The Marijuana Grower's Guide

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

The Marijuana Grower's Guide THE MARIJUANA GROWER’S GUIDE by Mel Frank and Ed Rosenthal Revised 1992 THE MARIJUANA GROWER’S GUIDE by Mel Frank and Ed Rosenthal Typed by Ben Dawson Revised 1992 Note from the uploader: I originally found this as a Word document. At this time there doesn’t seem to be any commercially produced copies of this work available on torrent sites so I’ve taken some time to format and convert it to PDF. It’s possible this copy was at one time translated from European Spanish, as the Word document was set to use the dictionary for that language although the spelling was in UK English which I’ve edited to American English Everything after this point is pretty much as I found it. Any editing I’ve done has been minimal as possible, mostly for changing spelling to American English. Most, if not all figures and illustrations are missing. I have managed to salvage some tables. I’ve spent about 12 hours making this readable. All notes from this point forward are from the original typist. January 2009 NOTE: Footnotes have been placed in double brackets (()). Numbers throughout refer to bibliography and are sometimes in brackets, sometimes they aren’t. All dates are for northern hemisphere only. Comments on pictures are in curly brackets {}. Please distribute this widely so we can all smoke better marijuana. Legalize marijuana. 4 October 1996 Copying this book was a mega-mission that took about 3 weeks in the September of 1993. Everything in the book has been copied - even the bibliography. Ben Dawson January 1998 Hyperlinks were added throughout the document for easy navigation. Also the text was formatted to be more readable. Alonso Acuña. August 1999 This File is currently available at http://www.mellowgold.com/grow As far as we are aware, it’s the only place online to find it, please distribute this file freely. Mellow Gold Staff CONTENTS Foreword Preface History and Taxonomy of Cannabis Cannabis and Ancient History Cannabis and American History Cannabis and: Species or Varieties Cannabinoids: The Active Ingredients of Marijuana Cannabinoids and the High Resin and Resin Glands Production of Cannabinoids by Cannabis Cannabis Chemotypes Before Cultivation Begins Choosing Seeds Cannabis Life Cycle Photoperiod and Flowering Inherent Variations in Potency Cultivation: Indoors or Outdoors? Indoor Gardening Introduction Artificial Light Features Sources Setting up the Garden Electricity Soil and Containers for it Pots and Other Containers Properties of Soil Preparing Commercial Soils and Mixers Buying Soil Components Digging Soil Growing Methods Maintaining the Correct Environment Requirements for Germination Light Cycle and Distance of Lights from Plants Water Air Humidity Gardening Techniques Thinning Transplanting Supports for Plants Uniform Growth Pruning Training Nutrients and Fertilizing Nutrients Application: Fertilizing Nutrient Deficiencies Soil-less Mixtures Diseases and Plant Pests Microbial Diseases Nutrient Diseases Plant Pests Maintenance and Restarting Outdoor Cultivation Choosing a Site Where to Grow Light Soil Types of Soil Humus and Composts Texture pH Fertilizers Techniques for Preparing Soils Guerrilla Farming Planting and Transplanting When to Plant Preparing to Sow Germination Transplanting Caring for the Growing Plants Weeding Watering Thinning Staking Pruning Gardening Tips Insects and Other Pests Biological Control Chemical Insecticides Common Pests Vertebrate Pests Flowering, Breeding and Propagation Genetics and Sex in Cannabis Flowering Sexual Variants in Cannabis Sexing the Plants Sinsemilla Propagation and Breeding Producing Seeds Producing Female Seeds Breeding Cuttings Grafting Polyploids Effects of the Environment on Potency Stress Nutrients Harvesting, Curing and Drying Harvesting Harvesting During Growth: Leaves and Growing Shoots Male Plants Harvesting Female Buds Weather Potency and Decomposition Timing the Harvest Final Harvest After the Harvest Stripping Grading and Manicuring Curing Drying Fermentation Storage Bibliography Foreword Marijuana, or cannabis as it is known internationally, is a plant whose presence is almost universal in our world today. Conservative international reports estimate that there are now 300 million cannabis users. Recent reports indicate that 10 percent of the adult population in the United States are regular users, a figure which is probably similar for many countries in Europe. Its use is also widespread in Africa, Asia, many Arab nations, parts of South America and the Caribbean, as well as Australia and New Zealand. In 1978, more than 5.2 million kilograms (12 million pounds) of cannabis were seized by police worldwide. Authorities estimated that this did not exceed 10 percent of the total traffic. What has been the response of officials around the world to the use of this plant by its citizens? Regrettably, the climate has been one of almost universal repression, hostility and open violence. Despite gains made in the United States and Europe throughout the 1970’s, a new wave of ignorance regarding the use of this plant seems to be sweeping the world. Predictably, the United States has sought to export this “neo-Reefer Madness” to other countries. A united Nations sub-commission of drug enforcement officials in the Far East released a report some time ago extremely critical of the efforts of some countries to decriminalize (i.e. remove criminal penalties for possession of a small amount) cannabis. The sub-commission stated that any such reduction of penalties would vastly increase use, and strongly urged that all countries continue to keep strict laws on the books even for possession of cannabis1. Others requested that publicity campaign be conducted in the media