September 2014 | News Nuggets

Arizona

Patients can sell cannabis to each other, according to AZ Court ruling

A Superior Court judge in Pima County has ruled that medical cannabis patients are now permitted to sell cannabis to other registered patients. The judge, Richard Fields, handed down the ruling as a result of a case from last October. Jeremy Allen Matlock’s indictment on three felonies was related to growing and selling cannabis, but the charges were a violation of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA). Sarah Bullard, Matlock’s public defender, got his case dismissed on the grounds that registered cardholders are able to sell to other registered patients, according to Judge Fields. The revised statute states, “a registered qualifying patient or registered designated caregiver is not subject to arrest, prosecution or penalty in any manner,” granting immunity against any cannabis-related arrests. The law denotes how exactly these registered patients can be prosecuted: If one provides cannabis without anything of value in return or if the person giving cannabis knowingly causes the recipient to possess more than the allowable amount. Even with limits on the statute, it is a big step in the way of reformation.

Court allows patients on probation to use cannabis

A court ruling in Arizona now allows patients on probation to use medical cannabis.

Normally, judges can prohibit the use of cannabis as a term in probation, however a majority ruling stated that judges must also comply with the state’s medical cannabis laws that “exempts use of marijuana for medical purpose from criminal laws,” according to The Republic. Judge Peter Eckerstrom commented on the unique situation for medical cannabis patients, and how local government should obey those specific laws as voted on by citizens, “Our task is to apply the law they have written, not to second-guess the wisdom of their determinations.” In the past, patients had to sign an agreement to limit their rights and access to certain amenities and all too often they must relinquish their right to the herb while in jail or on probation. Fortunately, now the probation of many future patients can be lived without the pain or suffering due to lack of medicine.

San Diego

San Diego City Council chooses not to ban edibles or hash oils

The Public Saftey and Livable Neighborhoods Committee debated whether or not to ban cannabis edibles such as brownies and cookies, as well as hash oils. City Councilman Marti Emerald strongly advocates the ban due to a lack of information and a few ill-placed assumptions regarding the safety of edibles. Medical cannabis advocates of course argued that the infused products are not for recreational use but for sick patients who don’t want to, or are unable to, use cannabis normally. Until the state issues its own regulations, advocates have proposed their own version of regulations that local leaders can adopt. Although the ban was not accepted by the committee, an ordinance on medical cannabis dealing with permits and business taxes will be determined by the San Diego City Council in November.

SD-based cannabis delivery man goes to court

Jose Calva, a registered medical cannabis patient, was arrested for possessing 39 grams of cannabis, money and bags with stapled receipts on them. Calva and his attorney went to court to assess the issue—whether or not a patient may transport medical cannabis lawfully or if doing so makes him or her guilty of possession for sale and transportation. Deputy City Attorney Shannon Thomas made a statement that “delivery drivers delivering medicine to sick people have a defense for this action in state court and therefore the practice cannot be banned by the city.” The arresting officer had not allowed Calva to verify his recommendation on the system and instead took him to jail. Because patients can still be arrested or charged, the District Attorney hopes that they will either be scared off, or that a jury of 12 will be so confused by the medical cannabis laws that a conviction will result. Calva, and many like him, awaits trial later this month.

Michigan

Decriminalization on the horizon in East Lansing

Although voters in Lansing decriminalized cannabis last year, East Lansing seems to have been excluded. Anyone in possession of cannabis in East Lansing can be charged with a misdemeanor, but the Coalition for a Safer East Lansing is fighting for an amendment in the November ballot. The group’s petition was submitted with double the number of signatures required with the goal of repealing current laws and preventing new ones from criminalizing possession of cannabis for adults over 21. Ruth Beier, City Council member, says she supports the amendment, even though she doesn’t believe it will do anything in terms of safety as the Coalition for a Safer East Lansing suggests. Police in the region say that enforcement of current or future laws will not be an issue for any changes that are made.

Voting planned for edible and concentrate bills

Significant progress has been made in the way of expanding medical cannabis laws in Michigan. A pair of bills would amend the current Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), which has passed through the Senate committee and put to general voting. One of the bills, HB-4271, would allow for dispensaries, or provisioning centers and testing facilities to operate as legal entities in the state while the other bill, HB-5104, would make cannabis concentrates and medical edibles legal. Senator Randy Richardville prolonged the process, keeping the bills in the works for over three years before finally approving them. It is evident that the current interpretation of the MMMA does not protect medical cannabis patients enough. Registered patients with qualified medical conditions may again have safe access to cannabis as most dispensaries were shut down by the state last year. The full State Senate is planned to vote on the two bills by September.

Washington

Cannabis brownies are allowed, but not lollipops, in Washington

According to a set of newly released rules, cannabis edibles can be allowed in the form of baked goods, such as cookies, rice-crispy treats and brownies, but not in the form of sweets, such as candies or lollipops. Due to the appeal to children, the state Liquor Control Board released official  guidelines regarding how to properly package and label medibles. The Board also list items such as suckers, gummy sweets and jelly beans as strictly prohibited. After being approved by sending an image of the product, along with its proposed packaging and labeling, the edible must pass a facility inspection where it is tested to make sure that cannabis is distributed evenly in the item, according to The Telegraph. Standards are high, now that Washington officially launched its recreational market two months ago. Even though some sweets have been prohibited, the market has plenty of wiggle room for saturation with other cannabis foods and drinks.

