California Governor Jerry Brown Issues Blow To Medical Cannabis Patients, Compassion

Protections for medical cannabis patients are eroding quickly in the state of California.  Two important medical cannabis bills that passed the legislature were not signed by Governor Jerry Brown this week, SB 829 and SB 1127, leaving what many think is a huge stain on Brown’s political legacy.

On September 11, 2015, the legislature passed MMRSA – Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act.  This set of rules was a clear violation of Proposition 215 as it made huge, sweeping amendments to a voter initiative.  In an act of diabolical genius immediately after MMRSA passed, AUMA – the Adult Use of Marijuana Act – was filed and signature gathering began soon thereafter quashing any effort to sue the State over MMRSA as any judge assigned to the case would suggest waiting until the outcome the election before moving forward with the case.  AUMA neatly umbrella’ed MMRSA making it part of their voter initiative and effectively compromising Prop. 215 – The Compassionate Use Act.  

Despite the diligent, articulate and informed arguments by patient advocates statewide that AUMA – Prop. 64 – greatly jeopardized The Compassionate Use Act, paid proponents of Prop. 64 worked to discredit and undermine decades of hard work by advocates to protect patients’ safe, affordable access to medical cannabis.  AUMA passed. The taxes and fees have skyrocketed.  Patients have stopped visiting licensed retail cannabis shops for unregulated sources.  Now a blow by the Governor to declare that Compassionate Care and allowing children access to their medicine at school are illegal.

As of January 1, 2018, giving cannabis away at no cost to vulnerable patients – the spirit of The Compassionate Use Act – became illegal.  SB 829 would have created a license for this activity to encourage the re-establishment of compassion programs allowing low-income patients and our veterans to have more livable lives.  SB 1127 would’ve allowed children with serious illnesses to have their medical cannabis available at school in case of an emergency. Many of these children suffer from Dravet Syndrome – a severe form of epilepsy that produces violent and debilitating seizures, often several times a day.  Medical cannabis alleviates the duration, frequency and severity of these seizures allowing children to have more livable lives.  Governor Brown is not concerned about the lives of Californians especially of they are poor, ill or use medical cannabis.

So, what are the options for medical cannabis patients, providers and their advocates? Taking the next several legislative sessions to make endless amendments to every part of these flawed laws is one burdensome option.  A legal challenge to Prop. 64, as it pertains to the claim that it doesn’t affect Prop. 215, is another option but not a long-term solution.  It appears more and more that the only way to protect patients and Prop. 215 is through the voter initiative process and specifically a constitutional amendment.  

However, statewide voter initiative campaigns are arduous and expensive.  Is there enough frustration to motivate a campaign?  Are there enough people willing to make a small donation to fund a campaign?  Patient Advocacy Network would like to hear your thoughts. 

Patient Advocacy Network Call To Action - Protect Prop 215 - Reform 64

Flyers to download, print, cut and distribute - Let's get the word out!

Patient Advocacy Network is calling on all medical cannabis patients and providers to help Reform Prop 64.  Please print out the above flyer and distribute and/or share on all your social media platforms.  

It's time to Take Action and join the Team to Protect Prop 215.

* The taxes on medical cannabis are too high.

*  Boutique providers are being pinched out

*  No licensing for those that want to be not for profit Compassion Centers

*  Giving medical cannabis away for free is illegal

*  Collectives & Cooperatives will be no more come January

These harmful provisions violate the spirit of the Compassionate Use Act. Together we can change these laws.

Sign-up for email updates and upcoming online workshops at - http://cannabissaveslives.org

We have a lot of work to do in the California legislature to protect patients' safe, affordable access to medical cannabis, and to ensure that we don’t lose our boutique shops – the providers that have been around for well over a decade and have weathered the DEA raids and the fight for local regulations, the true pioneers and risk-takers are the ones hurting due to over regulation.  The patients are being pushed out of their favorite shops because of excessive taxation.  

Please help PAN help you and become a regular monthly sponsor.  Any amount you choose is appreciated.  100% of your contribution goes to education, advocacy and direct action, and is tax-deductible.  