against cannabis, and that more funding be given to “scientific” work to prove that cannabis was harmful2. US officials, alarmed by reports of cannabis use among adolescents (which, although undesirably high, is in fact leveling off), and by political pressure from reactionary elements, have attempted to depict cannabis as the greatest threat since the atomic bomb. The results of this new hysteria have been great confusion among the public and a slowdown in the progress of cannabis law reform. The results have been predictable: in 1979, over 448,000 people were arrested in the USA for cannabis possession, 80 percent for simple possession. The estimated direct arrests cost to our increasingly debt-ridden government was over $600 million. But no one has ever attempted to account for the total cost of the immense law enforcement efforts against cannabis: for the salaries of Drug Enforcement Administration agents and federal and state narcotics agents and support personnel, the cost of incarcerating the thousands of people sentences to jail (estimated at 10 percent of the total arrests, or 48.000 people), the costs of the anti-cannabis media campaign, the secret grants from NSA/CIA for cannabis eradications, and the economic cost to society created by turning law-abiding citizens into criminals. When these factors are taken into consideration, the cost goes into the billions. By contrast, in the eleven states which have enacted decriminalization since 1972, millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of court, police and administrative work-hours have been saved. What can the concerned cannabis consumer do to end this climate of hysteria and ignorance? First, we must stress that cannabis legalization would entail adult use only, and that social and legal restrictions on the use of cannabis would curtail, not increase, use by adolescents. Second, we must educate the public about the genuine effects of cannabis and stress moderate responsible use. This is what we stress about the user of society’s legal drugs - alcohol, nicotine and caffeine, and we should take the same approach toward cannabis. Third, the public should be educated about the limits of the law and the rights of citizens; we should not seek to regulate private behavior through the use of the criminal sanction. Laws protecting public safety, such as driving while under the influence of any substance, would still be kept on the books. However, as consumers we have an additional responsibility: we must begin to address the problems of supply and demand. It is essential that we take upon ourselves the task of proposing viable solutions to the current unworkable prohibition. With this is mind, numerous cannabis reform organizations around the world have begun exploring models for the legalization of cannabis. Under the auspices of the International Cannabis Alliance for Reform (ICAR), an international organization of cannabis law-reform groups, many of these organizations met in Amsterdam, Holland in February, 1980, at the first International Cannabis Legalization Conference to discuss legalization plans and proposals. The many plans presented reflected the various backgrounds and interests of the countries they represented some called for a totally open-market system run by cooperatives, others employed elaborate organizational systems with varying degrees of governmental control, and still others called for total control by the private sector. Emphasis was placed on the need for all groups to develop legalization models suited to their own particular climate and country and that a single, monolithic legalization plan was neither feasible nor desirable. However, virtually all the plans had one important element in common: every person would have the right to grow cannabis for his or her own personal use. This is the very minimum requirement upon which
Recommended publications
  • Medical Cannabis Cultivation Center Application Illinois Department of Agriculture Springfield, Illinois
    Medical Cannabis Cultivation Center Application Illinois Department of Agriculture Springfield, Illinois Schedule 1 – Suitability of the Proposed Facility The following Measures are found in Section 1000.110(b)(1) of the rules: Measure 1: The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed facility is suitable for effective and safe cultivation of medical cannabis, is sufficient in size, power allocation, air exchange and air flow, interior layout, lighting, and sufficient both in the interior and exterior to handle the bulk agricultural production of medical cannabis, cannabis-infused products, product handling, storage, trimming, packaging, loading and shipping. The loading/unloading of medical cannabis in the transport motor vehicle for shipping shall be in an enclosed, secure area out of public sight. Measure 2: The applicant must demonstrate the ability to continue to meet qualifying patient demand by expanding the cultivation facility in a quick and efficient manner with minimal impact on the environment and the surrounding community. Measure 3: The applicant provides an employee handbook that will provide employees with a working guide to the understanding of the day-to-day administration of personnel policies and practices. The following outline is meant as a guide for the applicant to follow in submitting information to meet the above Measures. It is not an all-inclusive list or description of required information. It is the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate compliance with the rules and application instructions. Any engineering drawings, flow diagrams, and descriptions must be adequate to illustrate your plans. 1. Location Area Map (1000.40(e), 1000.100(d)(19), 1000.220(a)) Provide a location map of the area surrounding the facility.
