Pot for sale

A package of three bills, passed by the state Legislature in September and signed by the governor last month, has the potential to change the entire landscape of medical marijuana access in California. Broadly speaking, they legalize the sale of medical cannabis, which until now has been strictly a not-for-profit enterprise (officially, at least).

The three new laws—Assembly Bill 243, Assembly Bill 266 and Senate Bill 643—lay out a framework for licensing and permitting medical marijuana cultivation for sale as well as taxation. They also set forth a number of environmental regulations for operating a large-scale grow.

“They’re ending the collective model and moving into a strict licensing scheme,” explained Karen Keene, a senior legislative representative from the California State Association of Counties. She was speaking to the Butte County Board of Supervisors Tuesday (Nov. 10) during an informational presentation regarding the package of bills and what it means locally. Alongside her was Paul Smith, a senior legislative advocate with the Rural County Representatives of California. Together, they said, their organizations worked to lobby legislators on behalf of California’s counties. A big part of that was pushing to maintain local control whenever possible.

For example, cities and counties will be the first stop for residents wanting to operate commercial gardens. They are required by AB 243 to create a licensing or permitting scheme that will be ready to implement by January 2018. (Anyone wishing to operate a commercial garden must obtain both local and state licenses/permits.)

There is a loophole to that, however, because local governments retain the ability to create stricter regulations than the state’s requirements. The county’s Measure A, therefore, which regulates the size of medical marijuana gardens based on lot size, will remain in effect. That seemed to be good news to the supervisors and a handful of audience members, but Smith added a caveat: There’s a controversial clause in AB 243 that he said he expects will be removed. That clause refers to exemptions offered to personal and caregiver grows, which the law allows at 100 square feet and 500 square feet, respectively. The clause reads:

“Exemption from the requirements of this section does not limit or prevent a city, county, or city and county from regulating or banning the cultivation, storage, manufacture, transport, provision, or other activity by the exempt person, or impair the enforcement of that regulation or ban.”

Patient advocates and groups like the ACLU are backing a push to eliminate that clause, which not only would retain Measure A, but also would give authority to the county and cities to outright ban the cultivation of medical marijuana. If the clause is removed, Smith said, “You’ll have a hard time regulating [Measure A]” because personal and caregiver gardens would automatically be allowed, albeit with a state permit.

Smith and Keene’s presentation was thorough but complicated. The three laws clearly pack a lot into a small package. Here are just a few additional highlights:

* Mobile deliveries will, by default, be allowed. In addition, transportation of medical cannabis—from a garden to a dispensary, for instance—is allowed and must not be impeded. That includes transportation through counties that have banned cultivation and sales, Smith explained.

• Cities and counties can choose whether to offer permits or licenses for cultivation—should they allow cultivation at all—and they may require payment for them.

• State licenses will require background checks by the Department of Justice.

• Should dispensaries be allowed, they will be taxed, with a portion of the taxes going to local governments.

• Medical marijuana is now considered an agricultural product.

While that may seem like a lot, Smith said there are some key elements that still are missing but in the works. One of those is a cultivation tax, which was stripped out at the last minute, he said. That money would have been “primarily destined for the environment.” A second is being proposed in AB 1549, which calls for the creation of a state financial institution that would facilitate a move from medical cannabis being a cash-only business to more legitimacy.

Smith also urged the board to keep an eye on ballot initiatives calling for the legalization of marijuana for recreational use. One in particular, the Parker Initiative, has “millions behind it” and also incorporates a lot of the three-bill package.

Aside from the particulars of California’s new state laws, one major takeaway from Tuesday’s meeting was that there’s a new organization in town—the Inland Cannabis Farmers’ Association (ICFA). That group, headed by local realtor Jessica MacKenzie, made quite a showing during the public comment portion of the meeting.

The group, she said, which represents local cannabis farmers, hopes to collaborate with the supervisors and county staff to draft local legislation that’s in the best interests of growers, patients and the county.

“We want to work toward creating reasonable guidelines that work for everyone,” said ICFA member James Carrell, echoing MacKenzie.

Other speakers charged that allowing commercial cultivation would push the illegal growers out of town, which would be good for neighborhoods as well as the environment.

A handful of speakers spoke out against allowing commercial grows. “This is all a bunch of malarkey,” one woman said. “This is all about greed at the expense of our children.”

Many, as is always the case at meetings about medical marijuana, touted the benefits of pot as medicine. Most urged the board to think about the amount of money to be made.

“Let’s make it where the county can make some money,” one man said. “This is the same thing this country went through with the prohibition of alcohol.”

“Are we still debating the moral issue of whether medical marijuana is good?” another posed. “Or are we making a business decision?”