(Reprinted with permission from HIGH TIMES)
Medical marijuana ain’t legal marijuana.
This misunderstanding of the law is at the crux of too many California cannabis consumers’ opposition to Prop 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act. (Click that link for a complete annotated text of Prop 64 where all the footnoted references can be confirmed.)
Prop 64 will legalize the possession and sharing of one ounce of marijuana by adults[1] and 8 grams of concentrate[2].
Prop 64 will legalize the home cultivation of six cannabis plants indoors[3], which no jurisdiction can infringe upon[4], and the home possession of all the marijuana harvested from those plants.
Prop 64 will legalize the licensure of buildings and festivals where adults may consume marijuana[5].
Prop 64 will legalize the cultivation, processing, and retailing of marijuana to adults[6].
None of those activities are currently legal in the state of California.
Prop 64 will also allow for retroactive resentencing[7] and expungement for persons convicted of marijuana felonies or misdemeanors that are reduced or legalized by the Act.
So why would any pot smoker in their right mind decide to vote with the police, prosecutors, prison guards, and other prohibition profiteers to reject marijuana legalization in California for the second time in six years? Let’s take a look at their excuses for enabling prohibition to continue in California.
MYTH #1: “PROP 64 ISN’T NECESSARY; IT’S ALREADY LEGAL NOW UNDER PROP 215!”
FACT: MARIJUANA IS STILL CONTRABAND UNDER PROP 215
Prop 215 does not remove a single criminal penalty for the possession or cultivation of marijuana. It provides an immunity to prosecution on charges of possession or cultivation of marijuana.
What’s the difference? Under Prop 215, marijuana is still illegal. Because it is still criminal, the evidence of marijuana is reason enough to detain you, search you and your belongings, and seize your marijuana. Recommendation or not, you can still be ticketed, fined, and/or arrested. If you have a recommendation, you can then present that in court as a defense to the charges filed against you[8].
Prop 64 makes marijuana LEGAL. That means most of the ways cops are allowed to hassle you over weed disappear. The sight of stems and a roach in your ashtray, the cop’s claim that he can smell marijuana, the anonymous tip that you’re growing cannabis, and the drug dog’s alert on your car’s trunk are no longer valid reasons for police to detain you.
MYTH #2: “PROP 64 KILLS OFF MEDICAL MARIJUANA!”
FACT: PROP 64 PROTECTS AND STRENGTHENS MEDICAL MARIJUANA
Pot-smoking opponents of this legalization initiative swear that it brings an end to medical marijuana in California, yet they cannot point to the text in Prop 64 where that repeal happens, except to note the Amendments section that allows legislative changes by majority vote to portions of Prop 64.
But those portions concern only the new medical marijuana additions within Prop 64[9], not the text of Prop 215 that protects patients’ possession and cultivation rights, and concern modifications to nonmedical regulations[10], tax rates (after 2028)[11], and any reduction in penalties[12] or increase in limits (a reduction in penalty for greater amounts). Anything else the legislature wants to modify requires a 2/3rds majority[13] and it must comport with Prop 64’s purpose and intent to tax and regulate nonmedical marijuana[14] and allow personal possession and cultivation rights[15].
In fact, Prop 64 explicitly protects and enhances Prop 215 in a number of ways, including child custody protection for patients[16], $100 cap on ID cards[17] with free cards for the indigent[18], medical records privacy[19], and explicit guarantees that the new limits[20], regulations[21], and licensing[22] applied to non-medical marijuana do not apply to Prop 215 patients.
Most of what Prop 64’s pot-smoking opponents complain about is the elimination of the collective / cooperative model that made up their quasi-legal dispensary system. But Prop 64 doesn’t do that; the Medical Cannabis Regulation & Safety Act (MCRSA) signed into law last year did that. (One of Prop 215’s authors, attorney Bill Panzer, explains exactly how Prop 64 does not affect Prop 215 in this article.)
MYTH #3: “PROP 64 ‘LOCKS IN’ MCRSA SO IT CAN’T BE OVERTURNED!”
FACT: MCRSA IS THE LAW NOW AND IT’S COMPATIBLE WITH PROP 215
In response, they’ll tell you that Prop 64 “locks in” the MCRSA. The theory is that MCRSA is a legislative statute and Prop 215 is a citizen initiative, which holds greater status under California’s constitution. They believe that any day now, a lawsuit will claim MCRSA violates the intent of Prop 215, the courts will concur, MCRSA will be rendered invalid, and California goes back to the halcyon days of unregulated “Wild West” style medical marijuana collectives that are banned throughout many parts of the state. But if we pass Prop 64, a citizen initiative, that somehow “elevates” MCRSA into something that courts cannot find incompatible with Prop 215.