    [Show full text]
  • Williamstown Cannabis Cultivation Business Plan
    Williamstown Cannabis Cultivation Business Plan Davis Collison and Rosa Kirk-Davidoff We are on the stolen land of the Stockbridge-Munsee Band of the Mohican. “The legal marijuana industry has the potential to save local farms and repair a broken food system.”- Suehiko Ono, EOS Farms Introduction Averill Cook Davis and Rosa ● Who we are ● Environmental Planning ○ Senior Seminar for Environmental Studies Majors ● This project - Williamstown Cannabis Cultivation ● Questions: Best scale to start? Opportunities for a craft market? Jake Zieminski Our Clients ● Averill H Cook ○ Born and raised in Williamstown. ○ BS degree from University of Vermont ○ Owned and operated a pellet manufacturing business for 12 years ○ Traveled throughout numerous countries consulting in wood energy ○ Maintained an operated Wendling Farm in Williamstown where he grew up ○ Superior land stewardship has been paramount throughout his career Averill Cook Jake Zieminski Our Clients ● Jake Zieminski ○ Born and raised in Cheshire Ma on family dairy farm. Lived in Boston for 20 years and recently moved family back in 2018 to launch cannabis start-up. ○ Cannabis Entrepreneur ■ Current owner of CAVU Hemp, Cheshire Ma- MDAR licensed 2019 ■ 2021- CCC – Marijuana Cultivation Applicant ■ Cannabis Activist, Educator and Advisor since 2014 ○ Prior to transitioning into Cannabis industry in 2018, Mr. Zieminski was a management consultant focused in healthcare. Mr. Zieminski has spent the primary part of his career in client based performance improvement roles at PricewaterhouseCoopers(PwC),
    [Show full text]
  • Up in Smoke: Removing Marijuana from Schedule I
    UP IN SMOKE (DO NOT DELETE) 4/9/2018 12:38 PM UP IN SMOKE: REMOVING MARIJUANA FROM SCHEDULE I DAVID R. KATNER* I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 167 II. DESCRIPTION OF MARIJUANA AND PUBLIC OPINION .......................... 170 III. HISTORY OF MARIJUANA USES AND LAWS IN THE U.S. AND ABROAD ......................................................................................... 174 IV. CREATION OF SCHEDULES OF DRUGS ................................................ 177 V. EVOLUTION OF MEDICINAL APPLICATIONS OF MARIJUANA ............... 178 VI. ADDICTIVE? ........................................................................................ 181 VII. DISSEMINATED PROPAGANDA ABOUT MARIJUANA, AND LEGAL ARBITRARINESS .............................................................................. 184 VIII. RESCHEDULING MARIJUANA TO SCHEDULE II ................................ 190 IX. REMOVING MARIJUANA ALTOGETHER FROM FEDERAL REGULATION .................................................................................. 195 X. CONCLUSION........................................................................................ 202 I. INTRODUCTION Billions of dollars are spent each year arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating Americans convicted of possession of cannabis or marijuana.1 During the 1970’s, annual marijuana arrests ranged between 420,000 and 500,000 people each year.2 By 1995, there were roughly 600,000 marijuana arrests nationwide, with more Americans being imprisoned
    [Show full text]
  • Gold Rush to Green Rush: Cannabis Cultivation on Yurok Tribal Lands
    From Gold Rush to Green Rush: Cannabis Cultivation on Yurok Tribal Lands Kaitlin Reed Ph.D. Candidate, Native American Studies, University of California, Davis Charles Eastman Fellow of Native American Studies, Dartmouth College “The New World is in fact a very old world.” Anderson, M. Kat. Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge and the Management of California's Natural Resources. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005. 