Monthly Archives: June 2014

been working on sb 1262

From: axisoflovesf – January 1, 1970

hi folks I’m going to try to be as inclusive as possible and keep everyone aware on the state level. We have a series of misinformed amendments that were added in Tom committee and he signed on as co author the next committee is appropriations this is on the fastrack not another dog n pony show. I was very breif early this morning pls forgive it was early..lol. So yes it’s gone to hell in a handbasket. The usual suspects seem to be at the stakeholder table and yes I will be joining them. Doing everything I can to get some good policy for everyone funny ironic thing that patient advocacy leads to fair business policy but it a true ism Pl epensaryeel free to forward this to anyone who cares and look over my concerns in case I’ve read the law wrong unfortunately on my first concern I’m right I called the office to check my understanding they would like to prevent monopolies by good lordhaving no one be able to have both a cultivation and mdc permit Making no working sense at all. Now we all know my word of the year or maybe it’s been 3 is coerced monopolies that’s what I oppose and that addresses government corruption bottle neck the permit process. I think it’s ridiculous to oppose a group from running two mdcs and say afew ccultivation sites it actually lends itself to the closed loop set of concerns for example sparc is opening a second location am I going to oppose No it’s a free market and as long as a process for permit remains fair and everyone can have safe access to compliance which leaves allot to be desired still at local and state level let the consumer decide. But there’s a concern regarding this that does need a safeguards but the amendments regarding this don’t solve the concerns. If our goal is greater compliance Not to make criminals out of good people for corner of marketing We need to propose something that addresses this but at a different angle. First we need to prevent hostile takeovers in our SF loopholes locally. But what’s the tool for statewide perhaps after you’ve filed for more than a reasonable amount of permits and aggressive business tactics to either push people off the map or acquisition of an entire area this could put you up for a review to this department under consumer affairs which could evaluate the situation on a case by case basis. In the example of sparc okay two in SF and one in Santa Rosa to me it’s not just the number of store’s I’d like to look at their track records and true community benefit and if other choices were also available in the case of sparc in SF I’d state that there are other choices near their locations and that they are without high level of violation on record. Where I’d draw the line is if they say started or were behind the anti cluster legislation and working to prevent others from map hence lobby ing for a coerced monopolies in their territory. Much like what happened in LA with measure D that’s a clear example of monopolies the only clubs that got threw are associated with ASA that’s also comunity busting and corruption at it’s worst. Thatthose tactics should be prohibited as unethical. And sure I can live with some levels of reveiw being triggered if you are involved in several permits and classes of permits and in reality In order to be law abiding most providers will need a set of permits. Imyself reading this thought wow I’ve got to get process and distribution because I coordinate donations of medicine and I’m more than willing to do so but it should be based on the scope of our projects and it should encourage not discourage you from getting the permit for what you actually do in the real world and at a fair rate and we should be able to apply for a bundled set of permits otherwise here is how it could play out people will permit one part and not the other because either they can’t afford creating more confusions than compliance. The definition of dispensary is way to broad in the amendments it’s basically any system that doesn’t involve personal use or the very limited definition of primary care giver that’s not reality. I see the angels business men are present ingbecause yes someone alwaysgoing to try and exploit the loopholes and state crazy crap like nearly all of the delivery services stating that they were serving nine people collective membership in SF total lie they were retial business with a public membership not paying their fair share like the others but the impact on true small collective that were not running retail business was unfair compare Apple and orange. Dispensary should be defined and permitted as what they are retial public pharmacys and if this pretty radical here..lol they truly are operating as non profit they should registered that way but if they are for profit they should registered that way it behooves everyone to be able to register with their true model. Just as if it’s a true collective membership of a smaller nature there should be another category for compliance bringing it to scale will have more successful route in bringing everyone into compliance fairly and then those who don’t from a fair framework are then probably criminal intent charging everyone the same rate if they share or even purchase with more than two people is to make poor people aren’t allowed to be legal rules and creating two sets of laws based on something like able to pay thousands8000 to be exact plus all the other fees Attchd to permit support classism and racism to create a fee for statewide protection for only those that can afford correct me if I’m wrong is unconstitutional. Remember you have to get a permit for transport if you have more than a personal amount. How many needless arrests and fines will arise . There’s ofcourse nothing in this bill yet that supports equity in safe access and supporting the providers that donate to low income care that’s a big glaring mistake especially since our compliance date is July 2016 same as legalize date if we want our medical cannabis dispensary to remain in that tidal wave We need surf boards 🙂 They also added GPS coordinate for all grows. We got allot of work to do before next committee from what I understand conversations are going through July recess everyone needs to join in I’ll be transparent I don’t suggest anyone rely on industry lobbyistseespecially merchants get yourself or rep in the conversation it’s hard but needed storm the Bastille 🙂 — Shona Gochenaur Executive Director Axis of Love SF http:www.facebook.comaxisoflove http:www.twitter.comaxisoflove — You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis group. To post to this group send email to savecannabisa2c2.us To Unsubscribe from this group send email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us View Archives at http:SaveCannabis.org — You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Save Cannabis” group. For more options visit https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usdoptout. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us.

