On Friday afternoon, both the California Senate and Assembly are expected to pass amended versions of Assembly Bill 266, AB 243 a
nd Senate Bill 643 — the three bills containing California’s historic new medical cannabis regulations.

What precisely was in those amendments had been anyone’s guess, right up until they dropped. Here is the latest text of AB 243.

Assemblymember Jim Wood’s part of the regulations focus on cultivation regulations and licenses.

[jump]

“This bill would require the Department of Food and Agriculture, the Department of Pesticide Regulation, the State Department of Public Health, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the State Water Resources Control Board to promulgate regulations or standards relating to medical marijuana and its cultivation” — including pesticides.

AB 243 provides $10 million to fund the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation (the BMMR).

And AB 243 specifies the licenses types:

Type 1, or “specialty outdoor,” for outdoor cultivation using no artificial lighting of less than or equal to 5,000 square feet of total canopy size on one premises, or up to 50 mature plants on noncontiguous plots.

Type 1A, or “specialty indoor,” for indoor cultivation using exclusively artificial lighting of less than or equal to 5,000 square feet of total canopy size on one premises.

Type 1B, or “specialty mixed-light,” for cultivation using a combination of natural and supplemental artificial lighting at a maximum threshold to be determined by the licensing authority, of less than or equal to 5,000 square feet of total canopy size on one premises.

Type 2, or “small outdoor,” for outdoor cultivation using no artificial lighting between 5,001 and 10,000 square feet, inclusive, of total canopy size on one premises.

Type 2A, or “small indoor,” for indoor cultivation using exclusively artificial lighting between 5,001 and 10,000 square feet, inclusive, of total canopy size on one premises.

Type 2B, or “small mixed-light,” for cultivation using a combination of natural and supplemental artificial lighting at a maximum threshold to be determined by the licensing authority, between 5,001 and 10,000 square feet, inclusive, of total canopy size on one premises.

Type 3, or “outdoor,” for outdoor cultivation using no artificial lighting from 10,001 square feet to one acre, inclusive, of total canopy size on one premises. The Department of Food and Agriculture shall limit the number of licenses allowed of this type.

Type 3A, or “indoor,” for indoor cultivation using exclusively artificial lighting between 10,001 and 22,000 square feet, inclusive, of total canopy size on one premises. The Department of Food and Agriculture shall limit the number of licenses allowed of this type.

Type 3B, or “mixed-light,” for cultivation using a combination of natural and supplemental artificial lighting at a maximum threshold to be determined by the licensing authority, between 10,001 and 22,000 square feet, inclusive, of total canopy size on one premises. The Department of Food and Agriculture shall limit the number of licenses allowed of this type.

Type 4, or “nursery,” for cultivation of medical cannabis solely as a nursery. Type 4 licensees may transport live plants.

AB 243 is expected to pass the legislature along with its two other companion bills by midnight tonight. 

On Friday afternoon, both the California Senate and Assembly are expected to pass amended versions of Assembly Bill 266 and Senate Bill 643 — the two bills containing California’s historic new medical cannabis regulations.

What precisely was in those amendments had been anyone’s guess, right up until they dropped. Here is the latest text of AB 266.

[pdf-1]
Bottom line: The laws call for a robust, modern, fully functional medical cannabis industry, subject to stringent regulation. The days of the Wild West are coming to an end. A massive underground industry is set to begin a historic, years-long reckoning with regulators, and it’s going to be a bumpy ride. 

[jump]

— First off, this law fully legalizes medical marijuana activity in black and white for law enforcement: license-holders and licensed activity “are not unlawful under state law and shall not be an offense subject to arrest, prosecution, or other sanction under state law, or be subject to a civil fine or be a basis for seizure or forfeiture of assets under state law.”

Up until now, patients, caregivers and collective members only had a defense in court against prosecution.

— This law also allows the industry to take profits for the first time. That’s huge. Operators have been going to jail for showing a profit.

— It deliberately keeps vague all the really tough friction points to be settled later by regulators after hundreds of hours of very public comment and discussion. Mega-farm licenses will be limited, but the law doesn’t say how limited. Potency and purity standards aren’t specified yet.

— It leaves doctor’s recommendations alone. The California Medical Board doesn’t really get people complaining about doctors recommending cannabis, so little will actually be done to limit that.