Seriously. They want you to reject legalization for at least four years on the crackpot theory that a lawsuit might be filed that might win and might overturn recent laws so we might go back to the exact lack of regulation that started this mess.
In reality, they’re pinning their hopes on a fantasy based on misunderstanding. The People v. Kelly case determined that Prop 215 only protects the right of patients to personally possess and cultivate marijuana without fixed limitation by statute[23]. The unregulated collectives[24] they long for were established by Senate Bill 420, which MCRSA has superseded[25]. MCRSA can’t violate Prop 215 whether Prop 64 passes or not, since MCRSA doesn’t infringe on possession and cultivation in Prop 215 or set any fixed personal limits unapproved by voters, it just regulates the commercial medical market it replaced in SB 420.
MYTH #4: “PROP 64 KILLS SMALL BUSINESSES, CREATES HUGE MONOPOLY!”
FACT: PROP 64 HAS STRONG ANTI-MONOPOLY PROTECTIONS AND FAVORS EXISTING PROVIDERS
Other objections to legalization include those who feel Prop 64 sets up the cannabis market to be taken over exclusively by large corporate interests. Some point to the donations by George Soros, the billionaire philanthropist, and his stock holdings in agriculture behemoth Monsanto, as evidence of Prop 64’s ulterior motives.
Oddly, though, these Prop 64 haters who are defending Prop 215 from George Soros forget that it was George Soros who ponied up the money necessary to rescue Prop 215 from the brink of electoral failure in 1996. Even stranger, the other legalization initiatives they favored (CCHI[26] and MCLR[27]), which perennially fail to make the ballot, have far fewer protections against corporations dominating the weed market than Prop 64 has, and instead trust the same legislature with establishing fair and equitable licensing procedures that they fear will abuse Prop 64.
Prop 64’s encouragement of small business begins with the licensing, which will be given first to the existing medical marijuana businesses[28] until 2020. During the licensing process, regulators have discretion to deny licenses if they’d lead to unfair competition[29] or monopolistic practices[30].
Prop 64 also removes a requirement that distributors be independent and allows “vertical integration”[31] and “microbusiness” licenses[32] that allow a small farmer to be his own processor and retailer. Prop 64 adds a residency requirement[33] through 2019 and removes the restriction against licensing folks who’ve gotten previous marijuana or some drug felonies[34].
MYTH #5: “PROP 64’S IMMORAL TAXES WILL INFLATE MARIJUANA PRICES!”
FACT: LEGAL MARIJUANA STATES’ PRICES ARE FAR LOWER, EVEN WITH TAXES
Pot-smoking opponents of Prop 64 lament that it establishes a 15 percent excise tax[35] and a $9.25 / ounce cultivation tax[36], and even medical marijuana patients will have to pay it. On the subject of morality, I agree. It is wrong for governments to balance budgets by taxing people’s medicine.
However, as a practical matter, it is more immoral to maintain the prohibition that creates a risk tax on medicine just as bad as a pharmaceutical corporation’s obscene markup on cheap pills.
In Washington State, where the worst marijuana legalization is in effect, where consumers have no home grow rights, where statewide production canopy is artificially capped, and where the excise tax is 37 percent, the average retail price of marijuana is around $9 per gram, with tax included. This is down from a previous high of $25 per gram in recreational and $12 per gram in medical outlets.
In Colorado, they are down below $7 per gram and had 4/20 specials in the $5 per gram range, and that’s down from the $8 per gram range. Oregon is experiencing a similar dramatic drop in price. Legalization increases supply and competition while reducing difficulty and risk – the legal production cost of a pound could be less than what they’re charging for an ounce in California dispensaries[37].
So yes, if a $300 ounce gets $9.25 plus another 15 percent tacked on, that ounce ($355.64) becomes 18.5 percent more expensive in the short run. But as competition and increased production drop that ounce down to $200, the added taxes still leave the patient paying 19.8 percent less ($240.64) than the untaxed medical $300 ounce in the long run.
But a $200 ounce is still a high estimate. RAND Corporation studied the matter and concluded that legalization in California makes $100-to-$150 ounces realistic and prices as low as $38 an ounce within the realm of possibility.
Besides, if Prop 64 gave an effective 18.5 percent tax break to patients, California’s nearly non-existent recommendation requirements would lead to every pot smoker being a patient and California raising no tax revenue. That, in turn, would motivate the legislature to make it much harder to get a recommendation so more tokers are pushed into the taxed market. Paying your taxes, therefore, is the price of not having to collect years of medical records, submit to annual exams, and have some objectively verifiable condition aside from Arrest Anxiety Syndrome or Wannapotshopitis to get your medical card.
MYTH #6: “PROP 64 CREATES NEW CRIMES AND IMPRISONS KIDS!”