Thank you!!

A Brief History Of Compassionate Care

California, the first state to pass a medical marijuana law, by a vote of the people, largely in response to the AIDS crisis.  People were literally dying in the streets of San Francisco, mostly due to starvation or dehydration.  These people could not hold down food or water due to their medications and wasted away, perished.

A group of advocates in SF decided that maybe smoking out these AIDS patients and feeding them soup could help save lives.  It worked.  AIDS patients would smoke, get hungry, eat, hold down their food and meds. Cannabis was saving lives and giving people more livable lives.  Many of these patients eventually passed away,  but it was not due to starvation or dehydration on the streets – but with dignity and a support network.  

A group of marijuana activists and patient advocates did not want to see these brave providers go to jail for giving away cannabis.  So, the Compassionate Use Act was born AKA Prop. 215:

The Compassionate Use Act of 1996

The people of the State of California hereby find and declare that the purposes of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 are as follows:

To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person’s health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief. 

To ensure that patients and their primary caregivers who obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction. 

To encourage the federal and state  governments to implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana. 

-----

The law passed in 1996 and is the foundation of a medical cannabis model where compassionate people were giving marijuana away for free to those that needed it most, not only in  San Francisco, but WAMM in Santa Cruz and the work of Brownie Mary are other examples of Compassionate Care.  These providers were not in it for money.  They wanted sick people to have more livable lives, and to pass with dignity and little suffering.  This is the spirit of medical cannabis and compassion.  

With this movement also came the first dispensaries.  Not all patients are gravely ill. Many are productive, have jobs, and are receiving relief from their conditions from medical marijuana. Still many dispensaries were giving cannabis away to their neediest patients, veterans, and those on disability, and have been doing so up until recently.

Prop 64 made it illegal to give cannabis away.  This year elected officials saw the harm in this and introduced SB 829 – to allow for a Compassionate Care license – which is supposed to diminish the fees and taxes on cannabis intended for ‘non-commercial purposes.’  

The problem with this bill is it that a business operator can ONLY acquire a Compassionate Care license if they have an M license.  Certainly those with M licenses should have the option of providing a Compassionate Care program.  However, those that want to be purely a Compassionate Care business should not have to acquire an M license.  

Here’s why: An authentic Compassionate Care entity runs as a not for profit social service agency, and has no retail sales making the need for any retail cannabis license unnecessary.  It is costly to get and maintain an M license, especially for a not for profit Compassionate Care provider.    

Those that want to operate solely as a not for profit Compassionate Care business should have the option to do so without being required to have other costly licenses they won’t use – just so the state can get more revenue.

This is one of many provisions that needs to be changed in Prop 64, and it should never, ever, ever be illegal to give medical cannabis away for free.  

Some Of The Early Patient, Provider Survey Feedback

“The taxes are just too, damn high,” is the sentiment from most Californians and it’s now true for medical cannabis patients, too.  

PAN recently asked patients and providers how the new rules are affecting them.  Many patients reported no longer using retail outlets due to the cost and now use some other source, the un-regulated market.  

Shop owners are feeling this, too.  They report lower numbers of visits since the new taxes and fees took effect.   Some are frustrated with what they call rogue shops in their area, and state they know some of their patients have found growers to help supply them.  

Cultivators appear to be the most disgruntled with the licensing process, on both the local and state level.  In February of this year it was reported that only 0.78% of the estimated growers in California had been approved for a temporary license.  

The California Growers Association has filed a lawsuit against California Department of Food and Agriculture, the state agency that issues cultivation licenses.  The suit calls out new provisions in the regulations that allow a medium license holder to apply for an unlimited number of small cultivation licenses.  

The suit goes on to argue that Prop. 64 allowed a 5-year window for small growers to get established before the state issues what many refer to as the mega-licenses. This new policy of  “stacking” as the lawyers call it violates the intent of the voter initiative by basically creating a loophole to allow large-scale cultivation operations now.

California is not seeing the revenue it projected from the cannabis industry due to all of these issues.  

