What a REAL CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER SAYS ABOUT 19 screwing over 215.

[vta]

ive read it vta ............. and all it is is to tax and give the counties and cities to go around prop 215 we will see in due time who the bonehead is BONEHEAD.............DC

oh...that is all it is huh..."all it is is to tax and give the counties and cities to go around prop 215"

Never mind the fact that it legalizes cannabis. Or that any adult can now grow because it erases the current felony for personal cultivation. Or that it allows any adult to carry up to an ounce without breaking any law. Having a bag of pot in your pocket will be the same as having a wallet...totally legal and your right. No longer will criminal organizations have a market to sell their brick weed as the new legal commercial grows will take that market over. I can go on.

Do you think that the voters, who mostly don't smoke pot, would vote for a law that does not have any regulations or incentives? Maybe someday but not now. So while this law is not the 'ideal' one, it is a big start. To go from felony to totally legal is a big deal. Do you not realize how many people that will keep out of jail? Out of the system? Are you a profiteer? If so then let me know so I'll just leave you alone. If not then more than likely you do not fully understand what it will mean to finally have cannabis legal....I mean why else would you align yourself up with the hundred LEO organizations? That is if you don't sell.

 

[highwayman1]

vta ihave notice that if the people dont agree with you you place them with leo.........stop being a pinhead and thinking you know it all and stop wastin my high............

 

[localhero]

well, im gonna post this here:


California's Proposition 19 will supersede or amend its medical marijuana laws

* July 16th, 2010 5:46 pm


Related Articles


* 01 Jul 10 - June medical marijuana news wrap
* 21 Apr 10 - The Jack Herer Initiative post mortem
* 28 Mar 10 - NORML reaches out and slaps medical marijuana patients
* 27 Nov 09 - Medical marijuana and caregivers
* 30 Sep 09 - Peron announces opposition to Oakland's marijuana initiative
* 16 Aug 09 - Oakland's marijuana legalization initiative is still a Trojan Horse
* 10 Aug 09 - California has three marijuana legalization initiatives
* 08 Aug 09 - Marijuana legalization and California initiatives
* 31 Jul 09 - Comparing California cannabis/marijuana legalization initiatives

Proponents of California's Regulate Control and Tax Cannabis 2010 Initiative (Prop. 19) claim it will have no effect on California's medical marijuana laws, that it "explicitly upholds the rights of medical marijuana patients".

The language of the initiative says otherwise.

Yesterday, Russ Belville stated in a comment to his blog in The Huffington Post that "Prop 19 does nothing to change Prop 215 or your access to your current dispensary." Belville is NORML's Outreach Coordinator and Host of NORML Show Live.

Meanwhile, in an article that is causing quite a stir among proponents of ending marijuana prohibition, Dragonfly De La Luz lists 18 reasons "Pro-Pot Activists" oppose Prop. 19.

Regarding whether or not Prop. 19 will amend or supersede California's medical marijuana laws she had this to say:

While amendments were made ostensibly to prevent the initiative from affecting current medical marijuana law, a careful reading of the initiative reveals that this is not, in fact, the case. Certain medical marijuana laws are exempt from the prohibitions the initiative would enact, while others are glaringly absent.

Cultivation is one such law that is noticeably non-exempt.[17] In spite of the fact that the tax cannabis Web site says otherwise, the only medical marijuana exemptions that the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative actually makes are with regard to possession, consumption and purchase limits, which only ensure that patients would still be allowed to buy medicine at dispensaries. The word “cultivate” is conspicuously absent. Whereas today a person with a doctor’s recommendation has the right to grow up to an unlimited number of plants, the initiative would drastically reduce that number to whatever can fit in a 5’x5’ footprint (around 3-6 plants—per property, not per person). This will force many patients to resort to buying instead of growing their own medicine, because of the inconvenience caused by producing multiple grows a year rather than growing a year’s supply of medicine at one time, as many patients currently do outdoors. And growing indoors—which typically requires special grow lights, an increase in hydro use, and a lot of time and attention—is a comparatively expensive endeavor.

