Thinking of hiring a cultivation consultant? Here’s what you can expect.

By David Perkins

Hiring an experienced cultivation consultant is yet another cost, amongst the
laundry list of never-ending expenses in the set up of a regulated, recreational grow.
However, in the big picture it can actually save you a significant amount of time and
money by providing you with the information you need to formulate a realistic
budget, profitable cultivation site, and well-trained workforce. This article will
explore just some of the many benefits a cultivation consultant can provide to your
An experienced consultant will have a vast array of knowledge to ensure the
success of your company. One important area they can advise you on is budgeting.
With years of experience cultivating, in both medical and recreational markets, an
experienced consultant will have knowledge of not only start-up costs, but also
hidden costs you must prepare for in advance. They will also be able to advise you
on strategies to avoid future costs and problems. There may also be expenses in the
build-out of your cultivation site you have not considered. For example, you may
need a wastewater treatment plan if you have any fertilizer runoff that will flow to
a sewage drain. It is important to know all possible costs when securing your
investment or planning out your budget for the year.
Set up of a large-scale cultivation site in a regulated market can be extremely
costly. Gone are the days of putting up a few lights in a closet; growing in a regulated
market requires a larger scale, and therefore, larger costs and more complications. A
consultant experienced in design and implementation of such large-scale, intricate
cultivation plans will provide you with the knowledge you need to properly set-up
and maintain your facility in order to ensure your company’s success. They will also
know the tips and tricks to save you money along the way.
A good consultant will be able to advise you on the design of your facility to
ensure that the layout supports productivity, and that there is a proper workflow. It
is important to hire a consultant before you get started with the build-out of your
facility, as it will be much more costly to have to correct mistakes in your design
later on down the road. An experienced consultant will implement superior facilities
layout and design to avoid future problems at the outset. Something as simple as a
centralized irrigation distribution zone can save you a lot of time and money.
Once you have created the proper space, cultivation planning is important to
avoid unnecessary problems from arising, which will ultimately delay profit. A well
thought out cultivation plan will help you plan for success. A consultant will know
what does and doesn’t work. For example, some equipment will run off an app on
your phone; while convenient, there are some that don’t perform well which could
end up costing the entire crop. These are things you want to know and work
around, before you spend money unnecessarily.
An experienced consultant will have previously worked in various types and
scales of cultivation sites, and from that experience will be able to teach you which processes and techniques work, and which ones don’t. Someone with less
experience may believe that watering plants by hand would be an easy method to
keep your garden irrigated, but it is actually the most time-consuming labor task
(and therefore extremely costly), while an automated watering system can be very
simple and cost-effective to install.
A skilled consultant can provide the necessary training for your employees. Let’s
face it, this is an entirely new industry, and therefore, most people applying for
entry-level jobs at a cultivation site are unskilled. However, the best path to success
when dealing with large-scale cannabis cultivation is to have skilled, happy
employees. Educating and properly training your employees is essential. It helps to
teach employees not only how to complete a task, but to help them understand why
they are doing a given task. This will give your staff the skills and confidence they
need to complete the task properly. Unskilled hands in your garden can make or
break the success of your cultivation.
Don’t make the mistakes others have made. Hiring a cultivation consultant
can help you to avoid problems before they occur. A professional consultant has
the knowledge required to: predict issues and problems before they occur, or
implement a solution when corrective measures are necessary. Oftentimes issues
can be avoided just by knowing the cause and effect of decisions and the potential
outcomes they will have.
A cultivation consultant should also have a wide network of professional
contacts to help you address any issues or problems that arise. Having a network of
professionals to employ when necessary is critical for ensuring the success of every
project. For example, wholesale contacts for cultivation equipment can help you not
only to get the best price, but also ensure you are using the best equipment possible
for your situation.
If you are still unsure about whether or not you need a cultivation consultant
to help plan out your grow, or fix your grow if you’ve encountered problems, feel
free to contact me to discuss your needs. I assure you there are ways I can save you money, improve your yields, and help your company be more successful in this ever-
changing market.

To read previous articles by David Perkins click here

David Perkins is a Cultivation manger and consultant with over 20 years of experience
in the grow room. From build out to cultivation, cloning to processing, he has done it
all. David can help you succeed in the grow room, and likely save you money along the
way. If you are considering hiring a consultant, please reach out, and discuss with
David the ways in which he can help you achieve your goals. You can reach David at
(530)277-5891 or

Five Factors to Keep in Mind When Entering the Regulated Market

by David Perkins

It’s a different world growing cannabis in California; in fact it’s a completely different experience than it was even four years ago. It can be overwhelming to begin the process, which is where an experienced cultivation consultant can help. This article will highlight 5 factors to keep in mind before you begin growing in California’s regulated recreational market. 

Start Up – Costs, needs, and endless variables 

So you’ve decided to begin a recreational grow, here are the factors to consider before you get started. 

Permitting, the necessary precursor to cultivation, can be time- consuming, extremely expensive, and overwhelming. General experience dictates that any grow will take longer than planned and cost way more money than you ever expected or anticipated. Always account for more money and time than you think you need. Working with an experienced consultant can help you plan and account for all the costs and variables you may not have considered, prior to beginning cultivation, in order to ensure your success. 

Equipment. When choosing what equipment to use, stick to reputable equipment manufacturers. Don’t just go with the latest high tech gear because you see it on Instagram being advertised by a big, fancy grow operation. Stick to what you know best. Do your homework and research the equipment as much as possible, prior to purchase. Use equipment that has been tested and well documented with success. Some questions to ask yourself: is this necessary? Is it cost efficient? Will it help me reach my goals? 

Grow your business slowly and naturally. Getting too big too quick will most likely expose inefficiencies in your operating plan, which will be further compounded when production increases. Don’t sink before you can swim and start out on a massive scale before you have perfected your process. 

Cultivation – It pays to design it right the first time 

Success begins in the grow room. Never forget that. A properly engineered cultivation plan can be the difference between 3 and 6 harvest per year. Again, it is imperative here to do your homework. A well thought out plan can make or break you, and that is where an experienced cultivation consultant can help. 

Set realistic expectations. Understand that growing boutique-style cannabis is very difficult on a large scale, consistently. Don’t expect to grow perfect cannabis every time – it is unrealistic and can ultimately lead to failure if your financial model depends on it. Growing a plant, while mostly in your control, involves too many variables to rely on a perfect outcome round after round. You can do everything in your power, yet something unexpected can still happen and be detrimental to your yield, and therefore your profit. You must expect and plan for this. 