FACT: PROP 64 ELIMINATES SOME CRIMES, REDUCES PENALTIES, AND SPARES KIDS FROM JAIL.
When some people read Prop 64, they will find a section that lists some crime and penalty and claim that is a “new crime”. Usually what they’ve found is just a restatement of what the crime is now (like possessing over an ounce, no change[i]) or they’ve found the penalty that applies to a crime in general (like anybody any age sharing any marijuana[ii]) without noting the section below that describes legal exceptions (like sharing less than one ounce of marijuana between adults is legal[iii]).
The truth is that the penalty for every violation of marijuana law in California remains the same or is decreased or is eliminated under Prop 64, with the exception of toking in public where tobacco smoking has been banned – that increases from a $100 to a $250 infraction ticket[iv]. The only new penalties created are some infractions for things like having an open container of marijuana[v] or toking as a passenger in a car[vi] and penalties related to commercial license and regulation violations[vii].
Kids are far more protected under Prop 64. Under current law, they can receive the infractions, misdemeanors, and felonies just as adults can[viii]. Under Prop 64, all juvenile marijuana violations for possession[ix], cultivation[x], sales[xi], transporting and gifts[xii] become infractions with counseling, community service, and drug education. For the 18-20-year-olds, possession[xiii], cultivation[xiv], sales[xv], and transporting and gift[xvi] penalties stay the same or are reduced.
MYTH #7: “PROP 64’S LOW LIMITS MEAN COPS WILL BUST MORE TOKERS!”
FACT: PROP 64 WILL LIKELY ELIMINATE THREE OUT OF FOUR OF ALL MARIJUANA CHARGES.
A bizarre theory about Prop 64 is that by setting its possession limit down to a measly one ounce and cultivation at a mere six plants per household, so many people will be over that limit that cops will make even more arrests than before, especially now that they’re funded by marijuana taxes[54].
But how? When marijuana is legalized, the sight and smell of it are no longer probable causes for police investigation. The four legal states have all had to retire their pot-sniffing K-9 officers, because a dog can’t smell the difference between a legal ounce and an illegal pound. Even if the dog sniffs coke, meth, and heroin, too, he’s useless, because a savvy dealer would just keep a legal gram of weed in his illegal drug stash. His defense attorney will get the stash evidence ruled inadmissible in court because the cops can’t prove the dog alerted on illegal drugs rather than legal marijuana.
This isn’t just conjecture; it’s played out in the legal states. Colorado in its first year of legal weed saw an 80 percent decline in all marijuana charges filed in criminal courts. In Washington, the decline was 63 percent, presumably because they do not have legal home grow, so evidence of cultivation is still a probable cause to investigate crime.
MYTH #8: “PROP 64’S TAXES GO TO A SPECIAL ‘SLUSH FUND’ FOR THE GOVERNOR!”
FACT: PROP 64 DETAILS EXACTLY HOW TAXES BENEFIT ENVIRONMENT, RESEARCH, AND COMMUNITIES
A misleading critique of Prop 64 claims that the marijuana taxes don’t go into the General Fund and won’t benefit schools. That’s true enough on its face, but ignores the reasoning why.
California’s laws are such that money that ends up in the General Fund is subject to the whims of the Legislature – that’s where you’d put money if you didn’t want to earmark where it goes. By placing the taxes in a special Marijuana Fund, Prop 64 can dictate exactly where the money goes.
Indeed, K-12 public schools will not directly benefit from the Marijuana Fund. But that doesn’t turn it into the “Governor’s Slush Fund”. Instead, taxes must first pay the costs of administration[55]. Then Prop 64 allocates millions for university research of marijuana and policy[56], law enforcement research on marijuana-impaired driving[57], local health departments and non-profit community services[58], and medical marijuana research[59]. Whatever remains after earmarks is divided 60 percent to youth drug prevention programs[60], 20 percent to clean up the environment from illegal cannabis grows[61], and 20 percent to law enforcement[62].
Some people object to funding law enforcement with marijuana revenues. But if the cops liked that money more than what they’ll be losing in federal drug war grants, asset forfeitures, and bail, fees, fines, penalties, and restitution funds, would they all be lining up to vote no on Prop 64?
MYTH #9: “PROP 64’S DEFEAT WILL SEND A MESSAGE THAT PEOPLE WANT TRUE LEGALIZATION™!”
FACT: PROP 64’S DEFEAT WOULD SET BACK REFORM GLOBALLY, DENY CALIFORNIA LEGALIZATION UNTIL AT LEAST 2020
Many of the pot-smoking opponents of Prop 64 believe that other initiatives that failed to make the ballot, like CCHI or MCLR, are superior to Prop 64 and we should wait for the next opportunity to pass one of those, because the people are warming to legalization and will see the wisdom in those proposals.
