A sober approach to marijuana as an industry, State of CA creates distribution guidelines

I

Our future thinking AG looked reality in the face and saw people growing and selling marijuana in California, whether we like it or not.

So last summer, Attorney General Jerry Brown, began to bring order to the commerce in the California medical marijuana injustry, which is growing in the wet soil, hot sun, and progressive political conditions in the north part of the state

Who knows?  Ten years from now Arcata may be the home of new pharmaceutical corporations producing a medicine that by then is prescribed widely across the country, or better yet, sold over the counter. 

This month. LA city attorneys and land use committees are rewriting code surrounding the stores, clubs, and collectives that sell med mj in this city.  That news led me on the Internet to look up the guidelines issued in last summer by Attorney General Jerry Brown.  

(You will be learning about this at the same time I am, here at LA City Buzz Examiner.  As I do research on how the state learns to manage the growing medical marijuana industry, I will publish it here. )

Quotes below are from:

GUIDELINES FOR THE SECURITY AND NON-DIVERSION OF MARIJUANA GROWN FOR MEDICAL USE

Issued by Attorney General Jerry Brown, August 2008

In 1996, California voters approved an initiative that exempted certain patients and their primary caregivers from criminal liability under state law for the possession and cultivation of marijuana. In 2003, the Legislature enacted additional legislation relating to medical marijuana. One of those statutes requires the Attorney General to adopt “guidelines to ensure the security and non-diversion of marijuana grown for medical use.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.81(d).1)

To fulfill this mandate, this Office is issuing the following guidelines:

D. Taxability of Medical Marijuana Transactions.

In February 2007, the California State Board of Equalization (BOE) issued a Special Notice confirming its policy of taxing medical marijuana transactions, as well as its requirement that businesses engaging in such transactions hold a Seller’s Permit. (http://www.boe.ca.gov/news/pdf/medseller2007.pdf.) According to the Notice, having a Seller’s Permit does not allow individuals to make unlawful sales, but instead merely provides a way to remit any sales and use taxes due. BOE further clarified its policy in a June 2007 Special Notice that addressed several frequently asked questions concerning taxation of medical marijuana transactions. (http://www.boe.ca.gov/news/pdf/173.pdf.)

The incongruity between federal and state law has given rise to understandable confusion, but no legal conflict exists merely because state law and federal law treat marijuana differently. Indeed, California’s medical marijuana laws have been challenged unsuccessfully in court on the ground that they are preempted by the CSA. (County of San Diego v. San Diego NORML (July 31, 2008) --- Cal.Rptr.3d ---, 2008 WL 2930117.)

Congress has provided that states are free to regulate in the area of controlled substances, including marijuana, provided that state law does not positively conflict with the CSA. (21 U.S.C. § 903.) Neither Proposition 215, nor the MMP, conflict with the CSA because, in adopting these laws, California did not “legalize” medical marijuana, but instead exercised the state’s reserved powers to not punish certain marijuana offenses under state law when a physician has recommended its use to treat a serious medical condition. (See City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court (Kha) (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 355, 371-373, 381-382.)

DEFINITIONS

A. Physician’s Recommendation: Physicians may not prescribe marijuana because the federal Food and Drug Administration regulates prescription drugs and, under the CSA, marijuana is a Schedule I drug, meaning that it has no recognized medical use. Physicians may, however, lawfully issue a verbal or written recommendation under California law indicating that marijuana would be a beneficial treatment for a serious medical condition. (§ 11362.5(d); Conant v. Walters (9th Cir. 2002) 309 F.3d 629, 632.)

C. Qualified Patient: A qualified patient is a person whose physician has recommended the use of marijuana to treat a serious illness, including cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief. (§ 11362.5(b)(1)(A).) (Under Compliance Guidelines )

3. Proof of Qualified Patient Status: Although verbal recommendations are technically permitted under Proposition 215, patients should obtain and carry written proof of their physician recommendations to help them avoid arrest.

4. Possession Guidelines:

a) MMP:2 Qualified patients and primary caregivers who possess a stateissued identification card may possess 8 oz. of dried marijuana, and may maintain no more than 6 mature or 12 immature plants per qualified patient.

c) Proposition 215: Qualified patients claiming protection under Proposition 215 may possess an amount of marijuana that is “reasonably related to [their] current medical needs.” (People v. Trippet (1997) 56
Cal.App.4th 1532, 1549.)

Enforcement Guidelines.

1. Location of Use: Medical marijuana may not be smoked (a) where smoking is prohibited by law, (b) at or within 1000 feet of a school, recreation center, or youth center (unless the medical use occurs within a residence), (c) on a school bus, or (d) in a moving motor vehicle or boat. (§ 11362.79.)

6. Exceeding Possession Guidelines: If a person has what appears to be valid medical marijuana documentation, but exceeds the applicable possession guidelines identified above, all marijuana may be seized.

7. Return of Seized Medical Marijuana: If a person whose marijuana is seized by law enforcement successfully establishes a medical marijuana defense in court, or the case is not prosecuted, he or she may file a motion for return of the marijuana. If a court grants the motion and orders the return of marijuana seized incident to an arrest, the individual or entity subject to the order must return the property.

Read the entire document:  GUIDELINES FOR THE SECURITY AND NON-DIVERSION OF MARIJUANA GROWN FOR MEDICAL USE by California State Attorney General Edmund G. Brown.

NEXT:  Part Two:  Activists say LA City Attorney and Land Use committees are contradicting the Attorney General and the California Justice Department in regulations for distributors being written this month.