Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Facebook
Twitter
Google+1
del.icio.us.
Digg!
Yahoo! Buzz
Diigo
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Yahoo!
MyspaceA bill designed specifically to help clear the confusion surrounding California’s medical-marijuana laws passed an important hurdle in Sacramento last week. Though perhaps too late for the many Santa Barbara–area dispensaries that have been shuttered since the most recent wave of raids by local and federal authorities, Assembly Bill 2312, which was written earlier this year by San Francisco’s Tom Ammiano as a way of better protecting the state’s much maligned medical-marijuana industry from critics who say it is out of control and from federal officials who want it shut down, passed the Assembly floor on May 31 via a 41-29 vote, with Santa Barbara’s Das Williams voting in favor of the measure.
Coming some 16 years after voters first approved medical marijuana in California, the bill would create an overarching state commission consisting of nine members — ranging from doctors and private citizens to law enforcement and medical-marijuana union reps — charged specifically with developing and enforcing universal regulations for how medical-marijuana dispensaries and growers operate. As currently written, the bill would, among other things, create the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Enforcement (BMME), require all dispensaries to be approved and registered by the state in addition to conforming with any local government approval process, limit local taxes on medical-marijuana sales to a maximum of 5 percent (half of this number will go to the state to fund the BMME), and require municipalities to permit at least one dispensary per 50,000 residents. (Cities and counties would still be able to ban clubs, but the process would be subject to its own new set of stringent rules.)
Heralded as a major victory by medical-marijuana advocates throughout the state, the bill now moves on to the State Senate, where it will first be vetted at various committee levels before an up-or-down vote no later than the end of July.
Previous Month
Comments
Baby steps are for babies. I'm sick of the Hegelian Dialect. We are talking about a PLANT here. Stop arresting people for growing and using plants.
loonpt (anonymous profile)
June 7, 2012 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
please let americans be free to choose. freedom is fundamental and logical.
GluteousMaximus (anonymous profile)
June 7, 2012 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If they want to clear up the confusion they need to just legalize it.
Num1UofAn (anonymous profile)
June 7, 2012 at 1:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh great, ANOTHER commission to run amok and be corrupted.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 7, 2012 at 1:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
CA can commission itself to death all it wants, federal mandate will always win out because after the dust settles, it IS the federal government that funds the states.
Remember the drinking age issue back in the 1980's when Reagan raised the federal drinking age from 18 yrs. old in most states to 21 yrs. old?
The only reason it suceeded was because if you didn't toe the line your federally provided highway funds (a senatorial & congressional slush fund) were cut off.
The ONLY state (if memory serves me right) that wasn't affected was Alaska because they had massive oil revenues to offset a measely highway fund.
CA needs to step it's game up, create industry, fund itself & get weaned off the federal teat.
ONLY then can we call our own shots on matters such as this :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
June 8, 2012 at 7:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This entire medical marijauna movement is getting to be quite annoying! Just legalize it already and it will clear everything up.
SBCborn (anonymous profile)
June 8, 2012 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Henry, to my knowledge no such threat has been made by the federal government. Yes, even if marijuana was legalized in California it would still be illegal federally, but it's more likely that a change in state law would be challenged by the DOJ in federal court rather than something like the 1980s. Also, I believe that California has the 4th or 5th largest economy in the world so your whole "California needs to create industry" thing isn't quite holding water.
It is interesting though that Regan, poster child of the new right, used the power of the federal government to strong arm the states on the drinking age issue...
Num1UofAn (anonymous profile)
June 8, 2012 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Num1UofAn: "Henry, to my knowledge no such threat has been made by the federal government."
Never said any threat was being made. Here is what I said (respectfully expanded for your comprehension):
1) In the 1980's Reagan used the threat of removal of state's highway funds if they didn't raise their drinking age to 21.
2) Federal mandate was used for that.
3) Federal mandate superceeds state's rights.
4) Federal mandate is what is causing this whole current mess.
5) Federal mandate superceeds state's rights because since the federal government supplies $$$ to states it can therefore call the shots to the states EVEN W/OUT A THREAT.
But thank you for the mis-interpretation of what I said or making it out to be what it isn't. That is highly appreciated.
Num1UofAn: " Also, I believe that California has the 4th or 5th largest economy in the world so your whole "California needs to create industry" thing isn't quite holding water."
Really? You mean "HAD" & not "has" right? Check the labor/industry indicators in CA lately?
That ranking went down the crapper MANY moons ago when companies started leaving CA or simply shutting down, our education system became a miserable failure & a slew of other factors came into play.
Forbes Magazine's "Top 10 worst cities" poll has more cities in CA as a mess (not that I follow Forbes too much) than any other state.
If you're talking about topping the economy of nations like Zimbabwe or Greece, yeah, WE'RE #1!
But the reality is w/ all the economic turmoil CA has dipped somewhere out of top 4 or 5, maybe even above 10.
If anybody tries to sell you that "CA has the 5th largest economy in the world" line & you buy it, there's some swamp land in FL i would like to offer you for a cheap price :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
June 8, 2012 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah! I am so happy regarding California begining to do what it should have some 16 years ago, regulate an unregulated Law!
Though many of you readers and commenters complain about individual rights and freedoms, this law has been without oversite by the Government that passed it, I give belated Kudo's to those who finally got off their behinds and started giving this Law some teeth and a backbone to stand on its own.
I know, more regulation and taxes and even if they get it right, the Feds will take it all away but the Feds are over stepping their ability to regulate and this Law falls under the States right of Govern themselves, the Feds just want some closure as to what is legalized and what is questionable. My ideas have been on-par with standards that the Feds dictate but alass I am but an un-degreed peon without the wealth to be heard by those who write the laws and enforce them. Still, if what some of what I've responned about regarding conduct of a facility are made real? I will have been vindicated.
dou4now (anonymous profile)
June 11, 2012 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)