They’re operating from the presumption that the public is just like us and wants marijuana legalized because it’s the right thing to do. The public, however, is not like us and is only recently warming to legalization because they find prohibition is wasteful and doesn’t work and legalization brings in revenue without raising their own taxes.
Initiatives, especially in California, requires millions of dollars and thousands of signatures. In the entire medical marijuana era, only two legalization initiatives have made the California ballot, both largely because a wealthy person donated millions of dollars to make it happen. The proponents of CCHI and MCLR have run their campaign almost every election cycle since Prop 215 passed. They have never gathered half the signatures or secured any significant funding.
It's highly unlikely that following a second-straight electoral defeat for limited marijuana legalization, big funders are going to double down on Sean Parker’s losing bet in a non-presidential election with lower, more conservative turnout. So it’s 2020 before the next shot at legalizing California will be mounted, and the people with the money and connections to do it aren’t going to think their last attempt was too conservative.
MYTH #10: “NOBODY REALLY GOES TO PRISON IN CALIFORNIA FOR POT! WE CAN WAIT!”
FACT: PROP 64 RETROACTIVELY REDUCES PENALTIES, FREES PRISONERS, EXPUNGES RECORDS
Of all the myths propagated by the pot-smoking opponents of legalization, none is more odious than one they’ve stolen from the nation’s leading prohibitionist, Kevin Sabet, who is fond of telling audiences that legalization is unnecessary, because what it legalizes are amounts of marijuana that people don’t really go to prison for anyway. The California prohibition apologists also throw in that personal possession is just a ticket and Prop 47 de-felonized many marijuana crimes.
But California still charges over 8,000 people a year for marijuana felonies. California currently has prisoners serving time or still “on papers” (parole or probation) for their marijuana misdemeanors and felonies. Many Californians who’ve finished their sentences still have the “scarlet letter” of being a drug criminal on their permanent record that thwarts their opportunities for housing, education, and employment.
Prop 64 applies all its new penalty reductions and legalizations retroactively on the day it is passed. Convicts serving up to four years for their sales or cultivation felony would now have their record reduced to six-month misdemeanors or, in the case of a half-dozen or fewer plants, cleared of any wrongdoing whatsoever[1]. Not only does Prop 64 then lead to early release of pot POWs, they can then petition to have their records sealed[2], and if not, the state automatically expunges their records of possession and joint-passing violations after two years anyway[3] – removing the “scarlet letter”.
If you could tell a child his parent needs to stay in prison up to three years longer than necessary because you think Prop 64’s flawed and there might be better legalization in four years, well, I guess you’re the kind of person who’ll join cops in voting to maintain their power to put as many people as possible in prison for marijuana.
Don’t believe the paranoid scare mongering – Legalization always beats Prohibition, and California Legalization is our ace card to beat Federal Prohibition. Vote Yes on Prop 64 and send this article to your California friends who are falling for the Chicken Little arguments of prohibition profiteers who support the status quo where marijuana is just illegal enough to charge your $300 an ounce for it, but just legal enough for them to avoid raids and prison. Don’t help the cops keep ticketing, arresting, and imprisoning us over cannabis!
Footnotes
[1] §11362.1(a) [it shall be lawful… for persons 21 years of age or older to:] (1) Possess, process, transport, purchase, obtain, or give away to persons 21 years of age or older without any compensation whatsoever, not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana not in the form of concentrated cannabis;
[2] §11362.1(a) [it shall be lawful… for persons 21 years of age or older to:] (2) Possess, process, transport, purchase, obtain, or give away to persons 21 years of age or older without any compensation whatsoever, not more than eight grams of marijuana in the form of concentrated cannabis, including as contained in marijuana products;
[3] §11362.1(a) [it shall be lawful… for persons 21 years of age or older to:] (3) Possess, plant, cultivate, harvest, dry, or process not more than six living marijuana plants and possess the marijuana produced by the plants;
[4] §11362.2(b)(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) no city, county, or city and county may completely prohibit persons engaging in the actions and conduct under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 11362.1. [Personal Possession & Cultivation] inside a private residence, or inside an accessory structure to a private residence located upon the grounds of a private residence that is fully enclosed and secure.
[5] §26200(d) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 11362.3. [Personal Use Restrictions] of the Health and Safety Code, a local jurisdiction may allow for the smoking, vaporizing, and ingesting of marijuana or marijuana products on the premises of a retailer or microbusiness licensed under this division if: (1) Access to the area where marijuana consumption is allowed is restricted to persons 21 years of age and older; (2) Marijuana consumption is not visible from any public place or non-age restricted area; and (3) Sale or consumption of alcohol or tobacco is not allowed on the premises.
