Source: http://freedomgrowers.blogspot.com/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 23:50:06+00:00

Document:
Law Offices of Omar Figueroa is at Law Offices of Omar Figueroa.
Our founder Omar Figueroa is quoted in this piece on the upcoming expiration of the collective and cooperative defense, which will happen next week. Based on BCC spokesperson Alex Traverso's statement that "his agency will continue to use a carrot-over-stick approach and try to coax illegally operating collectives/co-ops into getting state licenses" instead of coming down hard on those without permits, Omar's impression is that the odds of enforcement remain slim.
In sum, without a collective defense, there may be a theoretical increase in enforcement; however, without enforcement, it doesn't really make a difference that the defense will no longer be available.
"The broadest impact of the disappearing collective/co-op model will probably be on medical patients, caregivers and small local collectives and co-ops that weren’t really focused on the business end of the industry, but rather, were actually operating as nonprofit medical charities, said Ellen Komp, deputy director of California NORML.
“There will be patients who will have their access interrupted, and some of them won’t be able to access or afford a licensed facility where they can find their medicine,” she said.
Komp also noted the BCC was originally slated to perform a study on nonprofit MMJ collectives before the regulated market launched in January 2018, but that deadline was pushed back to January 2020, leaving any still-existing medical collectives in “legal limbo” for another year.
Komp and several other industry sources said it’s possible that after the collectives and co-ops become illegal there may be an uptick in enforcement efforts against unlicensed MJ shops.
“You’re still going to have a pretty robust illicit market, and what we’ve seen over the course of this past year is cities that are choosing to crack down on the illicit market … will continue to do so in the manner they have this past year, which is through code enforcement violations,” San Diego attorney Kimberly Simms said.
“I don’t think you’re going to see this huge uptick in raids,” Simms added, saying she doesn’t believe most communities have extra resources to devote to combating unlicensed cannabis shops.
“It is the sort of symbolic end to what people felt like has governed the industry for the last 20 years,” Simms said.
Another longtime MJ attorney, Oakland-based Bill Panzer, said many of the dispensaries that will face the choice Chernis referred to were never nonprofit collectives or co-ops.
The ones that would, he added, have either already transitioned to the for-profit market and obtained state licenses, or have already exited the market.
“They’ve already been impacted,” Panzer said. “I don’t think there’s going to be many more … because the state has taken the position that nonprofits still have to get licenses. And a lot of these places can’t afford it, so they’ve been being shut down over the last year.
Others aren’t as optimistic that law enforcement will turn a blind eye to unlicensed cannabis collectives and co-ops.
“Enforcement is likely to increase, because that (collective) defense isn’t there anymore,” stressed Omar Figueroa, another longtime MJ industry lawyer.
BCC spokesman Alex Traverso wrote in an email to Marijuana Business Daily that his agency will continue to use a carrot-over-stick approach and try to coax illegally operating collectives/co-ops into getting state licenses, instead of coming down hard on those without permits.
Traverso noted that, in the past month, the BCC issued more than 1,300 temporary cannabis business licenses, including to many currently operating as collectives or cooperatives.
For those companies to become fully legal and sustainable, however, they’re going to have to obtain full annual permits – a much harder threshold.
That also doesn’t exempt unlicensed collectives and co-ops from prosecution by local authorities, which have largely been running point in combating California’s illicit market over 2018.
This jurisdiction’s local ordinance to restrict the cultivation and possession of medical marijuana, adopted pursuant to the State's Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA) will prevent me and any of my household members and the relatives for whom I provide medical marijuana who are medical marijuana patients, from cultivating and possessing enough marijuana for my/our personal medicinal uses.
This local ordinance, and the MMRSA on which it is based, thus both violate California's applicable and controlling law, the voter-enacted, statewide Compassionate Use Act (CUA).
Contrary to popular misconception, People v. Kelly did not state that patients have only an affirmative defense from prosecution. That is because a defendant cannot have an affirmative defense to a crime without a foundational right to support such defense. The foundational right is the right to engage in an act that, without such right, would be a crime, but with such right is not a crime at all. For medical marijuana patients, those rights, given by the CUA and cases that have interpreted the CUA, are the rights of cultivation, transportation, possession and medicinal use.