2019 North American Cannabis Summit 2 California Indians “Pre Contact”: over 1 million 1769: ~500,000 Native people living in California 1900: Less than 20,000 2019 North American Cannabis Summit 3 3 Waves of California Genocide Spanish Missionization (1769-1820) Mexican-American War (1821-1845) Gold Rush/Formation of California (1846- 1873) 2019 North American Cannabis Summit 4 2019 North American Cannabis Summit 5 Environmental Impacts of Gold Mining . Food depletion . Impacts to water quantity/quality . Mercury contamination . Destruction of other natural resources, e.g. timber 2019 North American Cannabis Summit 6 Yurok Tribal Lands 2019 North American Cannabis Summit 7 2019 North American Cannabis Summit 8 Gold Rush Green Rush 1. Land Dispossession 2. Indian Removal 3. Cultural Sovereignty 4. Ecological Colonialism 5. Impacts to Water 6. Impacts to Wildlife 7. Prioritization of Profit 8. Generational Impacts 2019 North American Cannabis Summit 9 Rush Mentality The Rush mentality is what founded Humboldt County… people act like that was so long ago and we have just definitely moved on and we’re just this very green friendly place, we’re liberals, we’re leftist. This is how people think of Humboldt County but what founded us is this Gold Rush and we have been rushing ever since, and so after the Gold Rush ‘well, gold didn’t make us enough money, let’s rush any kind of minerals that we can get’ and then after that you have ‘well that didn’t make us enough, let’s rush timber’ and then after – you know what I mean? … And I think we’ve been rushing since 1849.
    [Show full text]
  • 1496 Amending Cannabis Zoning Regulations (PDF)
    ORDINANCE NO. 1496 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCATA AMENDING ZONING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO CANNABIS REGULATION The City Council of the City of Arcata does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. Amendment to Table 1-1 – Zoning Districts: The Zoning Districts as shown in Table 1-1 of Title IX, Planning and Zoning, Chapter 1, Planning and Zoning Standards, Section 9000, Land Use Code, Article 1, Land Use Code Applicability, Section 9.12.020 Zoning Map and Zoning Districts, are hereby amended to replace the words “Medical Marijuana” with “Cannabis” and revise the “:MMIZ” zoning district symbol with “CIZ” as shown in the following strike through and bold double underscore text (unchanged text within the Table is omitted and is shown by “* * *”): Table 1-1 – Zoning Districts Zoning District General Plan Designation Symbol Name of Zoning District Implemented by Zoning District * * * Combining Zones :CD Creamery District Industrial - Limited :HL Historic Landmark All :MMCIZ Medical Marijuana Cannabis Innovation Zone Specific Industrial – Limited and Industrial – General properties - See Section 9.28.130, Figure 2-25. * * * Section 2. Amendment to Allowable Land Uses; Table 2-1. The Allowable Land Uses for the Agricultural and Resource Zoning Districts depicted in Table 2-1 of Title IX, Planning and Zoning, Chapter 1, Planning and Zoning Standards, Section 9000, Land Use Code, Article 2, Zoning Uses, Section 9.22.030 Agricultural and Resource Zoning District Allowable Land Uses, are hereby amended to replace the words “Medical
    [Show full text]
  • 15.04.610.270 - Marijuana/Cannabis Commercial Uses
    15.04.610.270 - Marijuana/Cannabis Commercial Uses. Commercial Cannabis activities, including but not limited to cultivation, manufacturing, testing, distribution, and retail are subject to the standards and procedures of the Municipal Code, State Law, and the regulations set forth in these Zoning Regulations. A. Applicability. These standards apply to all establishments that are involved in any commercial cannabis activity. B. Definitions1 []. The following words or phrases, whenever used in this section, have the following definitions: 1. A-license. A State license issued for cannabis or cannabis products that are intended for adults 21 years of age and over and who do not possess physician's recommendations. 2. Attending Physician. An individual who possesses a license in good standing to practice medicine or osteopathy issued by the Medical Board of California or the Osteopathic Medical Board of California and who has taken responsibility for an aspect of the medical care, treatment, diagnosis, counseling, or referral of a patient and who has conducted a medical examination of that patient before recording in the patient's medical record the physician's assessment of whether the patient has a serious medical condition and whether the medical use of cannabis is appropriate. 3. Bureau of Cannabis Control ("the Bureau"). The bureau within the California Department of Consumer Affairs created to develop, administer and enforce comprehensive rules for medicinal and adult-use cannabis in California. The Bureau is responsible for the regulation and licensing of all commercial cannabis retail, distribution, testing, microbusinesses and temporary cannabis events in California. 4. California Department of Food and Agriculture — CalCannabis Cultivation Licensing ("the CDFA").