[6] §26000(a) The purpose and intent of this division is to establish a comprehensive system to control and regulate the cultivation, distribution, transport, storage, manufacturing, processing, and sale of nonmedical marijuana and marijuana products for adults 21 years of age and over.
[7] §11361.8(a) A person currently serving a sentence for a conviction, whether by trial or by open or negotiated plea, who would not have been guilty of an offense or who would have been guilty of a lesser offense under the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act had that Act been in effect at the time of the offense may petition for a recall or dismissal of sentence before the trial court that entered the judgment of conviction in his or her case to request resentencing or dismissal in accordance with Sections 11357. Possession, 11358. Planting, harvesting, or processing, 11359. Possession for sale, 11360. Unlawful transportation, importation, sale, or gift, 11362.1, 11362.2, 11362.3, and 11362.4 as those sections have been amended or added by this Act.
[8] People v. Mower decision “established a two-step process for patients who are arrested. First, they are entitled to a pretrial hearing, where they can have their cases dismissed if they show a ‘preponderance of evidence’ that they are legal patients. Afterwards, if they are brought to trial, they need only raise a ‘reasonable doubt’ to prove their innocence.” [Source: California NORML]
[9] SECTION 10: This Act shall be broadly construed to accomplish its purposes and intent as stated in Section 3 PURPOSE AND INTENT. The Legislature may by majority vote amend the provisions of this Act contained in Sections 5 USE OF MARIJUANA FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES….
[10] SECTION 10: … and 6 MARIJUANA REGULATION AND SAFETY. to implement the substantive provisions of those sections…
[11] §34019(h) Effective July 1, 2028, the Legislature may amend this section by majority vote to further the purposes of the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act, including allocating funds to programs other than those specified in subdivisions (d) and (f) of this section…
[12] SECTION 10: … The Legislature may by majority vote amend, add, or repeal any provisions to further reduce the penalties for any of the offenses addressed by this Act. …
[13] SECTION 10: … Except as otherwise provided, the provisions of the Act may be amended by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to further the purposes and intent of the Act.
[14] SECTION 3: The purpose of the Adult Use of Marijuana Act is to establish a comprehensive system to legalize, control and regulate the cultivation, processing, manufacture, distribution, testing, and sale of nonmedical marijuana, including marijuana products, for use by adults 21 years and older, and to tax the commercial growth and retail sale of marijuana.
[15] SECTION 3(l) Permit adults 21 years and older to use, possess, purchase and grow nonmedical marijuana within defined limits for use by adults 21 years and older as set forth in this Act.
[16] §11362.84 The status and conduct of a qualified patient who acts in accordance with the Compassionate Use Act shall not, by itself, be used to restrict or abridge custodial or parental rights to minor children in any action or proceeding under the jurisdiction of family or juvenile court.
[17] §11362.755(b) In no event shall the amount of the fee charged by a county health department exceed $100 per application or renewal.
[18] §11362.755(d) Upon satisfactory proof that a qualified patient, or the legal guardian of a qualified patient under the age of 18, is a medically indigent adult who is eligible for and participates in the County Medical Services Program, the fee established pursuant to this section shall be waived.
[19] §11362.713(a) Information identifying the names, addresses, or social security numbers of patients, their medical conditions, or the names of their primary caregivers, received and contained in the records of the Department of Public Health and by any county public health department are hereby deemed “medical information” within the meaning of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (Civil Code § 56, et seq.) and shall not be disclosed by the Department or by any county public health department except in accordance with the restrictions on disclosure of individually identifiable information under the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act.
[20] §11362.3(f) Nothing in this section shall be construed or interpreted to amend, repeal, affect, restrict, or preempt laws pertaining to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.
[21] §11362.45(i) [Nothing in section 11362.1. [Personal Possession & Cultivation] shall be construed or interpreted to amend, repeal, affect, restrict, or preempt:] Laws pertaining to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.
[22] §26067(1) This section does not apply to the cultivation of marijuana in accordance with Section 11362.1. [Personal Possession & Cultivation] of the Health and Safety Code or the Compassionate Use Act.
[23] People v. Kelly decision: “The prosecutor's argument was improper. It was improper because the CUA [Compassionate Use Act] can only be amended with voters’ approval. Voters, however, did not approve the eight-ounce limit and other caps in section 11362.77 [of SB420]; hence, section 11362.77 unconstitutionally amends the CUA.”
[24] Senate Bill 420 “Recognizes the right of patients and caregivers to associate to collectively or cooperatively to cultivate medical marijuana.” [Source: California NORML]
[25] MCRSA, not Prop 64, ended collectives by establishing: “The provision in SB 420 affording legal protection to patient collectives and cooperatives, HSC 11362.775, shall sunset one year after the Bureau posts a notice on its website that licenses have commenced being issued. After that date, all cannabis collectives will have to be licensed, except for individual patient and caregiver gardens serving no more than five patients.”