Notably, People v. Kelly was decided the last time the State Legislature adopted legislation that attempted to limit the amount of marijuana that a patient could lawfully grow or possess. That was when the State Legislature adopted the Medical Marijuana Program Act (the MMP), which added Health & Safety Code section 11362.77's plant and flower limits to the CUA.
This is why the MMRSA, and all the local laws adopted pursuant to it, which purport to limit what patient can grow, and to burden such right by requiring patients to get licenses, permits, identification cards and jump through other such hoops, are unconstitutional. They are illegal efforts to impair and burden the constitutionally-protected rights given to patients by the People of the State of California when they adopted the CUA.
This is why neither the State of California nor any of its political subdivisions, e. g., the counties and cities, may require any patient to obtain a license, permit, or government-issued ID card as a condition of cultivation, possession or transportation.
Second, the CUA was intended to make access to medical marijuana safe and affordable. Requiring patients to obtain such permits, licenses and cards makes access less affordable, and thus not only violates the restriction on "burdening" CUA-given rights, but also violates the intent of the CUA. The cases cited by cities and counties in justification of adopting these unlawful ordinances, which were cobbled together by the self-serving League of Cities and the California Chiefs of Police, do not make these ordinances lawful.
For example, the case of City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health & Wellness Center (2013) 56 Cal.4th 729 reached its limited result -- to allow cities and counties to ban storefront dispensing collectives (colloquially known as “dispensaries”) - by ignoring applicable law and facts. It failed to mention, e.g., that the State Legislature had directed the Attorney General to adopt statewide regulations to carry out the purposes of the CUA, that the Attorney General had begun to do so by adopting the 2008 Attorney General Guidelines for the Safety and Nondiversion of Medical Marijuana, and that such guidelines indicated how such storefront collectives could be required to operate lawfully.
The Inland Empire Patients Health & Wellness Center case also failed to discuss such relevant issues as, e.g., (1) if the State itself could not have completely impaired patients' access to medical marijuana, then what gave its political subdivisions, the cities and counties, the power to do so? and (2) if the purpose of government's police power is to regulate land uses to prevent public nuisances, then how can any activity authorized by the People of California, such as the not-for-profit distribution of medical marijuana, be deemed a "per se nuisance" and banned as such?
More to the point, the Inland Empire Patients Health & Wellness Center case did not ever actually address the issue of personal cultivation and possession.
The case of Maral v. City of Live Oak (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 975, now cited as authority that cities and counties and the State can ban personal cultivation, is only a Court of Appeal decision, and does not control contrary California Supreme Court opinions. Thus, Maral, which held that patients have no "right" to cultivate medical marijuana, merely relied on another mere Court of Appeal opinion to state that "The CUA creates only a limited defense to certain crimes, 'not a constitutional right to obtain marijuana,' " by citing People v. Urziceanu (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 747, 774. But Maral did not even cite, let alone attempt to distinguish, the California Supreme Court decision of People v. Kelly, which held that patients do have a constitutionally-protected right to cultivate and possess as much marijuana as each patient needs for his or her personal medicinal needs.
I and my family members therefore will not obtain a license, a permit, a medical marijuana ID card issued by anyone, or do anything more than what the CUA requires, to wit, I and they will obtain a doctor's recommendation that medical marijuana might help our serious medical problems. If, in the future, I or any medical marijuana patient in my household or family are cited for violating this unlawful and unconstitutional ordinance or the MMRSA, we, like all medical marijuana patients, will raise all these issues, and all such others as also may be applicable, in our defense and, if we so decide, in a countersuit against the government entity that is unconstitutionally violating our constitutionally-protected, CUA-given rights.
Federal Spending on MMJ Raids over?
I want to wish everyone a happy holiday and hope that the New Year will be peaceful and prosperous. We are getting a mixed bag of policy changes, some good, some not so much.
First, the Good News! President Obama signed the new budget that contained a provision to defund all Federal agencies from spending any money on marijuana prosecutions in states that have passed laws thatallow the use of cannabis for medical or recreational purposes.
This is not a suggestion or a recommendation - it is the law (at least until Sept. 2015 when this budget expires).
Now the bad news: Yuba County is moving towards a total outdoor cultivation ban. At the very least, they plan to drastically cut back on the number of plants that can be grown. The matter has been postponed until Jan 5, so we should know soon. El Dorado County is doing the same.
This bill looks pretty dam scarey ... It has a high likely hood of passing; please engage lawmakers and tell them what you don't like instead of just saying NO SB1262; So it has a chance of being watered down or having some positives for patients .