The initiative would further impact medical marijuana patients by banning medicating in the privacy of their own homes if there are minors present, as well as in public (currently perfectly legal[18])—an invaluable liberty to those with painful diseases who would otherwise have to suffer until they got home to relieve their pain.

Finally, the medical marijuana laws that are exempted from this initiative apparently only apply to cities. For medical marijuana patients who live in an area that has county or local government jurisdiction, according to a strict reading of the initiative, medical marijuana laws are not exempt.[19]

The amendments she refers to were made after Comparing California cannabis/marijuana legalization initiatives was published 31 Jul 09 in Examiner.com. This article noted that the proponents of Proposition 19 had manged to get through 14 drafts without exempting medical marijuana patients from any of its provisions: not the unlimited taxes & licensing fees, not the possession & cultivation limits, not the prohibition on smoking in public or in sight of anyone under 18.

The amendments consisted of adding the phrase "except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9" to the end of Items 7 & 8 under Purposes.

The initiative mentions medical marijuana three times and omits mentioning it once.

The Mentions

The three mentions are Items 6, 7, and 8 in Section 2, B. Purposes.

6. Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes.

The courts will determine that this means Prop. 19 is intended to amend and supersede California's medical marijuana laws; Proposition 215 (H&S 11362.5) and SB 420 (H&S 11362.7-H&S 11362.9).

7. Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city’s limits remain illegal, but that the city’s citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.

8. Ensure that if a city decides it does want to tax and regulate the buying and selling of cannabis (to and from adults only), that a strictly controlled legal system is implemented to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales, and that the city will have control over how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.

The first thing to note about these sections is that they are specific to cities. Nowhere does the word "county" appear.

In Item 7, "city" is specified 3 times, every way they know how: "if a city", "that city's limits", "the city's citizens". The rule of thumb is if you say something three times you mean exactly what you said.

This item exempts medical marijuana patients only in cities, and only with regard to how much they may possess and consume. It makes it legal to ban medical marijuana dispensaries, collectives, and delivery services. Unless the city enacts a sin tax, any buying and selling will be illegal.

The Omission

Section C, Intents, has two items.

Item 1 is a list of the laws Prop. 19 is "intended to limit the application and enforcement of". The inclusion of the phrase "including but not limited to the following, whether now existing or adopted in the future" opens the door for the argument to be made that Prop. 19 may (and most likely will) be interpreted to "limit" the "application and enforcement" of the now existing medical marijuana laws.

This interpretation is reinforced by Item 2 under this section, a list of state laws Prop. 19 "is not intended to affect the application or enforcement of".

Note that Item 2 is not open-ended. There is no "including but not limited to" modifier for this Item.

Conspicuously absent from either list are California's medical marijuana laws: Health & Safety Code Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7-11362.9.

These mentions and omissions occur in the 'preamble' of the initiative, titled Findings, Intent and Purposes. Concerns have been expressed regarding how legally binding these sections are and that nowhere in the sections to be added to California's legal code is there any mention of medical marijuana or any exemption for medical marijuana patients and providers.

Exploiting pain and suffering

Nowhere does the initiative exempt medical marijuana cultivators or distributors from the tax.

Proponents of Prop. 19 often argue that everything is taxed. This is not true. Illinois is the only state that taxes prescription pharmaceuticals, and that tax is 1%.

Proponents of Prop. 19 claim they want to tax and regulate marijuana like alcohol. It costs $450 to license a pharmacy in California and between $340-$580 to license a retail alcohol establishment. Long Beach claims 85 medical marijuana dispensaries and charges $14,742 for a license. Oakland has a limit of 4 dispensaries and charges them $30,000 for a license.

Proponents of Prop. 19 argue that it is illegal to consume alcohol in sight of anyone under 21 or in public. California is littered with sidewalk cafes and pizza parlors that serve beer, wine, and mixed drinks in public and in the sight of children.

To date the cities of Oakland (the home or Proposition 19), Sacramento (The State Capital), Long Beach, and Berkeley have announced proposals to tax medical marijuana in order to keep their medical marijuana dispensaries from being shut down should Proposition 19 pass.

