More On Marijuana, And A Bleg

Since I already kicked off the weekend with one pot post, I thought I’d continue the trend by mentioning the excellent recent article in Fortune magazine by Roger Parloff, How Marijuana Became Legal.  As Parloff notes, the medical marijuana industry has taken off in recent years, fueled by changing public perceptions of the activity’s acceptability, the economic recession’s impact on state and county public coffers (the Lounge previously covered Oakland’s pot tax), and the announcement by attorney general Eric Holder that the Obama administration (in contrast to the Bush – and, I think, Clinton administration) would no longer engage in federal drug raids and prosecutions against those in compliance with state medical marijuana laws.  As a result, according to Parloff, more than half the states either have or are considering laws legalizing to some extent medical marijuana. (See chart at right on the “greening” of America.  Source: NORML.org)

California is, of course, the most visible arena for the great medical marijuana experiment, with about 700 dispensaries now in open operation.  186 of those are registered in Los Angeles, outnumbering both Starbucks and McDonald’s (this latter accomplishment is quite a feat, considering this). See also chart, below left, courtesy of Fortune. And this doesn’t count the 736 LA dispensaries that filed hardship exceptions, many of which opened and are operating.  LA Councilman Dennis Zine estimates that there are actually closer to 600 dispensaries operating in Los Angeles.

Given my interest in both organizational form and “taboo trades” – goods or services whose trade for monetary profit is constrained or delegitimized, but whose exchange for other motive (love, altruism, or loyalty, for example, is tolerated or even encouraged) – I found one of the most interesting parts of the article to be the discussion of California SB 420 (opens pdf).  Designed to clarify some legal issues left vague by Prop 215, SB 420 contains a provision that protects patients or caregivers who “associate . . . in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes,” and further states that, “nor shall anything in this section authorize any individual or group to cultivate or distribute marijuana for profit.” (emphasis mine)

According to some sources quoted by Parloff, the vast majority of California’s dispensaries are not legal under this definition.  Oakland appears to have at least tacitly endorsed the “for profit” medical marijuana trade, SB 420 notwithstanding, by passing municipal regulations prohibiting dispensary operators from earning “excessive profits,” and one of Oakland’s four dispensary operators acknowledges that he runs a “for profit” business. 

So here’s my bleg:  does anyone out there have further background information, sources, and the like on either the organizational form, tax status, operation, or any other information about California’s dispensaries that might be relevant to those specific provisions of SB 420?  I’m especially interested in information about dispensaries in Oakland and LA, though information on any California dispensary is welcome.  If so, please respond in the comments, or drop me an email.  I thank you, and my RA thanks you. 

I feel that an appropriate sign off is in order . . . high times?

Comments

[Vladimir]

Kim, here's a thought. Maybe we could give our U.C. friends some of this, in lieu of pay, on their furlough days. This might mellow them out a bit, dulling their urges to zero out of the budget their colleagues at other UC campuses or in other departments.

[Kim Krawiec]

lol. You may be on to something, Vladimir.