Write to your legislator here !!!
The Cannabis Cures Cancer website supports ASA Nevada County's Measure S.
This measure is crucial to regulate cannabis grows in Nevada County and still allow patients the ability to grow and have access to medicine. By setting an easy to understand set of rules for patients to understand, it will help free up law enforcement resources to enforce actions to grows that are not legal under Prop 215. By also setting reasonable limits, it will help prevent cannabis from being grown in significant amounts for the black market and help stop unreasonable nuisance gardens from being grown in residential areas of the county.
The Cannabis Cures Cancer Cooperative Significantly Endorses The Marijuana Cultivation Act of Nevada County.
Measure S is vital in implementing a sensible and prudent ordinance which protects patients' rights while addressing the needs of the county.
December 11, 2013 - In an action supported by California NORML, medical marijuana patient James Maral will file a petition with the California Supreme Court to review the recent Third District Appellate Court decision upholding the city of Live Oak’s ban on medical marijuana cultivation.
San Francisco Attorney Joe Elford will draft and file the petition. “If you ban dispensaries and you ban cultivation, you’re ripping the heart out of California's medical marijuana laws,” said Elford. "This decision conflicts with the intent of the electorate and Legislature and should not be allowed to stand."
The announcement comes a day after Fresno county took steps to enact a total cultivation ban on first reading at its Board of Supervisors meeting. A second reading on the ordinance will take place on January 7.
Maral is also a caretaker for his mother Donneda Maral, who has severe diverticulitis and Crohn's disease, for which she is frequently hospitalized.
"The only thing I'm fighting for is the patients who just want a couple of plants in their backyard," said Maral. "I'm not willing to let my mother die or live out the rest of her time in a hospital." The Marals live at least two hours away from any medical marijuana dispensary.
Cultivation is exempted from state law for medical marijuana patients by Proposition 215, passed by the voters in 1996. State law SB420 established a "floor" of 6 mature or 12 immature plants as allowable per patient, permitting cities and counties to pass ordinances allowing for greater, not lesser, amounts. The California Supreme Court threw out SB420's limits in People v. Kelly (2010), opting instead for allowing whatever a patient needs to grow.
Live Oak’s ban on medical marijuana cultivation took effect in January 2012, over the objections of local citizens. The only other known jurisdiction currently banning all medical marijuana cultivation is Tracy. Sacramento county has passed an ordinance zoning out anything federally illegal, and Sacramento sheriffs were out this year enforcing it by taking out gardens. The city of Selma rolled back their cultivation ban on October 16, voting to allow permitted, indoor gardens.
Prop. 215 co-author and CalNORML director Dale Gieringer, who sat on the state committee that wrote SB420, said, "The right of patients to grow their own medicine is fundamental to Prop. 215's stated purpose of ensuring that 'seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes.' The city of Live Oak has no legitimate business prohibiting Mr. Maral from growing the medicine he needs at his own private residence."
Established in 1972, California NORML is the state chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. We are a non-profit, membership organization dedicated to reforming California's marijuana laws. Our mission is to establish the right of adults to use cannabis legally.
A cannabis manufacturer is any registered business dedicated to the germination, cultivation, production, processing, conversion, extraction, in-vitro testing, distribution, or wholesale of cannabis. The registration fee for a cannabis manufacturer shall be an annual fee of five thousand dollars ($5,000), plus one hundred and fifty dollars ($150) per 100 square feet of cannabis plant canopy.
SACRAMENTO, Calif., Sept 28, 2013 -- /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Vote Hemp and the Hemp Industries Association (HIA), the nation's leading hemp grassroots advocacy organization and industry trade group, respectively, each working to revitalize industrial hemp production and processing in the U.S., are excited to report that Governor Jerry Brown has signed SB 566, the California Industrial Hemp Farming Act. After moving smoothly through the California legislature with strong bi-partisan support, this landmark legislation has now become California law.
Introduced by Senator Mark Leno earlier this year, SB 566 ensures that California is prepared to begin registering hemp farmers once the federal government has given states the green light. The California Industrial Hemp Farming Act will establish a framework for farming the oilseed and fiber varieties of the plant, which are used in a myriad of everyday consumer products, including food, body care, clothing, paper, auto parts, composites, building materials, and bio-fuels. Enforcement and oversight of hemp production would be conducted in concert with the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) and county agricultural commissioners, as is done with other crops.