Automating as much of your grow as possible is always a good idea. This will greatly reduce labor costs and more importantly, minimize human error. In some instances, it will even allow you to review data and information remotely, in real-time, allowing you to ensure your cultivation site is always running as efficiently as possible, even when you aren’t there. 

Processing – Don’t skimp on the process 

If you are going to be harvesting cannabis for flower, it is imperative to have a properly built facility for drying, curing and storing your product. You must consider that this building will need to be large enough to house and properly store all of your harvest at once. This can make or break your crop at harvest time. If you don’t have the capacity to handle your harvest properly, it can lead to disastrous issues such as mold or too quick of a cure – conditions which make your cannabis unsellable in the regulated market. 

Although costly, if done correctly, you can also design this area to serve as your propagation, trimming, and breeding areas, which will ultimately save on costs in the long run. 

Also keep in mind, hand-trimmed cannabis will always look more appealing to the consumer than machine trimmed cannabis. However, hand trimming can be time-consuming, labor-intensive, and therefore far more costly than machine trimming. These are factors you will need to consider and budget for when deciding how to 

proceed. If you use a machine, you may save money upfront, but will you be able to sell your cannabis at full price? 

Distribution – Have a plan 

It is a good idea to have a plan for distribution, prior to startup. If you have an agreement with a retail outlet (or contract with a distributor), in writing, you will protect yourself from financial failure. Cannabis will never grow more valuable over time, therefore, you want to have a plan in place for distribution, as soon as the cannabis is harvested and processed. Just as was the case in the black market days, you never want to hold on to your cannabis for long periods of time. 

Do not distribute without agreements in writing! While some oral agreements may be enforceable, it will be extremely costly to litigate. Therefore, you should plan to hire a lawyer beforehand to create fail-proof agreements that will hold up in court, should a distributor not pay you for your product. 

Sales – Build your brand, but be realistic 

Building your brand is important. And if you don’t produce your own high-quality flower you cannot expect to have a product up to your standards. Your brand will not be successful if you cannot consistently provide consumers with high-quality cannabis. Relying on other growers to produce your cannabis for you is risky to your brand. Even if you are a manufacturer, you may not be able to rely on other suppliers to maintain the quality volume you need in order to manufacture your products consistently. 

The regulated market in California is new. Therefore your must necessarily account for a great degree of price fluctuations in the market. When creating your budget at the outset, you must account for fluctuations in profit. Knowing when prices are going to be at their lowest can help you avoid having an oversupply of inventory. It can also help you avoid such situations by planning your cultivation/harvest accordingly. 

There are both consumer and government influenced market trends that can affect your bottom line. Therefore, these must be accounted for at the outset. 

On the consumer level, you must know what people are buying and how they are consuming. And these factors can change quickly with the introduction of new technology, methods, or new devices intended for cannabis consumption. You must stay on top of these trends. The government regulations can also affect these trends. Products used for cultivation can become banned i.e. products you once relied on in your cultivation can be found to have contaminants known to cause test failures, even in “approved products.” 

Ultimately, all of these factors can make or break your success, and therefore, must be considered, researched, and accounted for prior to beginning your cultivation in the regulated market. Working with a consultant with over 20 years of grow experience, and more importantly, extensive experience in large scale cultivation in the regulated market, can help you achieve the success you desire. Cultivation in the regulated market is costly, but working with a consultant can help you cut costs at the outset, and save you from unexpected expenses in the long run.

David Perkins is a Cultivation manger and consultant with over 20 years of experience in the grow room. From build out to cultivation, cloning to processing, he has done it all. David can help you succeed in the grow room, and likely save you money along the way. If you are considering hiring a consultant, please reach out, and discuss with David the ways in which he can help you achieve your goals. You can reach David at (530)277-5891 or 

Summary of El Dorado County Ordinance Part 1 – Addressing Permitting & Enforcement of Commercial Cannabis Activities

The following is a summary of one of the four sections of the ordinance authorizing commercial cannabis activities in El Dorado County, specifically addressing permitting and enforcement. 

On Monday, June 3, 2019, the stakeholders attending the El Dorado County Ad-Hoc Committee, for commercial cannabis activity, received 4 documents that comprised the first draft of the commercial cannabis ordinance for the unincorporated county. For Part 1 we will focus on the language of the Permitting and Enforcement section of the ordinance.

Like the other sections, and all of the state regulations pertaining to commercial cannabis, there is a recognizable format to this document. Beginning with Applicability, indicating the purpose of this section and determining that the “Board of Supervisors retains discretion to amend the ordinance in any way” and Definitions, defining terms such as “Cannabis Products”, “Gross Receipts”, “Legal Parcel” and “Owner”. By the way, an “Owner” is defined as “(1) any person with ANY ownership interest, however small, in the person applying for a permit, unless the interest is solely a security, lien, or encumbrance; (2) the chief executive officer of a nonprofit or other entity; (3) a member of the board of directors of a nonprofit entity; (4) a person who will be participating in the direction, control, or management of the person applying for a permit, including but not limited to a general partner of a partnership, a non-member manager or managing member of a limited liability company, and an officer or director of a corporation; (5) a person who will share in any amount of the profits of the person applying for a permit or has a financial interest, as defined by the regulations promulgated by the Bureau of Cannabis Control, in the person applying for the permit.

Moving on we find language, under Permits Required, advising of the requirement of a valid Commercial Cannabis Use Permit and Commercial Cannabis Annual Operating Permit. Not stated, in this particular section, but still a piece to this puzzle is that both the local level (El Dorado County) permits and the state license(s) are required to legally operate within the California commercial cannabis supply chain AND that operating outside of that legal supply chain will put your permits and license at risk.

