Jul 252014
 

The Fresno Cannabis Association conducted an informal online survey from July 16 to July 24 help gather input from medical cannabis patients in the Fresno area about Senate Bill 1262. The survey was not designed nor intended to be a scientific sampling of public opinion, but the responses do provide a quick snapshot of how key elements of Senate Bill 1262 are viewed in the Fresno area and points beyond.

Total responses: 42
California: 33
The results shown below are for California responses only.

Question 1

Senate Bill 1262 would establish within the Department of Consumer Affairs a Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation to license dispensing facilities, cultivation sites, and processing facilities that provide, process, and grow marijuana for medical use, as specified, subject to local ordinances. The bill would require a background check of applicants for licensure to be administered by the Department of Justice. The bill would make these licenses subject to the restrictions of the local jurisdiction in which the facility operates or proposes to operate. In general, do you support the stated goals of SB 1262?

44% – No
31% – Not sure
25% – Yes

Question 2

SB 1262 would require the bureau to establish quality assurance protocols by July 1, 2016, to ensure uniform testing standards of medical marijuana, and would require licensees to comply with these provisions. The bill would further set forth provisions regulating edible marijuana products, as specified. By adding these provisions to the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, a violation of which is a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

67% – I support state product safety and testing regulations for cannabis products, including edibles.
33% – I do not support state product safety and testing regulations for cannabis products, including edibles.

Question 3

The bill would provide that specified acts of recommending marijuana without a good faith examination are among the types of cases that should be given priority for investigation and prosecution by the Medical Board of California. The bill would further prohibit a physician and surgeon from recommending medical marijuana to a patient unless that person is the patient’s attending physician, as defined.

61% – I believe SB 1262 will reduce access to cannabis physicians.
28% – I do not have an attending physician, or my attending physician will not recommend cannabis.
11% – I believe that recommendations for medical cannabis should only be issued after a “good faith” examination by an attending physician.

Question 4

The bill would also make it a misdemeanor for a physician and surgeon who recommends marijuana to a patient for a medical purpose to accept, solicit, or offer any remuneration from or to a licensed dispensing facility in which the physician and surgeon or his or her immediate family has a financial interest.

45% – Cannabis physicians should not receive compensation from collectives or cannabis businesses, but violations should be handled as a disciplinary matter by the Medical Board of California (not a misdemeanor).
29% – Cannabis physicians should not receive compensation from collectives or cannabis businesses.
26% – Cannabis physicians should not be barred from having a financial interest in cannabis businesses.

Question 5

This bill would authorize the board of supervisors of a county to impose a tax on the privilege of cultivating, dispensing, producing, processing, preparing, storing, providing, donating, selling, or distributing marijuana or products containing marijuana. The bill would authorize the tax to be imposed for either general or specific governmental purposes. The bill would require a tax imposed pursuant to this authority to be subject to any applicable voter approval requirement.

65% – The Board of Supervisors should not be allowed to impose a tax on medical cannabis businesses.
35% – The Board of Supervisors should be allowed to impose a tax on medical cannabis businesses.

Question 6

Senate Bill 1262 allows the Board of Supervisors to specify whether the tax applies throughout the entire county or within the unincorporated area of the county.

71% – The Board of Supervisors should not be authorized to impose taxes of any kind on cannabis businesses.
16% – The Board of Supervisors should be allowed to pass cannabis taxes that apply in incorporated cities.
13% – The Board of Supervisors should only be authorized to pass cannabis taxes that apply in unincorporated areas of the county.

Question 7

Edible marijuana products are deemed to be unadulterated food products under SB 1262. In general, baked edible marijuana products (such as brownies, bars, cookies, and cakes), tinctures, and other edible marijuana products that do not require refrigeration or hot holding could be sold at cannabis businesses. Licensed marijuana facilities shall have an owner or employee who has successfully passed an approved and accredited food safety certification examination as specified in Sections 113947.1, 113947.2, and 113947.3 of the Health and Safety Code prior to selling, manufacturing, or distributing edible marijuana products requiring refrigeration or hot holding.

79% – State requirements for cannabis-infused products requiring refrigeration or hot holding should be applied to cannabis businesses.
21% – Regulation of cannabis-infused food products should be left to cities and counties.

Question 8

Products containing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) shall be prepared in compliance with maximum potency standards for THC and THC concentrates set forth in the bureau’s regulations.

58% – I do not support maximum potency standards for cannabis edibles.
42% – I support maximum potency standards for cannabis edibles.

Question 9

The California Constitution grants cities and counties the authority to make and enforce, within their borders, “all local police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with the general laws.” By its express terms, SB 1262 says “Nothing in this act shall diminish, erode, or modify that authority.” The practical result of that legal framework is that cities and counties can choose to “opt out” of statewide regulations developed under Senate Bill 1262.

100% – I believe pre-emptive language is needed to ensure cannabis regulations are applied evenly statewide.
0% – I believe cities and counties should continue to have full control over cannabis regulations.

Question 10

One goal of this survey is to develop a consensus among Fresno-area cannabis users for political advocacy. The full text of SB 1262 is viewable at http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB1262. With your present understanding of SB 1262, should the Fresno Cannabis Association…

68% – Express its opposition to SB 1262?
19% – Endorse the passage of SB 1262?
13% – Take no position on SB 1262?

Question 11

What concern(s) most influenced your answer to the previous question?

48% – Lack of state pre-emption over city/county ordinances
25% – Physician regulations
16% – Licensing requirements
11% – Taxes

Jul 162014
 

Senate Bill 1262 is a cannabis regulation bill under consideration by the state Legislature. Although a final vote is not yet scheduled, some cannabis advocates believe it has a good chance for passage. This brief survey does not cover every aspect of SB 1262 in detail, but it does present some of the key elements. The final question on the survey [...]

May 212014
 

The Fresno Cannabis Association presents its first fundraiser and strategy session at 2 p.m. June 8 at Full Circle Brewery in Fresno. Come learn about the cannabis growing bans in the City of Fresno and Fresno County, and meet the people leading the legal fights against them. Food, drink and cannabis advocacy — tres bien! Facebook event page | Meetup event [...]

May 082014
 

A lawsuit filed today by cannabis advocates seeks to block enforcement of the Fresno cannabis cultivation ban. The petition for writ of mandate was filed by two co-plaintiffs, the newly formed Fresno Cannabis Association and the Los Angeles-based Union of Medical Marijuana Patients. The target of the lawsuit is Ordinance 2014-20, which bans all types of cannabis cultivation (indoor/outdoor)and imposes fines [...]

May 082014
 

Fresno County’s new ban on marijuana gardens imposes heavy marijuana fines, which were the focus of two recent stories in the Fresno Bee. Landlord, tenant to split pot fine, Fresno County supervisors decide Fresno County supervisors agreed Tuesday to split a hefty fine for medical marijuana cultivation between an out-of-town property owner and his tenant. Fines under the ordinance are $1,000 [...]

 Posted by at 12:18 am