PAN continues take feedback, monitor the cannabis industry, work with the California legislature and help patients with Compassionate access.  

-----

Patient Advocacy Network is a charitable 501(c)(3) and needs your support.  

Please click the Donate button on this page and make a $25.00 donation.  You can also sign-up to be a monthly sponsor - $5 - $25 monthly donations go a long way!

All contributions directly benefit the programs and services of Patient Advocacy Network. A tax-deductible receipt will be provided.  

Thank you!

Advocates In California Urge Protection For Medical Cannabis Patients From Hyper-regulation, Over-taxation, & Corporate Takeover

The Bureau of Cannabis Control is slated to start issuing and processing applications on January 1, 2018.  Further regulations will be presented in November of this year, and the California Department of Consumer Affairs just seated the long-waited Cannabis Advisory Committee mandated by the state’s new cannabis rules.  

What is absent on this committee is any authentic patient voice or social justice advocates.  However, this has been the case in Sacramento during all medical cannabis policy discussions.  Patient advocates have had to demand to be heard or be ignored.  Now that the potential revenue from adult recreational cannabis sales and production is being projected, affordable access to medical cannabis for disabled and low-income patients is the furthest thing on the minds of the new Cannabis Bureaucracy.

Hopefully, the California Cannabis Bureaucracy realizes that we could find ourselves back in a federally hostile environment.  Who did they seat to tackle the possibility that our U.S. Attorney General and Department of Justice may decide to enforce the Controlled Substances Act, again?  Who will deal with the fallout and stand up for the political prisoners?

What is present on this committee is the Drug Policy Alliance.  Members of the Drug Policy Alliance are gaining seats on committees and commissions around the state.  Since DPA’s political action committee donated a significant amount of money to Prop. 64, this would seem to be a conflict.  However, this works out wonderfully for George Soros, who founded and funds DPA, and is heavily vested in Monsanto.   Monsanto stands to win the most from Prop. 64, by acquiring the largest permits and controlling the seeds for recreational, medical and hemp stains.  With Soros’ employees serving around the state the mega-corporate take over of California’s cannabis industry is moving right along.

Despite how the advisory or oversight bodies may be stacked, the regulations themselves equate impractical policy.  Many current businesses will find it burdensome and too expensive to comply.  This creates a monopoly for wealthy, elite players to saturate the marketplace.  True patients and their providers will be priced out and in jeopardy.  Some operations will go deep underground, adding to existing environmental concerns about unregulated cultivation.

Patients are urged to contact:

Department of Consumer Affairs – Bureau of Cannabis Control

Attn: Lori Ajax, Chief, Bureau of Cannabis Control;

Dean R. Grafilo, Director, California Department of Consumer Affairs;

And Members of the Cannabis Advisory Committee

bcc@dca.ca.gov

Or (800) 952-5210

Let them know that you are patient that relies on consistent and affordable access to medical cannabis, and you are concerned that over-regulation, permitting fees and taxes for medical cannabis are going to put your collective out of business or make it so you can no longer afford your medicine. 

Send your comments and concerns to your California state representatives as well:

Find Your California Representative

http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov

*****

Some related links:

Department of Consumer Affairs Announces Appointments to Cannabis Advisory Committee

http://cannabis.ca.gov/2017/10/04/department-of-consumer-affairs-announces-appointments-to-cannabis-advisory-committee/

L.A. City Council approves new Cannabis Department head

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-la-marijuana-commission-20170815-story.html

George Soros And Big Agriculture Move The Marijuana Movement

http://katehon.com/837-george-soros-and-big-agriculture-move-the-marijuana-movement.html

How Monsanto & Bayer Are Trying To Take Over The Cannabis Industry

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2017/08/31/how-monsanto-bayer-are-trying-to-take-over-the-cannabis-industry/

The Corporate Billionaires’ Hostile Attempt To Take Over The California Cannabis Industry in 2016

http://panorg.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-corporate-billionaires-hostile.html

Legalization, 4 Years Later: What Happened In Washington State?

http://herb.co/2016/11/17/legalization-washington-state/

#####

The Tedious Process Of Implementing Cannabis Laws In California

Since the 2016 Election, Patient Advocacy Network has watched the slow, steady process in Sacramento to combine MMRSA (the medical marijuana law of 2015) and AUMA (Prop. 64 of 2016).  As of this post 61 marijuana-related bills are active in Sacramento.  The unique and tedious situation in California is applying regulations to an extensive and thriving medical cannabis industry that has existed for decades.  The real test will be how the new rules affect the existing businesses. 