Soon-to-open Pierce County dispensary risks being closed by county officials

A new dispensary is set to open in Pierce County—but unfortunately county officials are already preparing to close it down.  Although shutdown would not be immediate, officials claim they could force the retail business to close down but it would take at least three months. Before the operation even begins, a lawsuit against the county has already begun to take place. The attorney, Jay Berneburg, will file the suit for not only his own business, but the dozens of others that wish to also open up shop in Pierce County. Although the retail store is the first and only operating business in the county, the rules compiled by the County Council suggest that it will not approve an application for a cannabis-licensed business until Congress removes cannabis from the list of federally-controlled substances. However, the county must still treat cannabis retailers just like any other business, which means that a complaint has to be filed by any citizen first. This calls for a minimum 92-day process, including notices, site visits and potential appeals. Regardless, the retailers stated that they would open as soon as they receive product, and Berneburg promises to block officials who try to shut them down.

So Cal

Advocates demand that Yucca Valley allow medical cannabis collectives

Currently, Yucca Valley has absolutely no collectives within its borders. The distant city, on the border of the San Bernardino County line, has a much less populated area compared to its behemoth neighbor of Los Angeles County, but many patients are demanding that collectives be allowed to open. Other than only a few collectives open in Palm Springs, the last cannabis access point in Yucca Valley closed in December 2013 after the city council voted to close it down. Recently, a handful of advocates, including both patients and the Alliance for Safe Access of Yucca Valley, submitted an ordinance of allowing medical cannabis collectives for consideration. The ordinance doesn’t ask for much—only that two collective be allowed to open and sell products with a 10 percent tax that will be paid directly to the town’s general fund. If the city council considers the ordinance, advocates must accumulate 15 percent of Yucca Valley’s registered voters in order to pass it.

Medical cannabis law proposal aims to spread out storefronts in Long Beach

A new draft ordinance will allow a limited number of collectives in Long Beach, with a “cascading” zoning idea. The proposal would prevent certain locations from becoming overly saturated with collectives in the industrial zones of West, North and Central Long Beach. Space in the city for cannabis storefronts has been difficult since the ban lift in April, given the strict regulations limiting potential locations. Unfortunately, some obstacles have proven to be difficult to overcome in terms of industrial zones. Certain districts in the city have no industrial areas, and two locations have been required to be open in each district (with a total of 18 city-wide). The “cascading” zone model would, “take it from the most intense type of commercial use, going down to the least,” according to Department of Development Services planner Jeff Winklepleck.

Nor Cal

Regulation of mobile cannabis delivery on the horizon

There’s a loophole in the current law that does not require the regulation of delivery-only services. While a normal collective in the San Francisco area must go through a list of actions in order to be considered a legal storefront, according to the state of California, delivery services are allowed to bypass those steps completely. Many of these new businesses sprouting up in the area allow customers to simply order their medical cannabis medicine via smart phones and online, and the product is delivered directly to the customer with business-designated vehicles. The issue has reached the office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who has dealt with cell phone-related instances (such as the selling of public parking spaces via app) in the past. Although currently, the law does not prohibit cannabis delivery, the Department of Health has stated that requiring permits from the aforementioned delivery companies is “a developing question,” but a topic that is currently being examined nonetheless.

Santa Clara officials ban collectives despite strong opposition

Over 12 different parties recently attended a meeting last month with Santa Clara County officials to dissuade them from enacting a ban on collectives in San Jose. Following the arrival of new regulations for the city, the advocates strongly reminded the officials that hardships for patients will only increase as there are fewer collectives in the surrounding areas to buy their medicine. Similar collective bans and limitations have been set by cities such as Gilroy, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Morgan Hill and Sunnyvale, and throughout the in state almost 200 cities. Deputy County Executive Sylvia Gallegos stated that after careful deliberation, they believe that “every single department was emphatic that we institute a ban, not strictly regulate” collectives. There were no promises made, however Gallegos claimed that the board of supervisors will monitor the effects of the new regulations and, if number of collectives falls below the advisable amount “sufficient” for patients, the board might revisit and possible undo the ban. For now, the ban will be effective starting this month.

Colorado

Denver County Fair
Cotton candy, corn on the cob and cannabis are all annual highlights of the local Denver County Fair. This year’s County Fair was host to the world’s first “Pot Pavilion,” which held a search for the nation’s first Blue Ribbon, for “Best Marijuana Plant.” In line with state age restrictions, the Pot Pavilion was held upstairs and was off limits to anyone under the age of 21. However, the cannabis friendly county fair wasn’t without its problems. Soon after the fair ended, multiple people came forward claiming they were given cannabis infused chocolate at the fair—products that were supposed to be “drug-free.” The reports are being investigated by the fair and a lawsuit has been filed. Despite the allegations, fans can still look forward to the return of the Pot Pavilion at next year’s fair.

Recreational dispensaries on the horizon for Manitou Springs

On July 31, Manitou Springs first recreational cannabis store, Maggie’s Farm, opened its doors. This is the fifth Maggie’s Farm location, and the Manitou site was the first recreational cannabis retailer in El Paso County. It has been a long battle to gain recreational cannabis sales in Manitou. Colorado Springs and El Paso County officials voted back in 2013 to opt out of the recreational sales that started in the state back in January. However, the Manitou Springs City Council voted on January 21 to become the first county municipality to allow recreational sales—but citizens who opposed the Council’s decision lobbied for a vote of the people on the matter. Manitou Springs city residents will soon decide whether to keep or prohibit the recreational cannabis industry during the upcoming election this November.