Commercial Cannabis Conditional Use Permit

Next we get to the language that addresses the Commercial Cannabis Use Permit (CUP). Here are the highlights of this language:

  • Subject to the public hearing procedures and recommendation from the Planning and Building Director and decision by the Planning Commission.
  • Prior to the Planning Commission hearing, notice shall be provided to the property owners immediately adjacent to the subject property. Additionally, if the property is one-half mile from an incorporated city or county, notice and an opportunity to comment on the application shall be provided.
  • Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with all standards in the county code and state regulations for the license type applied for, including the required setbacks unless the applicant can demonstrate that the setback will achieve the purpose of the requirement and the parcel was owned or leased prior to VOTER APPROVAL on November 6, 2018.
  • Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with CEQA compliance, including but not limited to environmental analysis and studies, preparation of the appropriate CEQA document, and all County staff time, including attorney time spent reviewing and pursuing final adoption of the appropriate environmental document.
  • Application fees (yet to be determined)
  • Commercial Cannabis Use Permit Application with:
    • Name, contact address, phone number of applicant and all owners as well as documents establishing ownership such as operating agreements and stock agreements.
    • LiveScan (background checks) of applicant, all owners, spouses of owners and the designated local contact.
    • Written consent by owner of parcel (if not owner)
    • Name and contact information of the Designated Local Contact
    • Detailed explanation of how applicant will prevent theft and access to those under age 21
    • Proof that operations with comply with county rules (Standard Operating Procedures)
    • Proof that operations will comply with state regulations (Standard Operating Procedures)
    • Overall Operating Plan
    • Description of how applicant will meet and maintain organic certification standards (if applicable)
    • Written acknowledgement that the County has the right to reduce the size of premise in the event that environmental conditions (such as drought, odor control) merit reduction.
    • Complete copy of state license documents, including exhibits.
    • Security Plan
    • Detailed Premise Diagram
    • Certification of Accuracy
  • Concentration and proximity to an existing or proposed commercial cannabis activity shall be considered in determining whether to grant a CUP.
  • Authorization may not be provided to the appropriate state licensing agency unless the County has issued a Commercial Cannabis Use Permit and Commercial Cannabis Annual Operating Permit.

Commercial Cannabis Annual Operating Permit

In addition to the CUP, the county will be requiring an Annual Operating Permit (BOP) with requirements as follows:

  • Commercial Cannabis Annual Operating Permit is valid for one year from the date of issuance.
  • Requires all of the information required for a CUP and will require continued compliance with local rules and state commercial cannabis regulations.
  • A notarized annual updated written consent from parcel owner will be required within 30 days of the date that the annual BOP application is submitted.
  • Annual BOP shall NOT be issued if the applicant owes delinquent taxes, fines, fees or costs.
  • If taxes, on square footage, are assessed they shall be calculated on the maximum square footage stated in the BOP given. However, a request for reduction of square footage can be made if the applicant is planning to stagger growth up to the maximum allowable. Failure to request a reduction will result in the taxes for full square footage being assessed.
  • The Annual BOP is not transferable and automatically expires upon change of ownership

It is important to note that any out-of-County delivery and distributors will be required to obtain a valid business license for El Dorado County. Additionally, the Commercial Cannabis Activities Tax shall be paid for the sale of all cannabis or cannabis products delivered or distributed within the county regardless of where the business is located. Finally, all outside deliver services are held to the county’s delivery hours of 8:00am – 8:00pm and all deliveries must be initiated by the customer, before 7:00pm in order to comply.

Additionally, upon receipt of three (3) administrative citations, verified violations or hearing officer determinations within a two-year period the BOP will be nullified, voided or revoked subject to appeal.


The following is true about the enforcement of commercial cannabis activities:

  • Criminal enforcement 
    • Any person who attempts to engage in commercial cannabis activity without valid permits can be charged with a misdemeanor or infraction at the discretion of the district attorney.
    • Misdemeanor violation shall be punishable by a fine, not to exceed, $1,000 or county jail not to exceed 6 months.
    • If charged as an infraction:
      • 1st violation fine shall not exceed $100
      • 2nd violation fine shall not exceed $250
      • Each additional violation shall not exceed $500 
  • Administrative Enforcement & Abatement for those with CUP & BOP
    • Notice to abate shall provide responsible person 72 hours to correct
    • After Notice to Abate is issued, and during the 72-hour period, a $1,000 fine (per violation) will accrue for each day of violation.
    • After the 72 hour period has expired the fines will increase to $2,500 per day per violation until corrected.
    • For a second violation, within a 12 month period, the administrative fine increases to $5,000 per day per violation until corrected.
    • For the third violation, within a 12 month period, the administrative fine increases to $10,000 per day per violation.
  • Administrative Enforcement & Abatement for those operating before CUP & BOP are approved
    • Notice to abate shall provide responsible person 72 hours to correct
    • After 72-hour period an administrative fine of $5,000 per day and per violation will accrue.
    • Once the 72 hours has expired the administrative fine will increase to $10,000 per day per violation.
    • For the second violation, within a 12-month period, the fine will increase to $25,000 per day per violation.
    • For the third violation, within a 12-month period, the fine will increase to $50,000 per day per violation.
  • Each plant cultivated outside of the permitted square footage shall constitute a violation.

Finally, the Planning and Building Department shall have applications available no later than September 30, 2019. However, the Board of Supervisors may grant an extension based upon unforeseen circumstances.

El Dorado County To Hear Cannabis Ad-Hoc Committee and Chief Administration Office Recommendation For Ballot Measure

Tomorrow, July 17, 2018, the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors will take up an agenda item hearing a recommendation, by the Cannabis Ad-Hoc Committee and the Chief Administration Office, for a November ballot Commercial Cannabis Tax Measure. The agenda item reads as follows:

 Ad Hoc Cannabis Committee, in coordination with the Chief Administrative Office recommending the Board: 1) Approve and authorize the Chair to sign the following Resolutions to place the following ballot measures on the ballot for the November 2018 election which will enable voters to decide whether to allow different aspects of commercial cannabis and its taxation: a) Resolution 140-2018, which will be one ballot measure, create a general commercial cannabis tax, with tax rate ranges that allows for the Board to set the tax rates for different commercial uses (e.g. outdoor cultivation, indoor cultivation, dispensary/retail sales, etc.) and a discretionary permitting process, with public feedback and an extensive enforcement program with a fine schedule for illegal commercial cannabis activity or violations of the County regulations. b) Resolution 141-2018, allow for the outdoor and mixed light (e.g. greenhouse) cultivation of medicinal commercial cannabis with limits on the location of cultivation, amount of operations, and size of operations with rules to protect neighborhood

The agenda item, #35, is set to be heard in the 10:30am time slot. and 10 documents will be reviewed as a part of the Board’s approval process. Those documents can be viewed here.

Location, of the meeting, will be at 330 Fair Lane, Placerville, CA 95667

CDPH FAQ’s – Industrial Hemp and Cannabidiol (CBD) in Food Products

California Department of Public Health (CDPH), Food and Drug Branch (FDB) has received numerous inquiries from food processors and retailers who are interested in using industrial hemp-derived cannabidiol (CBD) oil or CBD products in food since the legalization of medicinal and adult-use marijuana (cannabis) in California.

In California, the CDPH Manufactured Cannabis Safety Branch (MCSB) regulates medicinal and adult-use manufactured cannabis products. However, food products derived from industrial hemp are not covered by MCSB regulations. Instead, these products fall under the jurisdiction of CDPH-FDB.