PAN communicates regularly with Sacramento officials about the affordability of medical cannabis mandated by the Compassionate Use Act.  One of the biggest threats to patients is a bureaucracy, and fees and taxes that will make medical cannabis too expensive for low and moderate income, and disabled patients.  The new rules make it very disadvantageous for dispensaries to provide free or greatly reduced medical cannabis to its most vulnerable patient members.   

Last few months PAN has also been extremely busy with medical cannabis providers preparing for local approval and state permitting.  Despite what seems like legislative chaos in Sacramento, the new regulatory bureau and associated departments state they will be ready to take applications January 1, 2018. 

We will not know what is working or not until full implementation.  PAN is seeking feedback from patients and providers as to how the new rules are impacting access and compliance, respectively.   Any grievances will be taken up with our state elected officials at that time.

PAN is also extremely effective in helping patients get regulations on the local level.  We have stopped bans and assisted with crafting workable guidelines to protect patients and communities.  Please contact us if you have questions about getting (better) medical cannabis regulations in your community. 

A Message From Degé Coutee - Vote NO On Proposition 64

Dear Friends & Colleagues,

This November so-called ‘legalization’ will be on the ballot in California, and I write to encourage you to vote NO on Proposition 64 aka AUMA (Adult Use of Marijuana Act).  Here’s why, with links and more information below:

None of the money generated by all the new taxes and fees will benefit California.  All of the money stays in Sacramento to pay for a large bureaucracy and enforcement.

Taxes, taxes and more taxes, even on medical.  Excise tax.  Sales tax.  Gross receipts tax.  Use tax.  Cultivation tax.  Flower tax.  Leaf tax.  All of this is expected to raise the cost of cannabis by at least 40%.  This doesn’t include all the licensing fees.

In addition to the significant expense for patients, Prop 64 ‘consolidates’ medical and ‘nonmedical’ cannabis into one system.  It interferes with the patient-doctor relationship and outlaws compassion programs.  A significant portion of AUMA works to overturn Proposition 215. 

The initiative is funded by interests in Monsanto, Big Pharma and Big Tobacco.  George Soros is a major partner in Monsanto and funds the Drug Policy Alliance, the authors behind Prop 64.  Billionaire Sean Parker, Napster founder, former CEO of facebook, CIA recruit, and good friend of Lt Gov. Gavin Newsom, is also funding Prop 64.  Weedmaps is also a significant funder with CEO Justin Hartfield supporting a big tobacco model for adult recreational use.

Prop 64 contains a lot of misleading language.  This 62-page initiative promises many lofty things in the first two pages.  For example, it claims to prevent DUI’s, stop the polluting of waterways, crackdown on cartels – all of which sounds great, except that there are already laws on the books in California that do this and these issues are not mentioned again in the rest of the initiative. 

The rest of Prop 64 is an expensive and convoluted regulatory scheme that absorbs authentic medical cannabis operations and favors mega corporations, and puts California’s unique cannabis heritage in jeopardy. 

If I thought this initiative would be good for patients, California, and the cannabis industry, I would applaud this effort and be helping in every way.  However, myself and a grassroots coalition of many thousands of cannabis advocates are reaching out to make sure everyone we know understands the implications of Prop 64 before the billionaires start dropping deceptive advertising.