San Jose marijuana ordinance puts the squeeze on dispensaries

From: dave – January 1, 1970

San Jose marijuana ordinance puts the squeeze on dispensaries By Jacinta Chang Mosaic staff writer http:www.mercurynews.comci26040546san-jose-marijuana-ordinance-puts-squeeze-dispensaries image: Dave Hodges head of the All American Cannabis Club distributes shirts while gathering signatures at the San Jose Bike Party on June 20 2014 in San Dave Hodges head of the All American Cannabis Club distributes shirts while gathering signatures at the San Jose Bike Party on June 20 2014 in San Jose California. (Jacinta ChangMosaic) San Jose dove deeper into a running national debate on how to effectively regulate the marijuana industry when it passed an ordinance restricting marijuana dispensary locations implementing additional security measures and mandating that marijuana be grown locally. Most city councilmembers believe the ordinance will cut down on marijuana-related crime and marijuana sales to underage people. Opponents though do not believe the ordinance provides a workable solution. “This is a de facto ban” said Sean Donahoe deputy director of the California Cannabis Industry Association. “We are looking for a workable ordinance to end the gray area. A workable ordinance is not a de facto ban.” image: The All American Cannabis Club gathers signatures at the San Jose Bike Party on Friday June 20 2014 in San Jose California. The All American Cannabis Club gathers signatures at the San Jose Bike Party on Friday June 20 2014 in San Jose California. (Calyse TobiasMosaic) Supporters hope new regulations will improve community and business environments such as schools and industrial parks. “These regulations will tighten up rules in regards to marijuana. We understand that people need medicated marijuana but we would like to discourage recreational usage eliminating collectives in commercial neighborhoods” Vice Mayor Madison Nguyen said. “This is going to provide a safe environment for our school children.” According to a city survey of San Jose residents many worried that pot shops located near their homes and schools are not safe. The new ordinance sets zoning regulations that will cut down eligible marijuana dispensary locations to less than 1 percent of San Jose’s area. Pot shops will also have to abide by stricter security regulations: Distribution locations must be fully equipped with security cameras and recording systems at all times; medical marijuana must be locked and stored away in vaults or safes; and the premises must be secured to prevent unauthorized entry. The ordinance also mandates that dispensaries cannot operate between 9 p.m. and 9 a.m. and those younger than 21 are barred from entering pot shops or buying marijuana products. In a separate city survey corporations and technology companies in San Jose voiced concern that marijuana collectives near their businesses drive away potential employees and customers. “There have been negative impacts on businesses near blocks and surrounding blocks where dispensaries are located” said Jim Reed Vice President of Public Policy for the San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce. “We think the voters and businesses want restrictions to find a middle-ground solution on regulating marijuana and we think the ordinance struck the right balance.” But Donahoe said problems with dealing pot to minors and unsafe conditions apply to only a few problematic locations and the ordinance will unfairly force the majority of marijuana businesses to close. Critics also oppose a new requirement that marijuana sold in San Jose must be grown either in or next to Santa Clara County. Donahoe said many pot shops sell marijuana products produced elsewhere because they do not have the resources for marijuana manufacturing. “We want a regulated industry that can provide patients with access to safe and well-regulated products as well as a variety of them” Donahoe stated. Dave Hodges head of the All American Cannabis Club is leading his organization in challenging the ordinance. Members have been walking through downtown and distributing free shirts as they collect funds and signatures to form a petition. “Right now we’re just reaching out to locals or anybody who needs a part-time job. We’re trying to hire 300 people over the next 30 days to help us in this cause” Hodges said June 20 when club members attended the San Jose Bike Party to recruit new members. Donahoe and his allies say they will continue to fight to keep their businesses alive. “Whether a ban or a de facto ban neither of these are a good public policy solution” Donahoe said. “We have to find a better way and we will. — You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis group. To post to this group send email to savecannabisa2c2.us To Unsubscribe from this group send email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us View Archives at http:SaveCannabis.org — You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Save Cannabis” group. For more options visit https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usdoptout. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us.

