Berkeley to move cautiously on marijuana grow facilities

January 10, 2011 7:30 am by John C. Osborn

Marijuana plants for sale at Berkeley Patients Group.

As Berkeley prepares to form a new medical marijuana commission to draw up rules governing the growth of cannabis, it must decide whether recent threats of legal retribution by the Alameda County District Attorney will nix plans for large-scale cultivation facilities.

In December, District Attorney Nancy O’Malley sent a letter to Oakland city officials alerting them that their plans to allow large-scale growing facilities would violate state and federal laws. The warning prompted Oakland to suspend plans to issue permits for the marijuana factories until Feb. 1. Oakland is also considering modifications to its law.

Now Berkeley, too, will proceed with caution, Mayor Tom Bates said on Saturday. Although the city did not directly receive a letter from O’Malley, the one sent to Oakland left a “cold chill” for elected officials, said Bates. O’Malley’s letter suggested that that public officials could be held personally and criminally liable if they move forward to open any of the six 30,000 square foot grow facilities authorized by the November passage of Measure T.

“It put a cold stake in the hearts of elected officials,” Bates said. “I guess the downside is we go to jail.”

The question that has been raised by O’Malley’s letter, along with other warnings by federal officials, is whether it is legal for dispensaries or collectives to cultivate large amounts of medical marijuana for its patients with the blessing of the city. There are also concerns about whether a city can directly tax a grow facility.

Proposition 215, the landmark 1996 law that allowed for medical marijuana, and a 2004 law that clarified it, places limits on how much pot can be grown by patients and how that pot is distributed. set guidelines on who may grow marijuana and how the medical cannabis may be consumed, but the law is still somewhat ambiguous. While the law states that collectives and dispensaries can grow medical cannabis for the use of their members, recent court rulings have determined that dispensaries  are not  “primary caretakers” for patients and consequently cannot cultivate marijuana, according to O’Malley’s letter. This and the question of taxing a service that is meant to be not-for-profit under the law adds to the legal conundrum.

While Berkeley voters authorized the idea of large growing facilities, the new medical marijuana commission needs to draw up regulations governing them. The city council must then approve the new regulations.

Before Berkeley takes that step, Bates wants to know where the city stands legally, he said. He is awaiting an opinion from both state and federal justice officials to make sure that it will be “allowable and permissible” for the city to give out cultivation licenses.

“The question is at what point are federal officials going to intervene,” Bates said, “because they are the people that put people on notice.”

If uncertainty about the law continues, Berkeley will not seek to set up the large scale growing facilities, said Bates.

Brad Senesac, spokesperson for the Berkeley Patient’s Group, said on Friday that the warnings fficials have not changed the company’s mind about applying for one of the cultivation permits in Berkeley should the city go through with them.

He said that as long as the cultivation permits are attached to a dispensary, and medical marijuana is grown for a not-for-profit purpose, everything would be legit.

“You can’t grow for profit,” Senesac said, “but you can for (the dispensary’s) members.”

While the legal status of the cultivation facilities is in limbo, the city is also posed to reform its Medical Marijuana Commission as allowed under Measure T.

Previously, the nine-member commission was made up of collective and dispensary representatives who were not appointed by the city council. Under the new law, each member of the council gets to appoint somebody, but the commission must have at least one dispensary and collective representative.

The commission would have two major tasks to address once its formed: set up criteria about how to decide on the fourth dispensary now allowed by law; and determine the criteria for the cultivation licenses.

As of Friday, only two council members — Susan Wengraf (District 6) and Gordon Wozniak (District 8) — had appointed members to the commission, said Mary Kay Clunies-Ross, public information officer for Berkeley.

Bates said he is still looking for an “intelligent and objective” candidate. If a quorum of five members is not reached by Jan. 13–the deadline for an agenda–then the commission’s first meeting will have to postponed until February.

The city has already received a number of inquires about the open fourth dispensary slot, Bates said: 40 Acres, a local collective; Harborside Health Center, an Oakland-based dispensary; and by a group of people with connections to Humboldt County who want to start up an organic dispensary. Whoever gains the coveted spot, they will have to meet a list of criteria that is yet to be established by the commission.

“We’re not going to hurt for people interested (in the fourth dispensary slot),” Bates said, “but we’re not just going to give someone a hunting license.”

6 Comments

Print Friendly
Tagged , , , , ,
  • Phil Hansen

    The 1996 law did not put limits on pot production or have any thing to say about distribution or anything. It was amazingly unspecific. It only provided a medical exemption to Calif. Health and Safety Code prohibition of marijuana use or possession. Later AB bill 420 (?!?!) added more regulation.

  • Duncan20903

    What in the world are you talking about when you say, qoute—->”Proposition 215, the landmark 1996 law that allowed for medical marijuana, places limits on how much pot can be grown by patients and how that pot is distributed.”?<—-unquote.

    That's really sloppy reporting because it's simply untrue. The reason that there's so much disagreement is because the CUA (Prop 215) does not place any limits on patient cultivation nor does it mention distribution. Perhaps you're thinking of SB-420 which was implemented in 2004 and did attempt to define those things? Even so, the California Supreme Court in Kelly v State of California (2008) has tossed out the part of SB-420 that mentions plant numbers specifically because the CUA doesn't do so. For some reason that I can't fathom the legislature included language in SB-420 allowing "collectives" or "cooperatives" to distribute medicine. There is no definition of what is a collective under California law so people have different definitions in their heads, the police one definition, the providers another, the politicians yet another, and the general public yet another. Yes these definitions are all in the same ballpark but these minor differences in defining the word, while being minor are resulting in major problems to the State and the entire concept of medical cannabis. One of the best things that could happen is for the lawmakers to define the word cooperative so that all the players can be on the same page.