Here’s the good news:  It’s quite easy to defeat Prop 64; we all simply need to vote NO on Tuesday, November 8, 2016.  We will then move forward to get the right legalization on the ballot.  Please join me on Election Day to protect Prop 215 and say NO to the hostile corporate takeover of California’s #1 cash crop.  Please forward this letter to your friends, family and colleagues.  Also, for you convenience I’ve attached a window sign and flyers you can print out and display at your home or office. 

Here’s the other good news:  There are already good legalization initiatives drafted by the Cannabis Community with the input of good lawyers, that have received analysis from the Office of the Attorney General.  These complimentary initiatives take into account the California single-subject rule, which stipulates that proposed legislation can only take on one issue.  By having complimentary initiatives we aim to ensure that medical marijuana patients are protected, to end bans on medical operations, to have fair permitting and taxes for all types of cannabis businesses - from patient non-profits to large for-profit companies, to release prisoners, expunge records, protect genetics and more. 

The proponents of these complimentary initiatives made the choice last fall to suspend our campaigns to focus on defeating Prop 64 and then promptly refiling our initiatives for 2018.  We knew that with billionaire players like Soros and Parker it would be impossible to raise the money we’d need to gather those 500,000 signatures. 

Please help me defeat this horribly flawed initiative so we can work together to establish the best laws for California in 2018, because California deserves better.  I thank you for your time and consideration.

Yours Truly,

Degé Coutee

Patient Advocate & Cannabis Activist

--

Some Links:

AUMA Full Text - https://www.oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0103%20(Marijuana)_1.pdf

AUMA Analysis by Attorney Letitia Pepper - http://marian0280.wixsite.com/4pepper

AUMA Analysis by 151 Farmers - http://151farmers.org/2016/08/19/prop-64-aumaanalysis/

AUMA Analysis by The Weedly News - Prop 64 – AUMA Legalization for the 1% - http://theweedlynews.com/2016/08/01/prop-64-auma-makes-marijuana-legal-only-for-the-1/

AUMA Analysis by Cal Growers Assoc. - Cal Growers divided on Proposition 64 - http://www.calgrowersassociation.org/proposition_64_julyconcerns

GEORGE SOROS AND BIG AGRICULTURE MOVE THE MARIJUANA MOVEMENT - http://katehon.com/837-george-soros-and-big-agriculture-move-the-marijuana-movement.html

Monsanto, Bayer, and the Push for Corporate Cannabis - http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/08/monsanto-bayer-and-the-push-for-corporate-cannabis/

Part II - https://ellenbrown.com/2016/07/07/the-war-on-weed-part-ii-monsanto-bayer-and-the-push-for-corporate-cannabis/

Napster founder Sean Parker announces $250 million grant to fight cancer - http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/13/technology/sean-parker-donation-cancer-immunotherapy/

How Justin Hartfield could become the Philip Morris of weed - http://moneyweek.com/profile-of-justin-hartfield/

Three Biggest Reasons Tobacco Giants Eye Lucrative $50 Billion Marijuana Market –

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/04/tobacco-giants-eye-lucrative-50-billion-marijuana-market/

--

On the radio:

Degé Coutee is the in-studio guest on KFI AM 640 with the Wayne Resnick Show; She will be explaining why she is Voting No On Prop 64.

http://kfiam640.iheart.com/media/play/27211403/

Degé Coutee, guest on LA Talk Radio with Dave 4 LA (Starts around 8 minutes into show) - http://latalkradio.com/…/def…/files/audio/Dave4la-091816.mp3

Degé Coutee calls in to Coast To Coast AM during Jesse Ventura's Marijuana Manifesto to explain the problems with Prop 64. Call starts at 1 hr:11min:25sec with Ventura's perfect lead in... "Follow the money!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaflCgmbOuY

Cannabis Activist & Patient Advocate Degé Coutee explains to reporter Jane Wells why she's leading the charge to Vote No On AUMA. The full report begins at 1hr:06min.

http://kfiam640.iheart.com/media/play/27121785/

--

PAN’s Blog – Cannabis Patient Voice

The Corporate Billionaires’ Hostile Attempt To Take Over The California Cannabis Industry in 2016 – NO! California deserves better!!

http://panorg.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-corporate-billionaires-hostile.html

How The Grassroots & Independent Expenditures Can Defeat Proposition 64

http://panorg.blogspot.com/2016/08/how-grassroots-independent-expenditures.html

--

Social Media

https://www.facebook.com/VoteNoAUMA/

[Video] - California recreational pot: Can Sean Parker puff puff pass recreational buddha with AUMA!? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpM_bGrV1j0

Independent Expenditure paid for by Degé Coutee – under $1,000.00.