"SB 566 demonstrates the real momentum behind the national movement to legalize industrial hemp," said Eric Steenstra, Executive Director of the Hemp Industries Association. "With Congressional bills to legalize hemp currently in both the House and Senate, California is on the cutting edge, pushing forward with an industrial hemp law that would not only stimulate much needed growth in local business and farming sectors, but ultimately lead the nation toward a federal policy change that would open hemp cultivation to hemp farmers around the country. This will lower our dependence on Canada and China for hemp imports, and empower our agrarian and manufacturing economies to finally tap into one of the fastest growing natural products in the market."
"With the signing of this bill, California is poised to grow industrial hemp when the federal government gives states the green light," said Senator Leno, D-San Francisco. "In the past year, the conversation to legalize the cultivation of hemp has gained momentum at the federal level, and it is only a matter of time before a farmer's right to grow hemp is restored. Hemp, which is already found in hundreds of consumer products manufactured in our state, is a perfect crop for California. It has great potential to revitalize family farms, create new jobs and stimulate the economy."
Strong support for the bill has come from The California Sheriffs Association, individual county sheriffs, family and organic farmers, environmental organizations, labor unions, and businesses statewide. 2 Vote Hemp and HIA believe that hemp farming registrations could be accepted as soon as 2014 based on the recent memo from Deputy Attorney General James Cole of the Department of Justice. "Before farmers can begin planting hemp under SB 566, the state will need to seek clarification from federal officials that state regulations for hemp farming meet the requirements outlined in the recent memo issued by Deputy Attorney General James Cole," notes Vote Hemp Director Patrick Goggin.
Today, more than 30 industrialized nations grow industrial hemp and export it to the United States. Hemp is the only crop that is illegal to grow at the federal level, yet is legal for Americans to import. Among the numerous California-based companies who have supported the bill are Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps, makers of North America's top-selling natural soap, and Nutiva, a rising star among innovative health food companies. Both of these businesses currently must import hemp from other countries. The passage of SB 566 sends a strong message to Washington that the time has come to change federal policy regarding industrial hemp.
"Hemp grown right here in California would stimulate massive growth in the food, body care, textiles, building and other crucial sectors that suffer from having to import less efficient materials in lieu of this lucrative industrial crop," says David Bronner, President of Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps. "The nationwide movement to legalize industrial hemp and farm it right here in the US to benefit American business is growing, and SB 566 opens a door to incredible opportunity for farmers who seek sustainable agriculture, ecologically responsible businesses and products. Ultimately, this bill will help end the prohibition on what is one of the most versatile and environmentally revolutionary industrial crops on the planet."
"Nutiva looks forward to buying hemp from American farmers," says John Roulac, President of Nutiva. "This will add American jobs and reduce our fuel consumption."
California businesses currently spend millions of dollars each year importing hemp primarily from Canada, China, and Europe. Demand for hemp products has been growing rapidly in recent years, and it is estimated that the U.S. hemp market now exceeds $500 million in annual retail sales. From natural soaps to healthy foods, there are a large variety of "Made in California" hemp products whose manufacturers and buyers will greatly benefit from an in-state source of hemp seed, fiber, and oil.
The environmental and agricultural benefits are not limited to the versatility of uses. Industrial hemp is an excellent rotation crop because its dense growth smothers weeds without herbicides and helps to break the disease cycle. Hemp requires less water and agricultural inputs than other crops, has deep tap roots that leave the soil in excellent condition for the next crop, and is proven to increase yields. These benefits save farmers money and reduce the amount of pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilizers that run into our waterways.
Vote Hemp is a national, single‐issue, non‐profit organization dedicated to the acceptance of and a free market for low‐ THC industrial hemp and to changes in current law to allow U.S. farmers to once again grow this agricultural crop. More information about hemp legislation and the crop's many uses may be found at www.VoteHemp.com or www.TheHIA.org. Video footage of hemp farming in other countries is available upon request by contacting Ryan Fletcher at 202-641-0277 or ryan@votehemp.com.
If you’ve been to any public event lately, you are probably aware that Americans for Safe Access-Nevada County is leading a petition drive that would allow the voters to accept or reject a more compassionate cannabis cultivation ordinance that is sponsored by our organization.
