http://www.cremedecanna.com/
Creme De Canna™ began creating gourmet medicated ice cream and edibles in small batches, serving verified patients in 2010. The overwhelming positive response has shown that people really enjoy the over all experience and medicinal benefits of our products. This support, alongside the efforts of all our member collectives have helped to increase awareness of our products.
Creme De Canna expanded its services and products to other member collectives in Santa Cruz and Santa Clara Counties.
As time transgressed, it was apparent that opening a storefront and serving patients directly, in addition to it member collectives was only natural. It was through a vision of creating a space where wellness and awareness could coexist, that the Crème De Canna Collective was born. We are a state registered Non-Profit and operate strictly in compliance with Prop 215 and SB 420.
Ice Cream
Creme De Canna gourmet hand packed Ice Cream is not only amazingly delicious, but also euphorically refreshing.
Each Ice Cream contains 2-4 doses.
Bananabis Foster Ice Cream
$15.00
The classic dessert packed with medicinal goodness!
Straw Mari Cheesecake Ice Cream
$15.00
Cheesecake, strawberries, cannabis-dare we say more?
TripLe Fudge Brownie Ice Cream
$15.00
Chocolate ice cream layered with cannabis infused brownies!
Open
Monday-Saturday
11am-7pm
3143 Paul Sweet Road
Santa Cruz, CA 95065
Call today!
831.464.1518
Showing posts with label Santa Cruz. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Santa Cruz. Show all posts
Friday, September 24, 2010
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Pot legalization gains momentum in California
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h6W7KC63V4xxIsSnUT7zLcWc6upwD9B6FADG3
Pot legalization gains momentum in California
By MARCUS WOHLSEN (AP)
10-7-9
SAN FRANCISCO — Marijuana advocates are gathering signatures to get at least three pot-legalization measures on the ballot in 2010 in California, setting up what could be a groundbreaking clash with the federal government over U.S. drug policy.
At least one poll shows voters would support lifting the pot prohibition, which would make the state of 40 million the first in the nation to legalize marijuana.
Such action would also send the state into a headlong conflict with the U.S. government while raising questions about how federal law enforcement could enforce its drug laws in the face of a massive government-sanctioned pot industry.
The state already has a thriving marijuana trade, thanks to a first-of-its-kind 1996 ballot measure that allowed people to smoke pot for medical purposes. But full legalization could turn medical marijuana dispensaries into all-purpose pot stores, and the open sale of joints could become commonplace on mom-and-pop liquor store counters in liberal locales like Oakland and Santa Cruz.
Under federal law, marijuana is illegal, period. After overseeing a series of raids that destroyed more than 300,000 marijuana plants in California's Sierra Nevada foothills this summer, federal drug czar Gil Kerlikowske proclaimed, "Legalization is not in the president's vocabulary, and it's not in mine."
The U.S. Supreme Court also has ruled that federal law enforcement agents have the right to crack down even on marijuana users and distributors who are in compliance with California's medical marijuana law.
But some legal scholars and policy analysts say the government will not be able to require California to help in enforcing the federal marijuana ban if the state legalizes the drug.
Without assistance from the state's legions of narcotics officers, they say, federal agents could do little to curb marijuana in California.
"Even though that federal ban is still in place and the federal government can enforce it, it doesn't mean the states have to follow suit," said Robert Mikos, a Vanderbilt University law professor who recently published a paper about the issue.
Nothing can stop federal anti-drug agents from making marijuana arrests, even if Californians legalize pot, he said. However, the U.S. government cannot pass a law requiring local and state police, sheriff's departments or state narcotics enforcers to help.
That is significant, because nearly all arrests for marijuana crimes are made at the state level. Of more than 847,000 marijuana-related arrests in 2008, for example, just over 6,300 suspects were booked by federal law enforcement, or fewer than 1 percent.
State marijuana bans have allowed the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration to focus on big cases, said Rosalie Pacula, director of drug policy research at the Rand Corp.
"It's only something the feds are going to be concerned about if you're growing tons of pot," Pacula said. For anything less, she said, "they don't have the resources to waste on it."
In a typical recent prosecution, 29-year-old Luke Scarmazzo was sentenced to nearly 22 years and co-defendant Ricardo Ruiz Montes to 20 years in federal prison for drug trafficking through a medical marijuana dispensary in Modesto.