[26] CCHI §III(a) Within 6 months of the passage of this Act, the legislature is required upon thorough investigation, to enact legislation using reasonable standards which are compatible with the provisions of this Act to: 1.(A) license concessionary establishments to distribute cannabis hemp euphoric products in a manner analogous to California’s beer and wine industry model.
[27] MCLR §27400. Implementation. It shall be the responsibility of the Legislature to implement any regulations necessary for this Act.
[28] §26054.2(a) A licensing authority shall give priority in issuing licenses under this division to applicants that can demonstrate to the authority’s satisfaction that the applicant operated in compliance with the Compassionate Use Act and its implementing laws before September 1, 2016, or currently operates in compliance with Chapter 3.5 of Division 8.
[29] §26052(a) No licensee shall perform any of the following acts, or permit any such acts to be performed by any employee, agent, or contractor of such licensee: (3) Make a sale or contract for the sale of marijuana or marijuana products, or to fix a price charged therefor, or discount from, or rebate upon, such price, on the condition, agreement or understanding that the consumer or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, merchandise, machinery, supplies, commodities, or services of a competitor or competitors of such seller, where the effect of such sale, contract, condition, agreement or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of trade or commerce;
[30] §26051(a) In determining whether to grant, deny, or renew a license authorized under this division, a licensing authority shall consider factors reasonably related to the determination, including, but not limited to, whether it is reasonably foreseeable that issuance, denial, or renewal of the license could: (1) allow unreasonable restrains on competition by creation or maintenance of unlawful monopoly power;
[31] §26053(c) Except as provided in subdivision (b), a person or entity may apply for and be issued more than one license under this division.
[32] §26070(3) “Microbusiness,” for the cultivation of marijuana on an area less than 10,000 square feet and to act as a licensed distributor, Level 1 manufacturer, and retailer under this division…
[33] §26054.1(a) No licensing authority shall issue or renew a license to any person that cannot demonstrate continuous California residency from or before January 1, 2015. In the case of an applicant or licensee that is an entity, the entity shall not be considered a resident if any person controlling the entity cannot demonstrate continuous California residency from and before January 1, 2015. (b) Subdivision (a) shall cease to be operable on December 31, 2019 unless reenacted prior thereto by the Legislature.
[34] §26057(5) Except as provided in subparagraphs (D) and (E) of paragraph (4) and notwithstanding Chapter 2 of Division 1.5, a prior conviction, where the sentence, including any term of probation, incarceration, or supervised release, is completed, for possession of, possession for sale, sale, manufacture, transportation, or cultivation of a controlled substance is not considered substantially related, and shall not be the sole ground for denial of a license. Conviction for any controlled substance felony subsequent to licensure shall be grounds for revocation of a license or denial of the renewal of a license.
[35] §34011(a) Effective January 1, 2018, a marijuana excise tax shall be imposed upon purchasers of marijuana or marijuana products sold in this state at the rate of fifteen percent (15%) of the gross receipts of any retail sale by a dispensary or other person required to be licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.5 of Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code or a retailer, microbusiness, nonprofit, or other person required to be licensed pursuant to Division 10. Marijuana of the Business and Professions Code to sell marijuana and marijuana products directly to a purchaser.
[36] §34012(a) Effective January 1, 2018, there is hereby imposed a cultivation tax on all harvested marijuana that enters the commercial market upon all persons required to be licensed to cultivate marijuana pursuant to Chapter 3.5 of Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code or Division 10. Marijuana of the Business and Professions Code. The tax shall be due after the marijuana is harvested. (1) The tax for marijuana flowers shall be nine dollars and twenty-five cents ($9.25) per dryweight ounce.
[37] RAND Study on Estimated Cost of Production for Legalized Cannabis: “In such circumstances we would estimate production costs for sinsemilla of $200 - $400 per pound, plus another $20 - $35 per pound for harvesting and processing. Such costs are roughly comparable to current prices per ounce, and are about a factor of ten lower than the current pound price for sinsemilla in the U.S.”
[38] §11357(b)(2) Persons 18 years of age or over who possess more than 28.5 grams of marijuana, or more than four grams of concentrated cannabis, or both, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for a period of not more than six months or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500), or by both such fine and imprisonment.
[39] §11360(a) Except as otherwise provided by this section or as authorized by law, every person who transports, imports into this state, sells, furnishes, administers, or gives away, or offers to transport, import into this state, sell, furnish, administer, or give away, or attempts to import into this state or transport any marijuana shall be punished as follows: (2) Persons 18 years of age or over shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for a period of not more than six months or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500), or by both such fine and imprisonment.