The most liberal of these is Berkeley, where medical marijuana patients will pay 7.5% less tax than recreational users, and it will only cost them 2.5% more than the 9.75% in sales tax they're already paying.

Sacramento is proposing a sin tax of between 5% and 10% for recreational users and 2% to 4% for the sick and dying. "We're trying to get ahead of the process," said councilmember Sandy Sheedy, who proposed the ordinance.

Medical marijuana patients use considerably more than recreational users. Irv Rosenfeld receives 11 ounces per month from the federal government. Maine recently determined that it's medical marijuana patients would use 5 ounces per month, on average. The tax on medicine, besides being ethically inconsistent, falls most heavily on the sickest, who tend to be the poorest.

At $400 per ounce, a medical marijuana patient who needs 3 ounces a month will pay $138.60 tax per month in Oakland.

Meanwhile, no city or county in California has reversed itself on a ban or moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries since Oakland (home of Prop. 19) passed Measure F, the first medical marijuana tax.

Meanwhile, several cases are working through the courts challenging medical marijuana bans, moratoriums, and regulations which are de facto bans, as discriminatory and in violation of California's medical marijuana laws. Passage of Prop 19 will remove any legal basis for these cases.

Taking the 'medical' out of 'marijuana'

Dennis Peron on Tax & Regulate #1

Prop. 19 adds five sections to California's Health & Safety Code, §§ 11300-11304.

§11300 is titled Personal Regulation and Controls. Item a) begins with the phrase "Notwithstanding any other provision of law".

This section makes possession of more than an ounce or by anyone under 21 illegal. It also limits non-licensed cultivation to 25 square feet per residence or parcel, not per person.

If the authors of Prop. 19 wanted to protect medical marijuana patients, why did they say "notwithstanding any other provision of law"?

§11301 is titled Commercial Regulations and Controls. It begins with the phrase "Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law". It prohibits sales to anyone under 21. Nowhere in this section is there any exemption for medical marijuana patients, cultivators, or distributors.

In addition to allowing cities and counties to ban commercial cultivation and sales (including medical marijuana collectives and dispensaries) it states the following:

(g) prohibit and punish through civil fines or other remedies the possession, sale, possession for sale, cultivation, processing, or transportation of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully from a person pursuant to this section or section 11300;

This means that the taxes and fees paid by the licensed commercial cultivators and distributors will be used to eliminate the competition. For example, Oakland (the home of Prop. 19) is in the process of licensing four cultivators to supply the approximately 6,000 pounds per year sold by the four licensed dispensaries. Bay Citizen put it this way:

Growing marijuana can be lucrative, but the city’s proposed new rules would eliminate small-timers. It would cost $5,000 just to apply for a cultivation permit, and a regulatory fee of $211,000 for the lucky winners. If one has the cash, it’s a small price to pay for the right to produce a crop with an estimated retail value of $7 million. The fee pays for regulating cultivation in Oakland, which will include enforcement against the guys with grow lights in their garages and backyard sheds.

The New York times reports that the leading contender for one of these cultivation permits is Jeff Wilcox, a member of the Proposition 19 steering committee. "Mr. Wilcox estimated that AgraMed would cost $20 million to develop."

Reasonable Accommodation

Montel Williams lights up Maine medical marijuana conference

Current California medical marijuana law does not prohibit smoking in public. It is not currently illegal for medical marijuana patients to smoke in public or in sight of anyone under 18:

11362.79. Nothing in this article shall authorize a qualified patient or person with an identification card to engage in the smoking of medical marijuana under any of the following circumstances:

(a) In any place where smoking is prohibited by law.
(b) In or within 1,000 feet of the grounds of a school, recreation center, or
youth center, unless the medical use occurs within a residence.
(c) On a schoolbus.
(d) While in a motor vehicle that is being operated.
(e) While operating a boat.

While debating Keith Kimber on Time4Hemp Chris Conrad stated Prop. 19 would have to win by a wider margin than Prop. 215 in order to supersede it. He reiterated this in an email that was passed around Facebook.