#####

Please forward this message to all of your lists and social media.

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”  -- Margaret Mead

-----

How The Grassroots & Independent Expenditures Can Defeat Proposition 64

Mainstream media is reporting in California that the opposition to Proposition 64 is coming from law enforcement and their campaign is poorly funded, compared to the millions already contributed by Sean Parker, George Soros and others in the billionaire boys’ club, people who have no empathy for the cannabis movement, but simply want to cash in and take over California’s cannabis industry.   What the mainstream is missing is that the primary opposition to Proposition 64, or the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA), comes from within the cannabis industry itself and from patient advocates.  Spend any time on social or indy media and you will see dozens of efforts to get the word out to “Vote No on AUMA,” or “Stop Prop 64.”

The other thing the mainstream media is missing, and what seasoned activists already know, is that one does not have to form a political action committee or PAC to defeat Prop 64.  All hail the Independent Expenditure.

In California citizens are allowed to campaign and voice their support for or against a candidate or measure without forming a PAC as long as one individual spends less than $1,000.00 of his or her own funds.  This allows a citizen to run a small grassroots campaign without going through the effort of forming and filing reports for a PAC as required by law. 

A thousand dollars is generally not enough to purchase billboards or send out mailers or run a phone bank or run ads on radio or television, but it is plenty to print stickers, buttons, signs, posters and flyers or send emails or run a website.  The rest is volunteer time.  Here are some simple rules. 

1.) You are not allowed to take in funds for an independent expenditure campaign.  You can only spend your funds not to exceed $1,000.00.  Taking in funds makes your effort a recipient committee and requires you to file one once you accept $1,000.00 or more.

2.) If you distribute over a certain amount of materials, you are required to include a disclaimer with that message.  For example, distributing more that 200 door hangers, flyers, posters, and oversized campaign buttons (10” across or larger) and stickers (60 sq. in. or larger) requires a disclaimer in 14-point, bold, sans serif type in contrasting print color.  That disclaimer should read “Paid for by (your name).”

3.) For websites and emails the disclaimer statement must be in the same font size as the majority of the text and displayed conspicuously near the ad, on the site or in the message.

4.) Posting video or audio messages online requires a disclaimer.  Video messages require both written & spoken disclaimer at the beginning or end of the ad not less than 4 seconds and must be large enough to be legible to the average viewer.  Audio messages must be at least 3 seconds either at the beginning or end of the ad. 

5.) There is a difference between purely educational or conversational discussion about a candidate or measure and a political statement.  Once you venture into the territory of “Vote No on…” or “Vote For…” you are safest by following the disclaimer rules.  All of these rules can be found here:  http://www.fppc.ca.gov/content/dam/fppc/NS-Documents/TAD/Campaign%20Manuals/Manual_4/Manual_4_Ch_9_Ad_Disclaimers.pdf

California is still getting caught up with the use of social media for political purposes.  If you have any questions about independent expenditures or disclaimers, contact the Fair Political Practices Commission at:  http://www.fppc.ca.gov.  Also, expenditures are cumulative, so if one works on multiple independent expenditure campaigns, it’s best to confirm your expenditures with the Fair Political Practices Commission to make sure you have not reached a point where you need to file a committee. 

So, don’t’ let anyone tell you a bad law can’t be defeated because you don’t have a lot of money or you didn’t form a PAC.  Our goal is to get everyone we know to Vote NO.  It worked in defeating Prop 19.  It can happen again… corrupt billionaires be damned. 

** This post is for educational purposes only and not intended to support or oppose any candidate, measure or committee.