    One of the more remarkable things in this entire controversy is just how much of a non-problem dispensaries are in Oakland and Alameda County that authorities are willing to seriously entertain these mega grows. In the meantime Los Angeles and San Diego authorities refuse to negotiate in good faith and their dispensary system is broken as a result. The circus that sprang up in LA was a direct result of the LA City Council burying its collective head in the sand for over 3 years while the tents and all three rings were built. It's no surprise that it resulted in so many clowns getting involved. But all of that happened under the rules promulgated by the City Council. There wasn't a single dispensary in the entire clown show that opened in violation of the rules.

    I'm very skeptical that these can be made to work because anyone who attempts to open a mega grow has a significant chance of being sentenced to life without parole in the Federal system. If they go big enough the death penalty is an outside possibility. The Feds have never filed a cannabis case where the death penalty is possible but the potential penalty is on the books and I'm skeptical that any person exists that is willing to risk life without parole or a lethal injection to grow cannabis to sell to patients especially if their operation has to be organized as not for profit.

  • laura menard

    “Proposition 215, the landmark 1996 law that allowed for medical marijuana, places limits on how much pot can be grown by patients and how that pot is distributed. Recent court rulings have determined that dispensaries are not “primary caretakers” for patient and consequently cannot cultivate marijuana, according to O’Malley’s letter. This and the question of taxing a service that is meant to be not-for-profit under the law adds to the legal conundrum.”

    Duh!!!

    And how much staff time over many years has been spent on the illegal implementation and pandering to dispensary control of medical marijuana.

  • http://francesdinkelspiel.com/ Frances Dinkelspiel

    I take responsibility for adding the line “limits on how much pot can be grown by patients and how that pot is distributed” during editing. John Osborn did not write it. I was trying to get at the law’s ambiguity but clearly made an error. I have rewritten it, I hope correctly, to get at the point that there are still gray areas in the law and the idea of off-site large scale grow facilities are mired in uncertainty.

  • http://www.buydutchseeds.com/?ref=1494 Marijuana Seeds

    I see it going the way liquor stores went. They started out as small retail
    drive-thrus, etc in strip centers, and then later liquor got sold in drug
    stores, and now there are big box specialty stores and boutiques.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bill-Carrington/100000994242301 Bill Carrington

     
    BillBerry Farms Tissue Culture Set gives everyone a chance to become their own cultivation industry, a better gardener, and improve the environment, revive indoor and outdoor plants back to their full potential and with the help of science. 
    The BillBerry Farms Tissue Culture Set is a perfect tool for all  hemp and cannabis type plants.
    The BBF Set allows you to:

    Multiply you favorite plant
    Multiply plants for as long as they are maintained
    Save a plant that won’t seed
    Make new crosses between your plants.
    By using the BBF set you will be able to breed out bacteria, yeast, fungi and viruses, use less water, less light, and are able to produce more plants in a smaller area.  
     
    The BBF set is a valuable tool for plant multiplication, your plants will be fuller and brighter, and over time you will be saving its genetic structure.
    BBF Global respects the originality of the plant.  By breeding out harmful low quality substances through advanced tissue culturing, we hope to surpass all expatiation.

     
    Here is a little information on tissue culturing. Please let me know what you think or if you have any questions.As long as you can keep a clean area you can tissue culture. TC (tissue culturing) helps regenerate the plants cells by multiplying them. When you clone with traditional methods you harm the plant and over time the plant is no longer able to produce fruit as well as it use to. With tissue culturing it rebuilds the plants cell structures to make it stronger and healthier to produce a better fruit. Compared to a mother plant they are mini versions of adult plants and grow to it environment. Unlike cloning you use less water, less light, and less maintenance. It does take a little more time to do the actual TC but there is hardly any maintenance once you are done. In the end the plants yield more and are fuller greener and healthier. The hardest part of tissue culturing is keeping it clean All Hormones listed are needed throughout tissue culture developments. Strangely enough sugar is a primary base, it provides carbohydrates to the plant, without carbohydrates, the plant can’t grow. (For example: when you cut flowers, sugar is added to the water as a food source.)BA is a hormone used for the grouping of tissue cells.NAA is an organic hormone used for stem, root, callus, and leaf growth. NAA can also be utilized after plants are put into the ground.PPM is a plant preservative added to increase plant life during the In-vitro stage. There has been no scientific proof that plants need PPM. (In-Vitro/artificially grown in medium)TDZ and IBA and INA and HCI and IAA are used to assist in the rapid tissue growth of all cells.A cannabis plant may have between 5 to 30 chromosomes (and average of 1,500 genes for each chromosome). There are 20-66 types of cannabinoids (which are glands and secretions from glands in the cannabis plant). Cannabinoids have about 30,000 to store the information it needs to make the proper enzymes, structural proteins and hormones are necessary for the organism’s life and cell structure.
     
    Thank you,
    http://www.billberryfarmstissueculture.com