[40] §11360(b) Except as authorized by law, every person who gives away, offers to give away, transports, offers to transport, or attempts to transport not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana, other than concentrated cannabis, is guilty of an infraction and shall be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars ($100).
[41] §11362.3(a) Nothing in Section 11362.1. [Personal Possession & Cultivation] shall be construed to permit any person to: (2) Smoke marijuana or marijuana products in a location where smoking tobacco is prohibited. §11362.4 (b) A person who engages in the conduct described in paragraphs (2) through (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 11362.3. [Personal Use Restrictions] shall be guilty of an infraction punishable by no more than a two hundred and fifty dollar ($250) fine
[42] §11362(a) Nothing in Section 11362.1. [Personal Possession & Cultivation] shall be construed to permit any person to: (4) Possess an open container or open package of marijuana or marijuana products while driving, operating, or riding in the passenger seat or compartment of a motor vehicle, boat, vessel, aircraft, or other vehicle used for transportation.
[43] §11362(a) Nothing in Section 11362.1. [Personal Possession & Cultivation] shall be construed to permit any person to: (8) Smoke or ingest marijuana or marijuana products while riding in the passenger seat or compartment of a motor vehicle, boat, vessel, aircraft, or other vehicle used for transportation…
[44] §26038(a) A person engaging in commercial marijuana activity without a license required by this division shall be subject to civil penalties of up to three times the amount of the license fee for each violation…
[45] Current H&SC §11357 “Possession of up to and including 28.5 grams of marijuana is an infraction punishable by a fine of $100. Possession of more than 28.5 grams is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months’ imprisonment and/or a fine up to $500. If the amount possessed is 28.5 grams or less but the person is 18 years of age or older and the possession occurred on school grounds, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to 10 days’ imprisonment and/or a fine up to $500. If the offender was younger than 18 years of age, then the offense is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine up to $250 for the first offense and a fine up to $500 or commitment to a detention center for up to 10 days.” [Source: NORML]
[46] §11357(a) Except as authorized by law, possession of not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana, or not more than four grams of concentrated cannabis, or both, shall be punished or adjudicated as follows: (1) Persons under the age of 18 shall be guilty of an infraction and shall be required to [complete drug education and community service] (b) Except as authorized by law, every person who possession of more than 28.5 grams of marijuana, or more than four grams of other than concentrated cannabis, shall be punished as follows: (1) Persons under the age of 18 who possess more than 28.5 grams of marijuana or more than four grams of concentrated cannabis, or both, shall be guilty of an infraction and shall be required to [complete drug education and community service]
[47] §11358 Every person who plants, cultivates, harvests, dries, or processes marijuana plants, or any part thereof, except as otherwise provided by law, shall be punished as follows: (a) Every person under the age of 18 who plants who plants, cultivates, harvests, dries, or processes any marijuana plants shall be punished in the same manner provided in paragraph (1) of subdivision of section 11357. Possession.
[48] §11359 Every person who possesses for sale any marijuana, except as otherwise provided by law, shall be punished as follows: (a) Every person under the age of 18 who possesses marijuana for sale shall be punished in the same manner provided in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of section 11357. Possession.
[49] §11360(a) Except as otherwise provided by this section or as authorized by law, every person who transports, imports into this state, sells, furnishes, administers, or gives away, or offers to transport, import into this state, sell, furnish, administer, or give away, or attempts to import into this state or transport any marijuana shall be punished as follows: (1) Persons under the age of 18 years shall be punished in the same manner as provided in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of section 11357. Possession.
[50] §11357(a)(2) Persons at least 18 years of age but less than 21 years of age [who possess less than 28.5 grams of marijuana or less than 4 grams of concentrate] shall be guilty of an infraction and punishable by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars ($100). [Note: same penalty as now.]
[51] §11357(b)(2) Persons 18 years of age or over who possess more than 28.5 grams of marijuana, or more than four grams of concentrated cannabis, or both, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for a period of not more than six months or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500), or by both such fine and imprisonment. [Note: same punishment for flower, but half the jail time for concentrate, as now.]
[52] §11359(b) Every person 18 years of age or over who possesses marijuana for sale shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for a period of not more than six months or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500), or by both such fine and imprisonment. [Note: this reduces a felony to a misdemeanor.]
[53] §11360(2) Persons 18 years of age or over [who illegally transport or gift marijuana] shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for a period of not more than six months or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500), or by both such fine and imprisonment. [Note: this reduces a felony to a misdemeanor.]