— Nothing happens to patient or caregiver rights under Prop 215.

— Collectives will be phased out after licenses are issued.

— All non-personal cannabis activity is considered commercial, and you need one of twelve licenses.

— Licensing Fees: will depend on licensing cost. Not cheap.

— License types:
 Type 1 = Cultivation; Specialty outdoor; Small.
(b)  Type 1A = Cultivation; Specialty indoor; Small.
(c)  Type 1B = Cultivation; Specialty mixed-light; Small.
(d)  Type 2 = Cultivation; Outdoor; Small.
(e)  Type 2A = Cultivation; Indoor; Small.
(f)  Type 2B = Cultivation; Mixed-light; Small.
(g)  Type 3 = Cultivation; Outdoor; Medium.
(h)  Type 3A = Cultivation; Indoor; Medium.
(i)  Type 3B = Cultivation; Mixed-light; Medium.
(j)  Type 4 = Cultivation; Nursery.
(k)  Type 6 = Manufacturer 1.
(l)  Type 7 = Manufacturer 2.
(m)  Type 8 = Testing.
(n)  Type 10 = Dispensary; General.
(o)  Type 10A = Dispensary; No more than three retail sites.
(p)  Type 11 = Distribution.
(q)  Type 12 = Transporter.

— It’s a dual licensing structure with a state and local permit, with the details to be ironed out.

— The bans stand. Cities and counties win the clear right to ban medical cannabis activity.

— Deliveries allowed.

— Mandatory lab-testing for potency, pesticides, molds.

— Taxes: to be determined. Locals will be able to tack on taxes.

— Certain licensees can hold some other licenses, but not others. Farms can run hash labs. A hash-maker can have a dispensary. But distributors are an especially independent verification layer in the system. They can’t own farms, labs, or stores.

— Privacy: State-submitted information is safeguarded for privacy, with exceptions for state business.

— No selling alcohol on-site of cannabis licensees.

— No stoned workplaces have to be tolerated.

Winners
Patients
They stand to get tested medicine from licensed stores.

Activists
The regulations validate 20 years of work by people who faced jail for their beliefs.

Existing Local License Holders
They’re one step ahead in the dual licensing scheme.

Transporters
The laws call for an independent verification layer of transporters/distributors. Companies already in that game stand to benefit.

Licensing Pros
Dealing with local and state licensing will become an even more byzantine process mastered by a few well-paid pros.

Delivery Services
They’re allowed.

Losers
Vertically Integrated Businesses
You can’t own a farm, processor, courier, and store.

Anti-Marijuana Groups
The California State seal on bags of medical cannabis is a crushing blow to the culture war.

Pesticide Sprayers
State regulators are looking to craft stringent limits on pesticide use on pot.

Outlaws
They just lost a lot of the haze that they operate in.

AB 266 is in committee as of press time, and a full floor vote is expected to follow. The deadline to pass the bill is midnight tonight.

 With the threat of a 2016 adult-use legalization initiative looming, California lawmakers announced a historic deal to regulate the world’s oldest and largest commercial medical marijuana economy. “This is huge,” said Nate Bradley, at the California Cannabis Industry Association. “We are very excited the state legislature made it a priority.”

On Thursday at 9 p.m., an agreement was reached to sign amended versions of Assembly Bill 266, and Senate Bill 643. Both bills are expected to be amended Friday and passed by each house and then signed by the governor. The sweeping body of law calls for a fully functional, albeit highly regulated medical cannabis system, with licensing for all stages of production, distribution, and sales, and unprecedented new patient protections, such as  testing for purity and potency.

[jump]

Californians will get “organic”-labeled cannabis and trademarked appellations. The passage of medical cannabis regulations in California promises to further ignite an already booming, multibillion-dollar industry.

“Everyone is one the same page,” said Bradley. “We have yet to review the language itself. … “If this works out, California will finally come into compliance with federal guidelines.”

The advent of clear, black and white lines for legal behavior, and the ability to take profits and plow them into growth or political advocacy has already transformed the cannabis industry in Colorado, and California is eight times as populous.

California is the birthplace of modern marijuana in America, and its elite artisans and entrepreneurs will now have a chance for the first time in their lives to hold a California state license to cultivate and sell the crop. The California seal on medical cannabis bestows unprecedented credibility on pot as a medicine, and its practitioners as equal citizens under the eyes of the law.