sb 1262 amendments suck,it’s bad, really bad

From: axisoflovesf – January 1, 1970

My comment on my Facebook page I also am in support of DPA commentary I think nearly nobody will be comfortable with this. — Shona Gochenaur Executive Director Axis of Love SF http:www.facebook.comaxisoflove http:www.twitter.comaxisoflove — You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis group. To post to this group send email to savecannabisa2c2.us To Unsubscribe from this group send email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us View Archives at http:SaveCannabis.org — You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Save Cannabis” group. For more options visit https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usdoptout. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us.

URGENT Referendum meeting TODAY 2pm

From: dave – January 1, 1970

Hi All Please come to Papadons TODAY at 2pm. We have just hired a new expert. She has successfully run a volunteer only state-wide signature gathering campaign. She knows the challenge we have in front of us and is willing to devote all her time to making this happen. After running the numbers she told me today “this will be a challenge but we CAN get this done”. Please come to the meeting at 2pm TODAY and meet her. We CAN get this done 2pm 590 Lincoln Avenue San Jose CA 95126 Best regards Dave Hodges — You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis group. To post to this group send email to savecannabisa2c2.us To Unsubscribe from this group send email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us View Archives at http:SaveCannabis.org — You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Save Cannabis” group. For more options visit https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usdoptout. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us.

Save San Jose Cannabis Clubs! Make $ and help stop the shutdown!

From: dave – January 1, 1970

Hi All We have a crisis in San Jose. Unless we collect 100000 signatures by 717 cannabis clubs will start shutting down. We need your help to collect signatures. You will get paid 4-6 per valid person who signs. Training Petition Pickup & Drop offs: – TUESDAY 624 4pm PapaDons 590 Lincoln Ave San Jose CA 95126 – WEDNESDAY 625 4pm UFCW Hall 240 South Market Street San Jose CA 95112 – THURSDAY 626 4pm PapaDons 590 Lincoln Ave San Jose CA 95126 – FRIDAY 627 4pm PapaDons 590 Lincoln Ave San Jose CA 95126 – (more locations & times coming soon) Signature Gathering Pay Rates & Details: CRSJ has 2 petitions thus each person 2 signatures. CRSJ will pay 1 per signature (hopefully 2 per person signing) a bonus for VALID BONUS STRUCTURE: – FOR VALID SIGNATURES ONLY – 1.00 per VALID signature (2 per person signing) for 1-1000 – 1.50 per VALID signature (3 per person signing) for 1001-2500 – 2.00 per VALID signature (4 per person signing) for 2501-5000 — You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis group. To post to this group send email to savecannabisa2c2.us To Unsubscribe from this group send email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us View Archives at http:SaveCannabis.org — You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Save Cannabis” group. For more options visit https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usdoptout. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us.