At his bond hearing, prosecutors showed a rap video in which Scarmazzo boasts about his successful marijuana business, taunts federal authorities and carries cardboard boxes filled with cash. The DEA said the pair made more than $4.5 million in marijuana sales in less than two years.
The DEA would not speculate on the effects of any decision by California to legalize pot. "Marijuana is illegal under federal law and DEA will continue to attack large-scale drug trafficking organizations at every level," spokeswoman Dawn Dearden said.
The most conservative of the three ballot measures would only legalize possession of up to one ounce of pot for personal use by adults 21 and older — an amount that already under state law can only result at most in a $100 fine.
The proposal would also allow anyone to grow a plot of marijuana up to 5 feet-by-5 feet on their private property. The size, Pacula said, seems specifically designed to keep the total number of plants grown below 100, the threshold for DEA attention.
The greatest potential for conflict with the U.S. government would likely come from the provision that would give local governments the power to decide city-by-city whether to allow pot sales.
Hundreds of medical marijuana dispensaries across the state already operate openly with only modest federal interference. If recreational marijuana became legal, these businesses could operate without requiring their customers to qualify as patients.
Any business that grew bigger than the already typical storefront shops, however, would probably be too tempting a target for federal prosecution, experts said.
Even if Washington could no longer count on California to keep pot off its own streets, Congress or the Obama administration could try to coerce cooperation by withholding federal funds.
But with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder's announcement earlier this year that the Justice Department would defer to state laws on marijuana, the federal response to possible legalization remains unclear.
Doug Richardson, a spokesman for the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy, said the office is in the process of re-evaluating its policies on marijuana and other drugs.
Richardson said the office under Obama was pursuing a "more comprehensive" approach than the previous administration, with emphasis on prevention and treatment as well as law enforcement.
"We're trying to base stuff on the facts, the evidence and the science," he said, "not some particular prejudice somebody brings to the table."
Pot legalization gains momentum in California
By MARCUS WOHLSEN (AP)
10-7-9
SAN FRANCISCO — Marijuana advocates are gathering signatures to get at least three pot-legalization measures on the ballot in 2010 in California, setting up what could be a groundbreaking clash with the federal government over U.S. drug policy.
At least one poll shows voters would support lifting the pot prohibition, which would make the state of 40 million the first in the nation to legalize marijuana.
Such action would also send the state into a headlong conflict with the U.S. government while raising questions about how federal law enforcement could enforce its drug laws in the face of a massive government-sanctioned pot industry.
The state already has a thriving marijuana trade, thanks to a first-of-its-kind 1996 ballot measure that allowed people to smoke pot for medical purposes. But full legalization could turn medical marijuana dispensaries into all-purpose pot stores, and the open sale of joints could become commonplace on mom-and-pop liquor store counters in liberal locales like Oakland and Santa Cruz.
Under federal law, marijuana is illegal, period. After overseeing a series of raids that destroyed more than 300,000 marijuana plants in California's Sierra Nevada foothills this summer, federal drug czar Gil Kerlikowske proclaimed, "Legalization is not in the president's vocabulary, and it's not in mine."
The U.S. Supreme Court also has ruled that federal law enforcement agents have the right to crack down even on marijuana users and distributors who are in compliance with California's medical marijuana law.
But some legal scholars and policy analysts say the government will not be able to require California to help in enforcing the federal marijuana ban if the state legalizes the drug.
Without assistance from the state's legions of narcotics officers, they say, federal agents could do little to curb marijuana in California.
"Even though that federal ban is still in place and the federal government can enforce it, it doesn't mean the states have to follow suit," said Robert Mikos, a Vanderbilt University law professor who recently published a paper about the issue.
Nothing can stop federal anti-drug agents from making marijuana arrests, even if Californians legalize pot, he said. However, the U.S. government cannot pass a law requiring local and state police, sheriff's departments or state narcotics enforcers to help.
That is significant, because nearly all arrests for marijuana crimes are made at the state level. Of more than 847,000 marijuana-related arrests in 2008, for example, just over 6,300 suspects were booked by federal law enforcement, or fewer than 1 percent.
State marijuana bans have allowed the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration to focus on big cases, said Rosalie Pacula, director of drug policy research at the Rand Corp.
"It's only something the feds are going to be concerned about if you're growing tons of pot," Pacula said. For anything less, she said, "they don't have the resources to waste on it."
