Big work

Big decisions require big work. And voters have very big work cut out for them this November when they will vote to either end California’s prohibition on adult use of marijuana or delay the inevitable one more time.
Proposition 64 is the Control, Regulate & Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA). It comprises a series of big decisions. Passage will launch a new billion dollar industry in Sonoma County, promising to surpass our wine industry’s dominance within a decade. Prop. 64 will likely pose detrimental impacts on legitimate medical marijuana enterprises and patients. Prop. 64 is once again forcing our community to better educate and protect our youth against the use of marijuana at too early an age. And, Prop. 64 already has set off a “green rush” among elected officials, drooling over a potential new tax revenue source and “cash cow.”
Consider Prop. 64 as a big or bigger decision than our nation’s votes almost a century ago to first enact a prohibition in 1920 on alcohol consumption and then to repeal it in 1933. That failed social experiment led to new crime and violence and increased the allure of fermented beverages while failing to improve overall morality, health and sobriety.
The Adult Use of Marijuana Act is 62 pages of proposed new laws covering regulations for cultivation, testing, packaging, labeling, retailing and taxing a substance that has been under federal prohibition since 1937. California voters approved the Compassionate (medical) Use Act in 1996 (Prop. 215.) More recently Colorado and Washington voters decriminalized adult use of cannabis and 18 states, in all, now have medical marijuana laws.
There is no doubt the wholesale prohibition of marijuana will end soon. And, it will be greatly expedited by the passage of  California’s  Prop. 64 this November, now favored by 60 percent of likely voters.
The authors and supporters of Prop. 64 have already put much hard work into their proposed set of regulations. These include a new taxation structure that would tax both the cultivation and retail sales of pot at a much higher rate than alcohol. As much as $1.4 billion in new state taxes would be dedicated to new teen drug prevention and education programs, public university research on cannabis, law enforcement resources and expanded services for Fish and Game and state water resource protection.
In total, an ounce of marijuana could carry a tax burden of nearly 50 percent of its total cost. And, on top of that, Prop. 64 would allow local county governments to heap on more local taxes.
All these taxes could chase marijuana cultivation back into the woods and into the illegal black market that Prop. 64 advocates want to end.
Some local governments, including proposals from candidates now seeking election to our county’s Board of Supervisors, want to add local pot taxes to subsidize affordable housing and homeless programs.
This is one of the problems about big decisions. They often include conflicting choices. Even likely supporters of Prop. 64 like the California Growers Association and the Sonoma County Growers Alliance, both small farmer grassroots organizations, are split or neutral on the measure.
Just saying no to decriminalized adult marijuana use will not work. The end of 80 years of federal pot prohibition is now within view. Even Congress is considering relaxing restrictions on research and medical use of cannabis.
Waiting for a more-perfect set of laws other than Prop. 64 might be a big gamble, too. As much as AUMA tries to protect small pot farmers from corporate competition, it does not totally ban mega-growers. Future pro-marijuana efforts would likely be less friendly to small growers and the medical cannabis industry, funded by “green rush” profit-seeking outsiders.
With three full months before the Nov. 8 election, we urge the Yes on Prop. 64 groups, local growers’ associations, law enforcement opponents and others to hold a series of public forums. And, we urge as many of our readers as we can convince to attend these forums or otherwise do their “big work.”
— Rollie Atkinson