    [Show full text]
  • Marijuana National Forest
    MARIJUANA NATIONAL FOREST : Encroachment on California Public Lands for Cannabis Cultivation ∗ Mark Mallery Marijuana cultivation on public lands has become an increasingly prominent issue affecting natural resources and public safety in California. Cultivators degrade natural reserves by altering land, diverting water, applying chemicals, and inhabiting sites for long periods of time. Clean up and remediation efforts are conducted to reduce the long-term impacts, but these efforts remain hindered by high costs, understaffing, and the remoteness of sites. The primary cultivators are Mexican Cartels that operate in California to exploit the fertile land and lucrative markets for marijuana. Environmental remediation depends on law enforcement agencies’ ability to identify and seize sites. As the issue has become increasingly prevalent, law enforcement agencies have adapted their efforts, but have only had a limited effect. In order to prevent the problems created by remote marijuana production, cultivators must be prevented from utilizing public lands, or the incentive for doing so must be removed. Subject categories: Social science Keywords: marijuana, cannabis, California, drug trafficking, immigration INTRODUCTION annabis is an adaptive and highly successful annual with the ability to grow in most C climates across the globe. Cannabis belongs to the Cannabaceae family, “has a life cycle of only three to five months and germinates within six days.” 1 Cannabis can occur in a wild, reproducing state throughout the California floristic provinces, and is cultivated even outside of areas where it may naturally reproduce. 2 Cannabis planting, growing, and harvesting seasons are similar throughout California and typically take place April through October. “Exposed river banks, meadows, and agricultural lands are ideal habitats for Cannabis” since these ecosystems provide “an open sunny environment, light well-drained composted soil, 1 Booth, M.
    [Show full text]
  • Considering Marijuana Legalization
    Research Report Considering Marijuana Legalization Insights for Vermont and Other Jurisdictions Jonathan P. Caulkins, Beau Kilmer, Mark A. R. Kleiman, Robert J. MacCoun, Gregory Midgette, Pat Oglesby, Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, Peter H. Reuter C O R P O R A T I O N For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/rr864 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2015 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.html. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface Marijuana legalization is a controversial and multifaceted issue that is now the subject of seri- ous debate. In May 2014, Governor Peter Shumlin signed Act 155 (S.
    [Show full text]
  • Estimated Cost of Production for Legalized Cannabis
    WORKING P A P E R Estimated Cost of Production for Legalized Cannabis JONATHAN P. CAULKINS WR-764-RC July 2010 This product is part of the RAND working paper series. RAND working papers are intended to share researchers’ latest findings and to solicit informal peer review. They have been approved for circulation by RAND but have not been formally edited or peer reviewed. Unless otherwise indicated, working papers can be quoted and cited without permission of the author, provided the source is clearly referred to as a working paper. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. is a registered trademark. Estimated Cost of Production for Legalized Cannabis Jonathan P. Caulkins H. Guyford Stever Professor of Operations Research Carnegie Mellon University Heinz College & Qatar Campus RAND, Drug Policy Research Center Abstract This paper tries to estimate post-legalization production costs for indoor and outdoor cannabis cultivation as well as parallel estimates for processing costs. Commercial production for general use is not legal anywhere. Hence, this is an exercise in inference based on imperfect analogs supplemented by spare and unsatisfactory data of uncertain provenance. While some parameters are well grounded, many come from the gray literature and/or conversations with others making similar estimates, marijuana growers, and farmers of conventional goods. Hence, this exercise should be taken with more than a few grains of salt. Nevertheless, to the extent that the results are even approximately correct, they suggest that wholesale prices after legalization could be dramatically lower than they are today, quite possibly a full order of magnitude lower than are current prices.