In a typical recent prosecution, 29-year-old Luke Scarmazzo was sentenced to nearly 22 years and co-defendant Ricardo Ruiz Montes to 20 years in federal prison for drug trafficking through a medical marijuana dispensary in Modesto.
At his bond hearing, prosecutors showed a rap video in which Scarmazzo boasts about his successful marijuana business, taunts federal authorities and carries cardboard boxes filled with cash. The DEA said the pair made more than $4.5 million in marijuana sales in less than two years.
The DEA would not speculate on the effects of any decision by California to legalize pot. "Marijuana is illegal under federal law and DEA will continue to attack large-scale drug trafficking organizations at every level," spokeswoman Dawn Dearden said.
The most conservative of the three ballot measures would only legalize possession of up to one ounce of pot for personal use by adults 21 and older — an amount that already under state law can only result at most in a $100 fine.
The proposal would also allow anyone to grow a plot of marijuana up to 5 feet-by-5 feet on their private property. The size, Pacula said, seems specifically designed to keep the total number of plants grown below 100, the threshold for DEA attention.
The greatest potential for conflict with the U.S. government would likely come from the provision that would give local governments the power to decide city-by-city whether to allow pot sales.
Hundreds of medical marijuana dispensaries across the state already operate openly with only modest federal interference. If recreational marijuana became legal, these businesses could operate without requiring their customers to qualify as patients.
Any business that grew bigger than the already typical storefront shops, however, would probably be too tempting a target for federal prosecution, experts said.
Even if Washington could no longer count on California to keep pot off its own streets, Congress or the Obama administration could try to coerce cooperation by withholding federal funds.
But with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder's announcement earlier this year that the Justice Department would defer to state laws on marijuana, the federal response to possible legalization remains unclear.
Doug Richardson, a spokesman for the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy, said the office is in the process of re-evaluating its policies on marijuana and other drugs.
Richardson said the office under Obama was pursuing a "more comprehensive" approach than the previous administration, with emphasis on prevention and treatment as well as law enforcement.
"We're trying to base stuff on the facts, the evidence and the science," he said, "not some particular prejudice somebody brings to the table."
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Hundreds got sick after moth spraying
Thanks to Rense.com for the following...
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/story.php?storySection=Local&sid=64642
January 5, 2008
Group alleges hundreds got sick after moth spraying
Shanna McCord
Sentinel staff writer
SANTA CRUZ -- The number of people who suffered burning eyes, scratchy throats and other ailments after the state sprayed Santa Cruz and Monterey counties for the light brown apple moth might be much higher than previously believed, though state agriculture officials reiterated Friday the pesticide was unlikely the cause of any illness.
About 50 area residents concerned with the aerial pesticide applications last fall turned out for a news conference at Santa Cruz City Hall on Friday to listen to the findings documented in two reports compiled by a group of concerned citizens called California Alliance to Stop the Spray. The reports are related to health effects from the pheromone spray known as CheckMate LBAM-F.
The reports, about 200 pages each, state there were 643 complaints of physical harm from the spray in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties -- itchy eyes and throats, shortness of breath, asthma attacks, skin rashes, headaches and even interruptions in menstrual cycles.
Many of the complaints cited in the report came from e-mails received by public interest groups, phone calls and doctors' reports, in addition to more than 300 formal complaints to the state.
The state Department of Food and Agriculture received 330 illness reports since the moth eradication program started in September, spokesman Steve Lyle said.
"The spray affected people in different ways," said Pacific Grove resident Mike Lynberg, a writer and communications consultant who compiled the reports. "But they all had one thing in common. It was like nothing they had ever experienced before and it happened after the spraying."
Anyone who has called the state to complain of health problems tied to the pesticide spray is urged to see a doctor and file a formal report, which is maintained in a database available to public health investigators, Lyle said.
"We keep a comprehensive list of first and last names with addresses and symptoms," he said. "We maintain that information in a database should a public health agency choose to investigate."
State agriculture officials said the pesticide was merely a scent -- a synthetic pheromone of a female moth designed to confuse male moths and disrupt their mating patterns enough to destroy the population.
More than 10,000 light brown apple moths have been trapped in Santa Cruz County, which is the largest infestation in the state and has the potential to destroy millions of dollars of crops, agriculture officials said.
The state Department of Pesticide Regulation and the federal Environmental Protection Agency reviewed the pesticide and concluded potential risks to humans could only occur with high levels of exposure. However, the amount sprayed on the Central Coast was "extremely low" and not likely to cause symptoms reported by several hundred residents, according to a Nov. 16 letter signed by Mary-Ann Warmerdam, director of the state Department of Pesticide Regulation.