California defines “food” as follows:
(a) Any article used or intended for use for food, drink, confection, condiment, or chewing gum by man or other animal.
(b) Any article used or intended for use as a component of any article designated in
subdivision (a).1

The definition of food includes pet food, but does not include products containing cannabis (which are, instead, cannabis edibles). Meat, dairy, poultry or eggs are regulated by the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA).

The federal Agricultural Act of 2014, also known as the Farm Bill, only legalized the growing or cultivating of industrial hemp by state departments of agriculture and institutions of higher education (as defined in Title 20 of the United States Code section 1001) for purposes of research under a state pilot program or other agricultural or academic research. In addition, growing or cultivation is only permitted under the Farm Bill if growing or cultivating is allowed under the laws of the State in which
such state department or institution is located and such research occurs. In California, the cultivation of industrial hemp is regulated by the CDFA.

“Industrial Hemp” is defined as follows:
“a fiber or oilseed crop, or both, that is limited to types of the plant Cannabis sativa L. having no more than three-tenths of 1 percent tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) contained in the dried flowering tops, whether growing or not; the seeds of the plant; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds or resin produced therefrom.”2

Please refer to the CDFA for further questions about state requirements for cultivation of industrial hemp in California in accordance with the California’s Industrial Hemp Law (Division 24 of the Food and Agricultural Code).

California incorporates federal law regarding food additives, dietary use products, food labeling, and good manufacturing practices for food. The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 classified all forms of cannabis as a Schedule I drug, making it illegal to grow it in the United States.3 Currently, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has concluded that it is a prohibited act to introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce any food (including any animal food or feed) to which tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or CBD has been added. This is regardless of the source of the CBD – derived from industrial hemp or cannabis.

Therefore, although California currently allows the manufacturing and sales of cannabis products (including edibles), the use of industrial hemp as the source of CBD to be added to food products is prohibited. Until the FDA rules that industrial hemp-derived CBD oil and CBD products can be used as a food or California makes a determination that they are safe to use for human and animal consumption, CBD products are not an approved food, food ingredient, food additive, or dietary supplement.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What forms of Industrial hemp derived products will and will NOT be allowed in food in California?

Will be allowed in food (without any claim for health benefits):
• Seeds derived from Industrial hemp
• Industrial hemp seed oil or hemp seed oil derived from industrial hemp

Will NOT be allowed in food:
• Any CBD products derived from cannabis
• Any CBD products including CBD oil derived from industrial hemp
• Hemp oil that is not derived from industrial hemp seeds
• Industrial hemp seed oil enhanced with CBD or other cannabinoids

2. Is hemp seed oil the same as CBD oil?

Industrial hemp seed oil and hemp-derived CBD oil are two different products. Industrial
hemp seed oil is derived from the seeds limited to types of the Cannabis sativa L. plant and may contain trace amounts of CBD (naturally occurring) and other cannabinoids. Food grade Industrial hemp seed oil is available from a variety of approved sources.

However, CBD or CBD oil derived from industrial hemp is NOT approved for human and animal consumption by the FDA as food and therefore cannot be used as food ingredient, food additive, or dietary supplement.

3. What is the difference between industrial hemp and cannabis (marijuana) derived cannabidiol (CBD/CBD oil)?

• CBD can be derived from both hemp and cannabis. CBD derived from hemp and
cannabis is a federally-regulated controlled substance. CBD derived from cannabis is
regulated within California as a cannabis product and may only be sourced from,
produced, and sold by those with commercial cannabis licenses. CBD derived from
industrial hemp is not an approved food additive, and therefore it cannot be added
to human or animal foods in California.

• CBD derived from cannabis is a prohibited food additive. Cannabis cannot be sold in
food retail.

• CBD derived from a licensed cannabis cultivator, per MCSB regulations, is an allowed
additive in cannabis products only.

4. Does California consider food products that contain CBD or CBD oil from Industrial hemp a cannabis product?

Although in California, foods containing industrial hemp are not considered cannabis
products (products that are subject to Proposition 64), CBD is an unapproved food additive and NOT allowed for use in human and animal foods per the FDA, and thus it is not approved in California.

5. Can industrial hemp-derived CBD oils be approved as a food ingredient, food additive or dietary supplement to be added in food?

Currently Industrial hemp derived CBD Oil and CBD products are NOT an approved food, food ingredient, food additive or dietary supplement and therefore cannot be used in any human and animal food.

6. If CDPH, MCSB regulates and licenses cannabis (marijuana) derived product manufacturers, which agency oversees CBD oil produced from industrial hemp?

There is currently no regulatory agency that provides oversight over the production of CBD oil from industrial hemp. However, CDPH-FDB has authority oversight over food additives, dietary use products, food labeling, and good manufacturing practices for food. Industrial hemp used as a food additive or dietary supplement falls under the authority of CDPH-FDB.

7. Can industrial hemp derived CBD products be allowed for sale in California if they come from other States? For example, if industrial hemp derived CBD oil is manufactured in another state and sold to customers in California via distributors and retailers?

No, CBD is an unapproved food additive and NOT allowed for use in human and animal foods in California regardless of where the CBD products originate.


SB 829 – The Compassion License

What Is SB 829?

SB 829 (as amended) Senator Scott Wiener’s Cannabis: compassion care license.

“(1) The Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act of 2016 (AUMA), an initiative measure approved as Proposition 64 at the November 8, 2016, statewide general election, authorizes a person who obtains a state license under AUMA to engage in commercial adult-use cannabis activity pursuant to that license and applicable local ordinances. The Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA), among other things, consolidates the licensure and regulation of commercial medicinal and adult-use cannabis activities.

This bill would establish a compassion care license under the act issued to an M-licensee who, for no consideration, donates medicinal cannabis, or medicinal cannabis products, to qualified medicinal cannabis patients who possess a physician’s recommendation. The bill would require the Bureau of Cannabis Control to issue and regulate the compassion care licenses.

(2) Existing sales and use tax laws impose a tax on retailers measured by the gross receipts from the sale of tangible personal property sold at retail in this state, or on the storage, use, or other consumption in this state of tangible personal property purchased from a retailer for storage, use, or other consumption in this state. Those laws provide various exemptions from those taxes.

This bill, on and after January 1, 2019, would exempt from those taxes the gross receipts from the sale in this state of, and the storage, use, or other consumption in this state of, medicinal cannabis or medicinal cannabis products that will be donated, for no consideration, to a compassion care licensee.