I apologize if we have asked some of you to sign our petition at multiple events.
Some have questioned whether our volunteers are being paid to gather signatures, and the answer is no.
All of our volunteers have given their time freely, although we do offer incentives like concert and raffle tickets to keep up morale.
This issue has united people from opposite ends of the political spectrum judging by the mountains of new voter registration cards we have gathered.
We cannot wait for a general election when the sheriff’s department is using the cultivation ordinance as a pretext to enter properties without justification … and to interpret the ordinance as they go without issuing clear guidelines.
Even people who don’t support patient rights are joining us because of violations against private property rights and the wasteful use of taxpayers’ dollars that are being spent to support prohibition — which has neither lowered supply nor demand but has incarcerated record numbers of nonviolent offenders.
Our initiative would replace the current cultivation ordinance that sets artificial square-foot restrictions on the size of the garden and would go back to state-sanctioned six plants per qualified patient.
We actually adopt the state minimum threshold as our maximum allowance. Our initiative would also restrict outdoor cultivation on R-1, R-2 and R-3 zoned parcels. You can read the whole initiative at http://asa-nc.com.
The current restrictions don’t just mark the outside dimensions of the garden. They include the height and width of a plant and the ground space separating the plants from each other.
You must cut the tops and sides of your plants if they extend past this invisible barrier.
The problem is that the best medicine is located in the tops and tips of the plant.
Sheriff Royal has stated that square-foot restrictions are necessary because some cannabis plants grow to the size of giant Sequoia trees.
Although some Cannabis Sativa plants can reach heights of 14 feet or more, this is the exception rather than the rule, and his depiction is a gross exaggeration of the average plant being grown in Nevada County.
It really is a shame that our board of supervisors has steadfastly refused to mediate with stakeholders to find a solution that would meet the needs of patients while safeguarding the rights of neighbors to the quiet enjoyment of their properties.
Despite the fact that we voted for Prop 215 and poll after poll shows that we still support medical marijuana, our board believes that it knows what is best for us.
Special elections are necessary when our elected officials refuse to represent their constituents’ needs.
We cannot wait for a general election when the sheriff’s department is using the cultivation ordinance as a pretext to enter properties without justification, red-tag homes, conduct unlawful searches and to interpret the ordinance as they go without issuing clear guidelines.
ASA-NC again calls on the supervisors to accept our initiative and spare us all the cost of a special election.
Even worse are the missed opportunities that occur by opposing each other rather than working toward a creative win-win solution.
Case in point are the illegal grows taking place in our national forests that are polluting our watershed and destroying wildlife.
ASA supports organic growing methods to ensure the safest level of medicine is being produced for human consumption.
Surely this is an area where we could work together.
If you are still sitting on the fence about the effectiveness of marijuana as a medicine, I urge you to watch two remarkable films that I guarantee will change your mind.
First is “What if Cannabis Cured Cancer,” by Len Richmond, and the second is the CNN documentary, “Weed,” by Dr. Sanjay Gupta.
A quick Google search will turn up links to both of these videos. I defy any parent to reject the cannabis therapy that spared young Charlotte Figi from suffering from more than 300 epileptic seizures a month.
Indeed, cannabis was the only medication that brought relief and controlled her symptoms.
After you see the effectiveness of medical marijuana for yourself, I hope you will join the thousands of people who have already signed our petition.
There may come a time when you or a loved one will need this medicine, and we hope that it will still available when you do.
Patricia Smith is the chair of Americans for Safe Access, Nevada County.
Patients are for sustainable organic cannabis production, not one of fear and profit and greed.
Nevada County Sheriff Keith Royal says the proposed new marijuana ordinance being brought forward by Americans for Safe Access-Nevada County is more like “be kind to your neighbor”. The Sheriff says the proposed ordinance has no penalties for non-compliance and no terms dealing with enforcement of the ordinance. The Sheriff also says the number of plants a person can grow is being greatly increased.
ASA-Nevada County Chair Patricia Smith agrees that enforcement and penalties are not part of the proposed ordinance.
Smith says that current enforcement penalties would be sufficient if applied to the proposed ordinance.
The proposed ordinance allows patients to grow up to six plants and collectives to grow six plants per patient member which is in alignment with California law. Smith says the existing ordinance restricts the number of plants per patient by restricting garden size.
A number of people are collecting signatures to to place the proposed ordinance before the voters.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.