"The chemicals have, in fact, been reviewed," Lyle said. "And they found the pheromone doesn't kill anything. It doesn't even kill the moth, it only confuses its mating."
People attending the news conference said they're worried about future pesticide spraying in the area, something the state has indicated will happen, though they haven't pinned down a definite date.
"The city and county need to come up with a plan for how to prepare for the next round of spraying, God forbid it should happen," said Santa Cruz Councilman Tony Madrigal, who organized the news conference with Councilman Ed Porter. "What is our plan for playground equipment? What is our plan for the landscaping? Those are questions we need to be asking."
Lyle said the state is waiting for a recommendation from an international group of scientists known for their expertise with the light brown apple moth before launching another round of spraying.
The reports released Friday from the California Alliance to Stop the Spray can be found at http://www.1hope.org/.
Contact Shanna McCord at 429-2401 or smccord@santacruzsentinel.com.
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/story.php?storySection=Local&sid=64642
January 5, 2008
Group alleges hundreds got sick after moth spraying
Shanna McCord
Sentinel staff writer
SANTA CRUZ -- The number of people who suffered burning eyes, scratchy throats and other ailments after the state sprayed Santa Cruz and Monterey counties for the light brown apple moth might be much higher than previously believed, though state agriculture officials reiterated Friday the pesticide was unlikely the cause of any illness.
About 50 area residents concerned with the aerial pesticide applications last fall turned out for a news conference at Santa Cruz City Hall on Friday to listen to the findings documented in two reports compiled by a group of concerned citizens called California Alliance to Stop the Spray. The reports are related to health effects from the pheromone spray known as CheckMate LBAM-F.
The reports, about 200 pages each, state there were 643 complaints of physical harm from the spray in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties -- itchy eyes and throats, shortness of breath, asthma attacks, skin rashes, headaches and even interruptions in menstrual cycles.
Many of the complaints cited in the report came from e-mails received by public interest groups, phone calls and doctors' reports, in addition to more than 300 formal complaints to the state.
The state Department of Food and Agriculture received 330 illness reports since the moth eradication program started in September, spokesman Steve Lyle said.
"The spray affected people in different ways," said Pacific Grove resident Mike Lynberg, a writer and communications consultant who compiled the reports. "But they all had one thing in common. It was like nothing they had ever experienced before and it happened after the spraying."
Anyone who has called the state to complain of health problems tied to the pesticide spray is urged to see a doctor and file a formal report, which is maintained in a database available to public health investigators, Lyle said.
"We keep a comprehensive list of first and last names with addresses and symptoms," he said. "We maintain that information in a database should a public health agency choose to investigate."
State agriculture officials said the pesticide was merely a scent -- a synthetic pheromone of a female moth designed to confuse male moths and disrupt their mating patterns enough to destroy the population.
More than 10,000 light brown apple moths have been trapped in Santa Cruz County, which is the largest infestation in the state and has the potential to destroy millions of dollars of crops, agriculture officials said.
The state Department of Pesticide Regulation and the federal Environmental Protection Agency reviewed the pesticide and concluded potential risks to humans could only occur with high levels of exposure. However, the amount sprayed on the Central Coast was "extremely low" and not likely to cause symptoms reported by several hundred residents, according to a Nov. 16 letter signed by Mary-Ann Warmerdam, director of the state Department of Pesticide Regulation.
"The chemicals have, in fact, been reviewed," Lyle said. "And they found the pheromone doesn't kill anything. It doesn't even kill the moth, it only confuses its mating."
People attending the news conference said they're worried about future pesticide spraying in the area, something the state has indicated will happen, though they haven't pinned down a definite date.
"The city and county need to come up with a plan for how to prepare for the next round of spraying, God forbid it should happen," said Santa Cruz Councilman Tony Madrigal, who organized the news conference with Councilman Ed Porter. "What is our plan for playground equipment? What is our plan for the landscaping? Those are questions we need to be asking."
Lyle said the state is waiting for a recommendation from an international group of scientists known for their expertise with the light brown apple moth before launching another round of spraying.
The reports released Friday from the California Alliance to Stop the Spray can be found at http://www.1hope.org/.
Contact Shanna McCord at 429-2401 or smccord@santacruzsentinel.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