(3) The Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law authorizes counties and cities to impose local sales and use taxes in conformity with the Sales and Use Tax Law, and existing laws authorize districts, as specified, to impose transactions and use taxes in accordance with the Transactions and Use Tax Law, which generally conforms to the Sales and Use Tax Law. Amendments to the Sales and Use Tax Law are automatically incorporated into the local tax laws.

Existing law requires the state to reimburse counties and cities for revenue losses caused by the enactment of sales and use tax exemptions.

This bill would provide that, notwithstanding Section 2230 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, no appropriation is made and the state shall not reimburse any local agencies for sales and use tax revenues lost by them pursuant to this bill.

(4) AUMA imposes an excise tax on the purchase of cannabis and cannabis products, as defined, at the rate of 15% of the average market price of any retail sale by a cannabis retailer.

The bill would require that these provisions not be construed to impose an excise tax upon medicinal cannabis, or medicinal cannabis products, donated for no consideration to a compassion care licensee, as defined.

(5) AUMA imposes a cultivation tax on all harvested cannabis that enters the commercial market upon all cultivators. Existing law defines entering the commercial market to mean cannabis or cannabis products, except for immature cannabis plants and seeds, that complete and comply with specified quality assurance review and testing.

This bill would redefine entering the commercial market to mean cannabis or cannabis products intended for sale, in any manner or by any means whatsoever, for consideration. The bill would require that the cultivation tax not be construed to be imposed upon medicinal cannabis, or medicinal cannabis products, donated for no consideration by a cultivator to a compassion care licensee or to a cannabis retailer for subsequent donation to a compassion care licensee.

(6) The Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act, an initiative measure, authorizes the Legislature to amend the act to further the purposes and intent of the act with a 2/3 vote of the membership of both houses of the Legislature, except as provided.

This bill would declare that its provisions further specified purposes and intent of the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act.”

This Bill is supported by, in part, by the California Compassion Coalition

Who Is The California Compassion Coalition?

The California Compassion Coalition is comprised of a number of known compassion organizations who have functioned by giving donated cannabis medicine to indigent cannabis patients across the State of California. The organizations, who make up the California Compassion Coalition are as follows:

Weed For Warriors Project

Caladrius Network


East Bay Canna Compassion

Sweetleaf Collective

Operation EVAC

Magnolia Wellness

How YOU Can Help


One battle has been won but we have many more to go. SB 829 was voted out of the Committee on Business and Professions, on Monday. It passed with and 11-1 vote. Next, we move onto the Committee on Revenue and Taxation and WE NEED ALL HANDS ON DECK.

Revenue and Taxation Committee

Monday, June 25, 2018

1430 hours (2:30pm)

California State Capitol – RM 126

Debriefing Video


Below you will find a sample letter of support for the Compassion Bill, SB 829. We need this post to not only go viral, but we need that exposure to be converted into emails to Senator Wiener’s office by 5pm today. Cannabis and non-cannabis companies carry the most weight with legislators but we should also encourage letters to be sent from those the most affected by the current lack of compassion embodied in the current regulations.
It will take a village to get this bill passed. We really need to step away from the circular firing squad at least until 5pm today. In order to ensure we all focus our energy here for the next 5 hours, we will not be allowing any other posts through. I hope we can lick our wounds and rise up so that the sickest of the sick, the neediest of the needy, are not the recipients of all of our industry’s current resentments. Please let our industry put all of our hurt feelings aside and rise up to honor what this movement has always been about, compassion.
This means that the support needs to come in the form of a Word Doc, or a PDF. The sender will need to date the letter, add in a business logo (if one is available), a digital signature, and the supporter’s contact information.
June 11, 2018
Dear Senator Wiener,
On behalf of _______ I write to express our support for Senate Bill 829 (Wiener), which would exempt certified compassion care programs from paying excise and cultivation taxes on cannabis that they give away to compassion use patients, thereby allowing them to restart this service without facing prohibitive costs. Exempting the cultivation and excise taxes from the passage on to qualified compassion care programs will allow these organizations to resume donations of medical cannabis that vulnerable patients rely on to manage their debilitating symptoms.
In 1996, California passed Proposition 215, which allowed individuals with certain chronic medical conditions to procure medical cannabis. Following the enactment of Proposition 215, donation-based compassion care programs emerged to meet the needs of individuals who had a physician’s recommendation but also needed help accessing medical cannabis.
The enactment of Proposition 64 in 2018 placed new taxes on all recreational and medical cannabis. While compassion care programs do not operate in the commercial market since no cannabis is bought or sold, ambiguous drafting, unfortunately, does not explicitly exclude them from these taxes. These donation-based programs cannot afford the new taxes attached to cannabis and most have been forced to close their doors. While Proposition 64 did not intend to cut off medical cannabis to these compassion use patients, current policy has forced too many vulnerable people into the unregulated black market.
To rectify this situation, SB 829 would exempt qualifying compassion care programs from the cultivation and excise tax enacted by Proposition 64. After a compassion care program is certified by the state, they would receive a new license exempting them from the cultivation and excise taxes. Doing so will allow them to resume the donations of medical cannabis that compassion use patients rely on to manage their debilitating symptoms.
These programs are essential to the well-being, mental health, and overall quality of life for chronically ill patients. For these reasons, ______ supports SB 829 and requests an “AYE” vote on this important legislation.
Thank you,
****DIGITAL SIGNATURE.  ______________
cc: Senator Scott Wiener, (11th District)”
COPY & PASTE the above text along with your business or personal name, sign and send to……

California Cannabis Voters Guide 2018

By: The Law Office of Dale Schafer

Contributors:,  Jaded Voter, El Dorado County Growers Alliance, California – City & County Regulation Watch,, CoolConnections,, Red Bluff Daily News, Newell’s Botanicals, MendoCanna Action, Oceanside For A Safer Community, broke-ass stuart, The San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters, Women Entrepreneurs in Cannabis


*** Please be advised that this is NOT a document intending to instruct potential voters on how to vote. The California Cannabis Voters Guide is simply a list, which includes pro-cannabis candidates across the State of California, and should be used as a tool to make the best decision for yourself.


Voters Guide Key

Pro-Cannabis Candidates

Neutral or Unknown on Cannabis Issues

Anti-Cannabis Candidates





Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom. A longtime advocate of drug harm reduction, Newsom convened a Blue Ribbon Task Force on legalization that served as a blueprint for Prop 64, which he backed strongly. Some worry that Newsom is partial to big-money interests. As of last July, he had received over $300K in donations from the cannabis industry. Newsom has a history of leadership on other social issues, most notably gay marriage, which he championed as Mayor of San Francisco, as well as gun control and single-payer health care.