[54] §34019(f)(3) Twenty percent (20%) [of revenue remaining after costs and earmarks] shall be deposited into the State and Local Government Law Enforcement Account and disbursed by the Controller as follows: (A) To the Department of the California Highway Patrol for conducting training programs for detecting, testing and enforcing laws against driving under the influence of alcohol and other drugs… (C) To the Board of State and Community Corrections for making grants to local governments to assist with law enforcement, fire protection, or other local programs addressing public health and safety associated with the implementation of the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act….
[55] §34019(a) Before any funds are disbursed pursuant to subdivisions (b), (c), (d), and (e) of this section the Controller shall disburse from the Tax Fund to the appropriate account, without regard to fiscal year, the following: (1) Reasonable costs incurred…
[56] §34019(b) The Controller shall next disburse the sum of ten million dollars ($10,000,000) to a public university or universities in California annually beginning with fiscal year 2018-2019 until fiscal year 2028-2029 to research and evaluate the implementation and effect of the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act…
[57] §34019(c) The Controller shall next disburse the sum of three million dollars ($3,000,000) annually to the Department of the California Highway Patrol beginning fiscal year 2018-2019 until fiscal year 2022-2023 to establish and adopt protocols to determine whether a driver is operating a vehicle while impaired, including impairment by the use of marijuana or marijuana products, and to establish and adopt protocols setting forth best practices to assist law enforcement agencies….
[58] §34019(d) The Controller shall next disburse the sum of ten million dollars ($10,000,000) beginning fiscal year 2018-2019 and increasing ten million dollars ($10,000,000) each fiscal year thereafter until fiscal year 2022-2023, at which time the disbursement shall be fifty million dollars ($50,000,000) each year thereafter, to the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development, in consultation with the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and the Department of Social Services, to administer a Community Reinvestments grants program to local health departments and at least fifty-percent to qualified community-based nonprofit organizations…
[59] §34019(e) The Controller shall next disburse the sum of two million dollars ($2,000,000) annually to the University of California San Diego Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research…
[60] §34019(f)(1) Sixty percent (60%) shall be deposited in the Youth Education, Prevention, Early Intervention and Treatment Account, and disbursed by the Controller to the Department of Health Care Services for programs for youth that are designed to educate about and to prevent substance use disorders and to prevent harm from substance use….
[61] §34019(f)(2) Twenty percent (20%) shall be deposited in the Environmental Restoration and Protection Account, and disbursed by the Controller as follows: (A) To the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Department of Parks and Recreation for the cleanup, remediation, and restoration of environmental damage in watersheds affected by marijuana cultivation and related activities… (B) …and to facilitate the investigation, enforcement and prosecution of illegal cultivation, production, sale, and use of marijuana or marijuana products on public lands… (C) …and to ensure the reduction of adverse impacts of marijuana cultivation, production, sale, and use on fish and wildlife habitats throughout the state…
[62] §34019(f)(3) Twenty percent (20%) shall be deposited into the State and Local Government Law Enforcement Account and disbursed by the Controller as follows: (A) To the Department of the California Highway Patrol for conducting training programs for detecting, testing and enforcing laws against driving under the influence of alcohol and other drugs, including driving under the influence of marijuana… (B) … education, prevention and enforcement of laws related to driving under the influence of alcohol and other drugs, including marijuana… (C) To the Board of State and Community Corrections for making grants to local governments to assist with law enforcement, fire protection, or other local programs addressing public health and safety associated with the implementation of the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act….
[63] §11361.8(a) A person currently serving a sentence for a conviction, whether by trial or by open or negotiated plea, who would not have been guilty of an offense or who would have been guilty of a lesser offense under the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act had that Act been in effect at the time of the offense may petition for a recall or dismissal of sentence before the trial court that entered the judgment of conviction in his or her case to request resentencing or dismissal…
[64] §11361.8(e) A person who has completed his or her sentence for a conviction under Sections 11357. Possession, 11358. Planting, harvesting, or processing, 11359. Possession for sale, 11360. Unlawful transportation, importation, sale, or gift, whether by trial or open or negotiated plea, who would not have been guilty of an offense or who would have been guilty of a lesser offense under the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act had that Act been in effect at the time of the offense, may file an application before the trial court that entered, the judgment of conviction in his or her case to have the conviction dismissed and sealed…
[65] §11361.5(a) Records of any court of this state, any public or private agency that provides services upon referral under Section 1000.2 of the Penal Code, or of any state agency pertaining to the arrest or conviction of any person for a violation of Section 11357. Possession or subdivision (b) of Section 11360. Unlawful transportation, importation, sale, or gift, or pertaining to the arrest or conviction of any person under the age of 18 for a violation of any provision of this article except Section 11357.5, shall not be kept beyond two years from the date of the conviction, or from the date of the arrest if there was no conviction...