctors, lawyers,stores, products or business services? Visit the Cal NORML Cannabis Marketplace and Support the Businesses that Support Reform!
Thank you to Medithrive in SF for renewing its membership!
Join Cal NORML with a business membership or renew your membership today.
BUSINESS / LAW
Herbl collapse signals wider fallout in California marijuana industry
Purple weed could save California’s pot farms from ‘severe’ pathogen
Cannabis Media Council Publishes First Industry-Wide Guidelines and Standards for Responsible Cannabis Advertisements
Mendocino County Selects Accela to Regulate its High-Volume Cannabis Industry and Improve Process Transparency
SCIENCE/HEALTH
FTC Sends Cease and Desist Letters with FDA to Companies Selling Edible Products Containing Delta-8 THC in Packaging Nearly Identical to Food Children Eat
More Than Pain Relief: Sustained Cannabis Use Leads to Improved Cognition in Cancer Patients
Study: Prenatal marijuana exposure not associated with worse neuropsychological test scores at age 10 or autistic traits at 19-20.
DCC-funded USCF Study Finds Warning Signs About Cannabis and Pregnancy May Have “Unintended Adverse Consequences”
CULTURE / MEDIA
Meta-Owned Social Media App Threads Directs Users To Drug Treatment Help When Searching Marijuana Or Psychedelics—But Not Alcohol Or Cigarettes
Daniel Ellsberg’s Real Role
It would be interesting to know when and where Ellsberg started smoking the herb and to what extent the absurdity of prohibition accelerated his transition from hawk to dove. During the Vietnam war years there was a strong synergy between the two causes – ending the war and ending marijuana prohibition. Seeing the absurdity and futility of one opened your eyes to the absurdity and futility of the other.
Coming Events
COMMITTEE HEARINGS
Many committees are halting accepting call-in testimony now that Covid has subsided. Check the committee websites and agendas for more information
Monday, July 10 • 11 AM
1021 O Street, Room 2100, Sacramento
Sen Business, Professions and Economic Development committee hearing on:
A.B. 1126 Lackey. Cannabis: citation and fine.
A.B. 1448 Wallis. Cannabis: enforcement by local jurisdictions.
A.B. 1565 Jones-Sawyer. California Cannabis Tax Fund: local equity program grants.
Tell Your State Senator to Vote Yes on AB 1565.
Monday, July 10 • 2:30 PM
State Capitol, Room 437
All witness testimony will be in person; there will be no phone testimony option for this hearing.
Asm. Revenue and Taxation Committee hearing on:
S.B. 512 Bradford. Cannabis: taxation: gross receipts.
Tell Your Assemblymember to Support SB 512
Tuesday, July 11 • 9:30 AM
1021 O Street, Room 1100, Sacramento
Asm. Business and Professions committee hearing on:
S.B. 51 Bradford. Cannabis provisional licenses: local equity applicants.
Tell Your Assemblymember to Support SB 51
Tuesday, July 11 • 9 AM
1021 O Street, Room 2100, Sacramento
Sen. Judiciary Committee hearing on:
S.B. 1684 Maienschein. Local ordinances: fines and penalties: cannabis
A.B. 1171 Blanca Rubio. Cannabis: private right of action.
California Cannabis Events
July 14-30
California Cannabis Exhibit at State Fair
Sacramento
July 27
Cannabis Drinks Expo
San Francisco
September 2
Medical Cannabis Conference
Brought to you by Society of Cannabis Clinicians & The ReLeaf Institute
UCLA
September 9-10
Cannifest
Eureka
December 1-3
National Interdisciplinary Cannabis Symposium 2
Portland, OR
Cal NORML has been the voice of the cannabis consumer in California for 50 years, and we need your help to keep fighting for your rights in Sacramento and across the state.
JOIN CAL NORML WITH A PERSONAL OR BUSINESS MEMBERSHIP AND SUPPORT OUR ADVOCACY EFFORTS IN 2023.
Follow California NORML on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
The post Cal NORML News of the Week – July 10, 2023 appeared first on CaNorml.org.
UPDATE 7/10/2023 –
SB 512 (Bradford), to end double taxation on cannabis by include state and local excise taxes when calculating sales tax, was held in the Assembly Revenue and Taxation committee and will likely not advance this year.
Committee chair Jacqui Irwin, whose bill AB 1207 to restrict cannabis packaging and flavorings was opposed by cannabis industry groups, commented at the hearing that it’s too soon to evaluate the results of AB 195 (2022), which eliminated the cannabis cultivation tax and shifted the responsibility for paying state excise tax from the distributor to the retailer, while making the changes SB 512 sought to correct.
Cal NORML supporters sent in nearly 900 letters in support of the bill and our director Dale Gieringer spoke up in its favor at the hearing. We will continue to advocate for cannabis tax reform in California. Stay tuned.
Under the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, the cannabis excise tax is set at 15% of gross receipts from licensed retail cannabis sales. Many local governments impose additional taxes on cannabis, ranging as high as 10% in some jurisdictions, including Los Angeles.
Local governments are currently required to include these state and local excise taxes in the definition of “gross receipts” when charging additional sales taxes of 7.25 – 10.5%.
SB 512 would end this double or triple taxation on cannabis, delivering much-needed relief to what is currently an unfairly overtaxed industry.
Please tell your lawmakers to support SB 512.
Cannabis is already heavily overtaxed relative to comparable goods in California. Adding the sales and use tax of 7.25% to 10.5% on top of the excise tax raises the cost of a joint by another 8 – 11 cents—more than the total state excise taxes for an alcoholic beverage. If local cannabis taxes are added in, the difference ranges as high as 18 cents.
Cannabis sales currently contribute more to California’s coffers than do alcohol taxes, despite far less sales. Overtaxation impedes legal, tested, and taxed cannabis access for consumers and fuels the illicit cannabis market. California’s cannabis consumers want access to safe, tested, and fairly taxed products.
Please tell your lawmakers to support SB 512.
BACKGROUND
The double taxation started not in Prop. 64 but when the 2022 budget bill AB 195 shifted the excise tax payment responsibility from the distributor to the retailer. The bill amended Section 34011(d) of the Revenue and Taxation Code to define gross receipts from the sale of cannabis or cannabis products for purposes of assessing the sales and use taxes to include the 15% excise tax. Subsequently, the CDFTA instructed retailers to add in delivery fees and local taxes to the definition of gross receipts for the purposes of accessing sales taxes, making for triple taxation.
Compounding the issue of taxing the taxes, many jurisdictions have local cannabis tax laws that are now in direct conflict with the directive issued by the CDTFA. For example, the City of Los Angeles’s definition of their gross receipts tax (LA Municipal Code: Section 21.51 (a)4) is in direct conflict with the CDTFA’s guidance. This conflict leaves retailers in LA and elsewhere subject to fines or loss of licensure.
A $73.35 purchase made recently at a CA cannabis shop turned into the customer paying $97.20 at the register. SB 512 would have saved $2.03 off this sale by not re-taxing the excise taxes, a small step towards #cannabistaxfairness.
SB 512 would clarify and roll back the double and triple taxation on cannabis, which is helping to drive consumers back to the illicit market in California, in the end undercutting the tax base.
The post Support SB 512, To Help End Unfair Taxation of Cannabis appeared first on CaNorml.org.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.