Former LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, is speaker of the state Assembly, and was not a leader on medical marijuana or criminal justice reform, but consistently voted right. After becoming mayor in 2005, he quietly let medical cannabis dispensaries open up in Los Angeles, which had previously been a cannabis desert. Nine days before the 2016 election he endorsed Prop. 64.


State Treasurer John Chiang has used his office to help secure banking services for the state’s developing cannabis industry. Chiang convened a task force on cannabis and banking, in an effort to circumvent federal banking regulations that have made it almost impossible for many cannabis-related organizations to get bank accounts. His efforts have won him the endorsement of the Cannabis Growers Association.


Former State Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin, another Democratic hand raiser, is the only woman in the race. She posted a mixed voting record in the pre-Prop 215 days when she was in the State Assembly from 1986 to 1994. Like her party, though, she has since come around, and has declared her support for making California a cannabis sanctuary state and establishing a state bank for cannabis businesses.




Incumbent Xavier Becerra was appointed by Gov. Brown to fill the seat of Sen. Kamala Harris. Since taking office, Becerra has aggressively moved to protect California’s interests against federal interference. Admitting to have tried pot “at a younger time,” he has vowed to protect the state’s legalization law against federal intrusion by A.G. Jeff Sessions.


Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones has reached out to the cannabis community for support. Jones has used his office constructively to arrange a state deal to insure landlords of cannabis businesses. Jones admits to having voted no on Prop. 64, saying he was ambivalent about whether the state was ready, “but ultimately the proposition passed, and my job is to make it work.”



State Senator Ed Hernández (D-Asuza), has generally voted well and thoughtfully on cannabis issues, medical and otherwise.


Richmond ex-Mayor Gayle McLaughlin, formerly of the Green Party, is running as an independent progressive in the mold of Bernie Sanders. McLaughlin advocates the establishment of a California Public Bank to reduce fees for government financing and provide stability to the cannabis industry.


Two other Democrats without prior electoral experience or voting records are running well-financed campaigns for the office. Former U.S. ambassador to Hungary Eleni Koulanakis visited a cannabis farm in Trinity and says she’s learned about California’s history on cannabis from the earliest days of hemp growing until Prop 64. Former U.S. ambassador to Australia Jeff Bleich visited a cannabis forum in Santa Monica, where he joked “If there was ever a case of someone who would benefit from medical marijuana, it would be Jeff Sessions.”



The Democrats have an excellent candidate in State Controller Betty Yee. When serving on the Board of Equalization in 2009, Yee emerged as one of the first state officials to publicly advocate legally taxed and regulated cannabis. Yee actively courted the medical cannabis community, and enjoys wide support from both business and consumer interests.



The Democrats have another good candidate in Fiona Ma, who like Yee before her now serves on the Board of Equalization from San Francisco. Upon joining the board, she took a serious interest in the cannabis industry, talking to farmers and touring businesses to figure out how they could best be integrated in California’s legal economy.

This information courtesy of




State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León (D- L.A.) is Feinstein’s leading challenger. De León is campaigning from the progressive left as an energetic, young advocate for protecting immigrants, the environment and clean energy, and other progressive issues. In the legislature, De León was not a vocal leader on drug or criminal justice reform, but consistently voted right. Just before Feinstein’s about-face, de León announced that he would back Sen. Cory Booker’s Marijuana Justice Act. “Cory Booker’s bill recognizes that legal cannabis is the law of the land in California and many other states. More importantly, it corrects deep-rooted racial disparities in the criminal justice system. I would join Sen. Sanders as a cosponsor in a heartbeat,” he tweeted.

Alison Hartson is running for Senate in California, but you wouldn’t know it by looking at the headlines. Hartson, who supports nationwide legalization – and decriminalization of all drugs – has a compelling message focused on separating the influence of big donors from politics. Yet, her pro-cannabis campaign has been running on a grass-roots level that’s been largely overlooked by major media and polling. This information courtesy of

Another, dark horse Democratic candidate, Pat Harris, an L.A. attorney with no prior elective experience, has been actively campaigning on the marijuana issue. “ I was and still remain a proponent of Prop 64 and the legalization of cannabis,” proclaims his website. “It is hypocritical for politicians to expound on the dangers of cannabis while sitting around a bar downing drink after drink.” In addition to marijuana legalization, Harris has focused on advocating single payer health care, banning corporate campaign donations, and cutting defense department spending.


The Republicans have no official candidate in the race, having expelled neo-Nazi Patrick Little, a professed “pro-white” candidate who admires Adolf Hitler. Little will nonetheless bear the party’s name on the ballot.

This information courtesy of






Many districts are sure wins for incumbents; some key or contested districts are:

4th C.D. – Roseville – Incumbent Republican Tom McClintock is a rock-ribbed, small-government conservative who opposes federal interference in California’s marijuana laws. He co-sponsored an amendment that would have barred the U.S. Dept. of Justice from spending funds to undermine state adult-use legalization laws. The amendment, modeled on the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment that protects medical-only marijuana laws, nearly passed the House in 2015 and hasn’t been allowed to come to a vote since then.


10th C.D. – Modesto/Manteca – Incumbent Republican Jeff Denham is a social conservative with an atrocious voting record; his main Democratic opponent, as in 2014 and 2016, will be Michael Eggman, who “supports legalization in California, so long as it’s passed by the voters, the age of consent is 21, and, of course, it is still illegal to operate a vehicle while under the influence.”


25th C.D. – Palmdale/Santa Clarita – Incumbent Republican Steve Knight has a mediocre “C” voting record, but has acknowledged that marijuana has medical value and should be reclassified to Schedule III; his Democratic opponent Bryan Caforio was is in favor of Prop 64.


39th C.D. – Fullerton – Republican Edward Royce has termed out, and a crowded field of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents are vying for the seat. The top GOP frontrunners include Orange County Supervisor Shawn Nelson, who was the sole dissenting vote against a ban on cannabis businesses in 2017, and also favored suing the over the sanctuary state law. Democrats in the race include former Naval officer and lottery winner Gil Cisneros, insurance executive Andy Thorburn, pediatrician Mai Khan Tran, and attorney Sam Jammal. Their positions are not known.


45th C.D. – Irvine – Republican Mimi Walters, who has a NORML “D” rating in Congress and was on DPFCA’s State Senate Hall of Shame, is the sole Republican on the ballot. She faces Democratic challengers Dave Min, a former adviser to Sen. Chuck Schumer and the Center for American Progress, and Katie Porter, a consumer protection lawyer and former student of Sen. Elizabeth Warren at Harvard Law.