The transition promises to be bumpy — but Californians only stand to benefit from an official recognition of what the people voted for a generation ago in 1996.

The state is long-overdue for basic medical cannabis regulations, which have been held up over ideological struggles over marijuana as a medicine. That struggle is fading.

Roughly one out of twenty California adults (1.4 million people) are estimated to have used cannabis medicinally for a “serious” condition, and 92 percent of them are estimated to believe it worked on their condition.

Yet the botanical had gone unregulated at the state level. Patients have lacked assurances of product potency or purity.

Cities lack the acumen to regulate medical farms or stores, so they often default to banning them — radically limiting access to those who often need it the most. Unregulated outlets continue to meet demand, and generate neighborhood complaints in the process.

Cops openly gripe about the ease of obtaining a doctor’s recommendation, as well as interstate traffickers operating under the guise of Proposition 215.

Where city and counties have regulated on their own, canna-businesses confront banking access problem, taxation issues, and the interdiction of their couriers.

The legal brinksmaship caps four years of efforts by lawmakers, such as Bay Area legislators Tom Ammiano and Mark Leno, working to pass comprehensive regulations. Last year, both Senator Lou Correa and Ammiano put forth contrasting regulatory bills written by cops and industry.

This year, lawmakers Bonta, Ken Cooley, andReggie Jones-Sawyer all worked on regulations, as well as Mike McGuire and Jim Wood. AB 266 and and SB 643 both earned support and opposition and went through multiple revisions.

“AB 266 is the result of an unprecedented stakeholder process in which my colleagues and I brought everyone to the table,” stated Bonta in a release. The offices spent “thousands of hours holding stakeholder meetings” to refine the bill.

As both neared the legislative finish line, and deadlines loomed, the Governor’s Office weighed in with its own amendments.

The Governor’s Office sought to save money, and simplify the plan while mirroring the prior efforts. It set off a historic, week-long series of behind the scenes meetings among the most powerful lawmakers in California. The text of the Governor’s Office was being tweaked far faster than lobbyists, let alone the state records system, could track. Activists howled they were being cut out.

“This is a special situation. This is sort of history in the making,” said one lobbyist.

By Wednesday, midday — the Governor’s Office and the leadership of both the Senate and Assembly were convening to decide who gets credit.

The final amended language was expected to come out sometime Friday, as late as midnight — the end of session, with passage through the Senate and Assembly being a forgone conclusion.

Insiders say the potential for Californians to legalize cannabis in 2016 forced lawmakers to act. This year was potentially the last time for the state’s power-holders to have a say in shaping a newly legal multi-billion industry — what that legal industry looked like, who was in charge — before initiative-writers drafted and filed language.

If the elite didn’t, they could be completely cut out of the process. It became time to do a deal or get left in the dust.

More on this as we get it.

California lawmakers for the first time in the state’s history could be set to regulate its booming, popular, multibillion-dollar medical cannabis industry.

Insiders say the Governor’s Office and the heads of the Senate and Assembly convened Wednesday to figure out who should get credit for the piece of landmark legislation. Once the issue is sorted out, the latest versions of the bills could be released, and the Senate and Assembly could swiftly vote to send the bills to Governor Jerry Brown’s desk for signature as late as midnight Friday.

No one knows the exact final text of the regulations, but they would be based on amendments to language released by the governor last week, which incorporates two years of legislative work.

[jump] A rough picture of regulations in California has begun to emerge — with a robust, albeit highly regulated industry of licensed growers, distributors, and stores; a tracking system for cannabis; and consumer safety protection. Patients and caregivers rights are protected under Prop 215, but collectives would cease to exist one year after commercial licenses became available.

If passed, medical cannabis regulations in California promise to further feed an already blooming industry. The advent of clear black and white lines for legal behavior, and the ability to take profits and plow them into growth or political advocacy has already transformed the cannabis industry in Colorado, and California is eight times more populous.

California is the birthplace of modern marijuana in America, and its elite artisans and entrepreneurs would have a chance for the first time in their lives to hold a California state license to cultivate and sell the crop. The California seal on medical cannabis would bestow unprecedented credibility on pot as a medicine, and its practitioners would become equal citizens under the eyes of the law.