    [Show full text]
  • Activists' Cases Riding on Raich and Booker
    —22— O’Shaughnessy’s • Spring 2005 Activists’ Cases Riding on Raich and Booker By Ann Harrison The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Ashcroft v. Raich will have far-ranging consequences for medical cannabis pa- tients, caregivers, growers and dispen- sary operators fighting federal marijuana charges. Directly at stake are the homes, the businesses and the freedom of at least 30 defendants. Their cases were put on hold following a December 2003 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals entitling Diane Monson and Angel Raich and her caregivers to use and cultivate marijuana under California law. The 9th Circuit injunction —which the Bush Administration challenged in Bryan Epis with daughter Ashley (above) after his release from month sentence before being allowed out on bail. While Epis was the U.S. Supreme Court— applies in the federal penitentiary at Lompoc in August 2004, pending the incarcerated, supporters publicized his plight on billboards in Cali- eight western states that have medical outcome of the Raich case. Epis had served 30 months of a 53- fornia. marijuana laws. The injunction has had an indirect The Blakely and Booker decisions sated for ninety-five percent of his grow, nabis Buyers Club. The three cases have effect, too, according to Attorney Omar could change the lives of 64,000 people and did not receive payment for the re- been bundled together as a single case, Figueroa, who says he is seeing differ- sentenced in federal court each year. maining five percent. All of the medical but they have different implications for ent enforcement practices in federal Ninety-seven percent of federal defen- cannabis that he grew was used inside the dispensaries involved.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulations of the Nevada Cannabis Compliance Board
    REGULATIONS OF THE NEVADA CANNABIS COMPLIANCE BOARD Las Vegas, Nevada For consideration and adoption on July 21, 2020 Current as of July 1, 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS REGULATION 1 ISSUANCE OF REGULATIONS; CONSTRUCTION; DEFINITIONS 1.000 Title. 1 1.010 Promulgation, amendment, modification and repeal. 1 1.020 Construction. 1 1.030 Severability. 1 1.040 Definitions. 1 1.050 “Act” defined. 1 1.053 “Analyte” defined. 1 1.055 “Analytical portion” defined. 1 1.057 “Applicant” defined. 1 1.058 “Application” defined. 1 1.060 “Batch” defined. 2 1.065 “Batch number” defined. 2 1.068 “Board Agent” defined. 2 1.070 “CBD” defined. 2 1.073 “Chief Medical Officer” defined. 2 1.075 “Combined cannabis establishment” defined. 2 1.080 “Component cannabis establishment” defined. 2 1.085 “Excise tax on cannabis” defined. 2 1.090 “Extraction” defined. 2 1.095 “Fair market value” defined. 2 1.100 “Foreign matter” defined. 2 i 1.105 “Growing unit” defined. 2 1.110 “Imminent health hazard” defined. 2 1.115 “Label” defined. 3 1.120 “Letter of approval” defined. 3 1.125 “Lot” defined. 3 1.130 “Multiple-serving edible cannabis product” defined. 3 1.135 “Packaging” defined. 3 1.137 “Person” defined. 3 1.140 “Pesticide” defined. 3 1.145 “Physician” defined. 3 1.150 “Potential total THC” defined. 3 1.155 “Potentially hazardous cannabis products and ingredients” defined. 3 1.160 “Premises” defined. 4 1.163 “Private Residence” defined. 4 1.165 “Production run” defined. 4 1.170 “Production run number” defined. 4 1.175 “Proficiency testing” defined. 4 1.180 “Proficiency testing program” defined.
    [Show full text]
  • Cannabis Business License Screening Applications Top Scoring Applicants
    CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD CANNABIS BUSINESS LICENSE SCREENING APPLICATIONS TOP SCORING APPLICANTS December 18, 2018 City of West Hollywood California 1984 www.weho.org/cannabis WEST HOLLYWOOD CANNABIS BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATION PROCESS On November 20, 2017, after significant members with diverse/unique perspectives community outreach, consultation with and a wide breadth of experience in cannabis industry experts, and City Council cannabis, hospitality, design, business, local discussion, the West Hollywood City Council government licensing, social justice, drug adopted a Cannabis Ordinance allowing a policy reform, as well as familiarity with West variety of different cannabis businesses to be Hollywood. In total, the weighting criteria licensed in the City. The ordinance included for each license type consisted of between the following type and number of cannabis 53 and 56 unique categories with a total of business licenses: between 200 and 205 points. ADULT-USE RETAIL: During the month of May 2018, applicants 8 licenses were allowed to submit cannabis screening applications to the City. The City received CONSUMPTION LOUNGE over 300 screening applications from over (Smoking, Vaping, Edibles): 120 different applicants (most applicants 8 licenses submitted applications in multiple categories). The application evaluation CONSUMPTION LOUNGE committee members began their review (Edibles Only): of applications in July and completed 8 licenses their review in late November. In total, each application evaluation committee DELIVERY SERVICES member reviewed over 20,000 pages, and (Located in West Hollywood): individually scored each application based 8 licenses on the weighting criteria. Once all of the application evaluation committee members MEDICAL DISPENSARY: were finished scoring, the five committee 8 licenses member scores for each application were averaged.
    [Show full text]