48th C.D. – Republican Dana Rohrabacher has been a leading champion for cannabis in Congress, being the co-sponsor of the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer (or -Farr) Amendment that currently bars the U.S. Dept. of Justice from spending funds to undermine state medical marijuana laws. He is facing a challenge from within his own party from O.C. County GOP chair and ex-Assemblyman Scott Baugh who compiled a so-so voting record in the legislature.


49th C.D. – Oceanside/Dana Point – Democrat Douglas Appelgate, who is well funded and polling well in his race for the seat, is endorsed by Americans for Safe Access.


50th C.D. – San Diego – Embattled encumbent Duncan D. Hunter is one of the few Republicans who has taken a strong stance for marijuana reform. He co-sponsored the “Respect State Marijuana Laws Act of 2015” the CARERS Act, and Charlotte’s Web Medical Access Act. Hunter won an “All Star” rating from the San Diego Association of Cannabis Professionals, as did his opponent, Democratic party activist and businessman Ammar Campa Najjar.

This information courtesy of







AD 15 – Berkeley/Oakland – Berkeley school board member Judy Appel is an attorney who worked for the Drug Policy Alliance and on Oakland’s 2004 Measure Z “Legalize, Tax and Regulate” initiative. Since then she has been active in the gay parents’ movement and educational issues. Appel is exceptionally knowledgeable and sympathetic on drug war issues. Another candidate who has reached out to the cannabis community is Richmond councilmember Jovanka Beckles. Beckles is running a progressive, “people-powered” campaign and has forsworn corporate donations. Her platform advocates criminal justice reform: “Mass incarceration must be ended, drug offenses should result in rehabilitation, not imprisonment, and the use of illegal drugs should be decriminalized.” A third candidate, Oakland City Councilman Dan Kalb, a thoughtful and hard-working legislator with an interest in environmental issues, has helped keep the city council on course by sponsoring sensible regulations of the city’s cannabis industry


AD 76 – Oceanside: Rocky Chavez has termed out and is running for Congress; Thomas Krouse (R), supports medical marijuana and was endorsed by San Diego Citizens for Patients Rights.


District 8 (Amador, Calaveras, Fresno, Inyo, Madera, Mariposa, Mono, Sacramento, Stanislaus, Tulare, Tuolumne) – Republican contender and Fresno county supervisor Andreas Borgeas does not support the use or sale of marijuana. Also running are Democrats Paulina Miranda and Tom Pratt, and Independent Mark Belden.


District 12 (Fresno, Madera, Merced, Monterey, San Benito, Stanislaus) – Assemblywoman Anna Caballero has a good voting record. Also in the race are Fowler Mayor Pro-Tem Daniel Parra, Madera County Supervisor Rob Poythress, and the self-described “very conservative” Johnny Tacherra.


District 16 (Kern, Riverside, San Bernardino, Tulare) – Democratic archeologist and activist Ruth Musser-Lopez is unopposed. On the Republican side, former Assemblywoman Shannon Grove has a dismal voting record; Gregory Tatum is also running.


District 22 (Los Angeles) – There are no Republicans running in this district; Democrats on the ballot include Assemblyman Mike Eng, who has a good voting record.


District 32 (Los Angeles, Orange) – Democrat Tony Mendoza, who resigned his post following a sexual misconduct investigation, is running for his seat again without his party’s endorsement. He faces a crowded field of Democratic candidates. Republicans Ion Sarega and Rita Topalian are also running.

This information courtesy of



*** This portion of the California Cannabis Voters Guide is a work in progress. The bolded counties are based upon information provided by local publications and organizations. If you have information for a county, not bolded, please email and the information will be updated within 2 business days.


Alameda County –

District Attorney:

Incumbent Nancy O’Malley

Pamela Price

This information courtesy of


Alpine County –

Amador County –


Butte County –

District Attorney:

Michael L. Ramsey


Kory L. Honea


Calaveras County

Supervisor District 3:



Supervisor District 5:





This information courtesy of Viv CK of California – City & County Regulation Watch


Colusa County –


Contra Costa County

District Attorney:

Incumbent Diane Becton

Superintendent of Schools

Ron Leone

Supervisor District 4

Karen Mitchoff

This information courtesy of and California – City & County Regulation Watch


Del Norte County


El Dorado County

Supervisor District 4:

Sue Novasel

Supervisor District 5:

Michael Ranalli


Mike Owens

This information courtesy of El Dorado County Growers Alliance


Fresno County –

District 1:

Incumbent Esmeralda Soria

District 3:

Darren Miller
Kimberly Tapscott-Munson
Miguel Arias

Larry Tyrone Burrus

Sean Sanchez

Craig Scharton

Tate Hill

District 5:

Incumbent Luis Chavez

Paula Yang

Paul Condon

District 7:

Brian Whelan,

Nelson Esparza  

Veva Islas

This information courtesy of and Central Valley NORML


Glenn County


Humboldt County –

Supervisor District 4:

Mary Ann Lyons

Dani Burkhart

Virginia Bass

Supervisor District 5:

Steve Madrone

Ryan Sundberg


Mike Lorig

Karen Paz Dominguez


Imperial County

Inyo County


Kern County –

Superior Court Judge:

Office #10

Chad Allen Louie

George “Brandon” Martin

Office #14

H. Cole McKnight

John Lance Fielder

Supervisor, District 2:

Whitney Weddell

Dalmas “Dal” Bunn

Zack Scrivner

Michael Biglay

District Attorney:

Scott Spielman

Cynthia Zimmer


Donny Youngblood

Justin Fleeman



Kings County

Lake County

Lassen County


Los Angeles County –

Superior Court Judge:

Office #4 Alfred Coletta

Office #16 Sydne Jane Michel

Office #20 Wendy Segall

Office # 60 Holly Hancock

Office #63 neither are cannabis friendly

Office # 57 Maria Lucy Armendariaz

Office # 71 David Berger

Office # 113 Javier Perez

Office #126 Rene Caldwell Gilbertson

Office #146 Armando Dur`on

This information courtesy of


Madera County

Marin County

Mariposa County


Mendocino County –

Supervisor District 3:

Susy Barsotti

John Haschak

Tony Tucker

Cyndee Logan

This information courtesy of MendoCanna Action


Merced County

Modoc County

Monterey County

Napa County


Nevada County

District 4:

Sue Hoek

 District 3:

Hilary Hodge

Dan Miller

District Attorney:

Glenn Jennings


John Foster

Shannon Moon

NID District 1:

Ricki Heck

NID District 2:

John Volz

Nevada City & County information contributed by Jaded Voter


Orange County

Placer County

Plumas County

Riverside County


Sacramento County –

District Attorney:

Noah Philips

Anne Marie Schubert


Milo Fitch

Scott Jones

This information courtesy of


Sacramento City

City Council District 5:

Tamika L’ecuse

This information courtesy of Newell’s Botanicals


San Benito County


San Bernardino County –

San Bernardino City –


Rick Avila

Carey Davis

Gigi Hanna

Danny Malmuth

Karmel Roe

Danny Tillman

John Valdivia


San Diego County –

District Attorney

Summer Stephan

Genevieve Jones-Wright


Dave Myers

Supervisor District 4

Bonnie Dumanis

Lori Saldaña

Supervisor District 5

Jerry Kern

Michelle Gomez


Carlsbad –


Cori Shumacher  



City Council District 1

Chuck Lowery

City Council District 2

Terry Johnson

Vista –


Joe Green

City council District 1

Corina Contraras
This information courtesy of This information courtesy of and Oceanside For A Safer Community.

San Francisco County

Supervisor District 8

Rafael Mandelman

Superior Court Judge

Office No. 4: Phoenix Streets

Office No. 7: Maria Evangelista

Office No. 9: Kwixuan H. Maloof

Office No. 11: Niki Solis


San Francisco City –


Amy Farah Weiss

This information courtesy of broke-ass stuart and The San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters.


San Joaquin County


San Luis Obispo County –

The majority of our current board of county supervisors are less open to cannabis-based businesses and that includes incumbent candidate, Lynn Compton. The other incumbent running for re-election is Bruce Gibson and he is more favorable on the issue. I do not know where their opponents running for election – Jimmy Paulding and Jeff Eckles –  stand on the issue. Their websites are not very helpful either in stating their positions on cannabis.

San Luis Obispo City –


Heidi Harmon


Carlyn Christianson

This information courtesy of Moxy Marketing and SLO Chamber of Commerce


San Mateo County


Santa Barbara County –


Lt. Eddie Hseuh


Lompoc City –

City Council District 2

Victor Vega

City Council District 3

Dirk Starbuck



Santa Clara County

Santa Cruz County

Shasta County

Sierra County

Siskiyou County

Solano County


Sonoma County


Mark Essick

John Mutz

Ernesto Olivares

Supervisor District 2

David Rabbit

Supervisor District 4

Shirley Zane


Stanislaus County

Sutter County


Tehama County


Red Bluff

Supervisor District 3

Dennis Garton

Robert Halpin
This information courtesy of Red Bluff Daily News


Trinity County

Tulare County

Tuolumne County

Ventura County


Yolo County

District Attorney

Dean Johansson


Tom Lopez

Supervisor District 3

Gary Sandy

Meg Stallard


Yuba County


June Cannabis Tax Measures

Merced County – Measure Y would authorize Merced to tax commercial marijuana businesses at $25 per square foot of cultivation space or 10 percent of gross receipts, whichever is greater, until the tax is ended by voters.

Mammoth Lakes – Measure C would authorize Mammoth Lakes to:
– impose a 1 percent tax on marijuana testing laboratory gross receipts;
– impose a 2 percent tax on marijuana cultivation, distribution, and manufacturing businesses;
– impose a 4 percent on gross receipts of marijuana retail businesses; and
– adopt regulatory provisions defining, conducting audits about, and establishing an appeal procedure for the marijuana tax.

Mono County – Measure D would authorize the County to impose:
– a marijuana business tax ranging from $0.50 to $2 depending on square footage of plant canopy, and
– a tax on marijuana business gross receipts ranging from 1 percent to 8 percent depending on the type of business activity.

Pasadena – Measure CC would repeal the existing ban on commercial marijuana and allowing commercial marijuana businesses to operate in the city, subject to local regulations and taxation.
Measure DD would authorize the city to tax commercial marijuana businesses at rates up to $10.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation, 6 percent of gross receipts for retail cannabis businesses, and 4 percent for all other cannabis businesses, with revenue to be used for general city purposes.

San Benito County – Measure C would establish the following tax rates based on square footage of canopy or gross receipts:
– $3-$17 per square foot, increased annually based on Consumer Price Index, on cultivators,
– 0.5%-4% on distributors and laboratories,
– 2.5%-4% on manufacturers,
– 0.5%-8% on retailers, and
– 2.5%-5% on microbusiness.


San Francisco City – Amy Farrah Weiss for Mayor, Jeff Sheehy for Supervisor District 8

San Luis Obispo County – Measure B-18 would authorize the County to impose a tax on gross receipts of marijuana business beginning at 4 percent and increasing annually to a maximum of 10 percent for general revenue purposes.

San Rafael – Measure G would authorize San Rafael to impose a tax on the gross receipts of marijuana businesses at a maximum rate of 8 percent per year for general spending purposes.

Santa Barbara – Measure T is a general tax on marijuana operations in Santa Barbara. A yes vote is a vote in favor of authorizing Santa Barbara County to impose an operations tax on marijuana operators’ gross receipts. A no vote will essentially revoke legalization and regulation within the county.

Santa Cruz (city) – Measure T would repeal Measure K of 2006, which authorizes Santa Cruz law enforcement to enforce marijuana offenses at the lowest level of priority. A no vote is a vote against repealing Measure K, thereby maintaining the ordinance in the municipal code stating that law enforcement may enforce marijuana offenses at the lowest level of priority. VOTE NO ON MEASURE T!

Sierra County – Measure A would authorize Sierra County to prohibit commercial marijuana cultivation, processing, and dispensaries. VOTE NO ON MEASURE A!

Weed – Measure K would authorize the city of Weed to impose a tax on marijuana businesses in the following amounts:
– $10 per square foot of outdoor grow area,
– $18 per square foot of grow area using natural and artificial light,
– $26 per square foot of indoor grow area, or
– 10 percent of yearly gross receipts.

Yolo County – Measure K would authorize the County to impose a tax on marijuana business in unincorporated areas of the county at a rate of between 1 percent and 15 percent of gross receipts, with initial rates of 4 percent for cultivation and 5 percent for other businesses and with the ability to increase or decrease the tax by up to 2 percentage points each year.

Yucca Valley – Measure L would authorize Yucca Valley to allow state-licensed commercial marijuana operations including indoor cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, and testing.


This information courtesy of Jacqueline McGowan, of California – City & County Regulation Watch and CAL NORML


Blog at

Up ↑