Even if it did conflict with or amend the medical marijuana laws, which it repeatedly does not do, Prop 19 would still have to pass by more than 56% to have any effect on Prop 215, which is highly unlikely.

Conrad is in error. The California Initiative Guide states the following:

If the provisions of two or more measures approved at the same election conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote shall prevail (Cal. Const., art. II, Section 10(b)).

This is not a case of two or more measures in the same election.

 

[vta]

vta ihave notice that if the people dont agree with you you place them with leo.........stop being a pinhead and thinking you know it all your worse than a bonehead and i sell nothing i give to sick cancer patience ................. so fuck off....... and stop wastin my high............

WOW...you sound like a real nice guy. Fuck off? lol

Why don't you show me where I "ihave notice that if the people dont agree with you you place them with leo"

Be careful assholeeo of what you say. It will make you look dumber than you already are. You can take anything I said and see that I make distinct correlations. Like my post to you. I asked if you were a grower for profit. If so then I would respect your opinion. If not, to vote no I feel your either stupid or a cop. So in my mind there are there types of people associated with a no vote. They would be: people that profit from it, stupid people, or LEO.

 

[TruthOrLie]

The only rational NO vote I could appreciate is someone who says, "This is a dangerous medicine and should be regulated."

No, I don't think Marijuana is dangerous... but that's the only way you could convince me that you have a justified reason to vote no.

 

[highwayman1]

you feel you are an ass........ senior member and im not jumpin in on your crazy train....... read your post how you flip flop yyou need to could you put in in red what an egotisic donkey what taxin the sick sounds good to me whens the last time you gave......... ..........and just so you know people who vote yes vote for the government control taxin is not freedom............. dc

 

[Pythagllio]

"The only reference about Prop. 215 is found in the “purposes” section of Prop. 19, namely, “Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city’s limits remain illegal, but that the city’s citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts, except as permitted under Health and Safety (Code) Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.” Translation: Non-medical cannabis sales may be prohibited by local governments, should they choose, but the state codes relating to Prop. 215 and medical marijuana remain in full force.

“Purposes” are important declarations when considering the intent of the law, as courts no doubt will do should Prop. 19 pass, so the declaration that medical marijuana is not covered by local governments’ actions regarding non-medical marijuana is important and shouldn’t be overlooked. Purposes and findings supporting the law are not to be confused with the law itself, however. Prop. 19 makes changes to several state laws regarding cannabis possession and cultivation for personal use. It writes new laws regarding non-medical cannabis sales and regulations. But Prop. 19 makes no changes — as in none, zero, zip — to the Health and Safety Code codes written into law by Prop. 215."

According to California case law

In interpreting a voter initiative, “ ‘we apply the same principles that govern statutory construction. Thus, [1] “we turn first to the language of the statute, giving the words their ordinary meaning.” [2] The statutory language must also be construed in the context of the statute as a whole and the overall statutory scheme [in light of the electorate’s intent]. [3] When the language is ambiguous, “we refer to other indicia of the voters’ intent, particularly the analyses and arguments contained in the official ballot pamphlet.” [¶] In other words, our ‘task is simply to interpret and apply the initiative’s language so as to effectuate the electorate’s intent.’ ” (Robert L. v. Superior Court (2003) 30 Cal.4th 894, 900-901.)

from the Prop 19 ballot pamphlet:
Argument against Prop 19:

"Don't be fooled. The proponents are hoping you will think Proposition 19 is about 'medical marijuana'. It is not. Proposition 19 makes no changes either way in the medical marijuana laws."

from the Prop 19 ballot pamphlet:
Argument in favor of Prop 19:

"Under Proposition 19, only adults 21 and over can posses up to one ounce of marijuana, to be consumed at home or in licensed establishments. Medical marijuana patients' rights are preserved."
http://www.examiner.com/santa-cruz-...isco/did-feinstein-save-california-s-prop-215

Both sides of the issue agree that Prop 19 will not effect Prop 215. Is there anything else which both for and against agree? It is utter hogwash that Prop 19 will modify Prop 215. The day after the ballot Prop 215 will still be the law of the land regardless of how Prop 19 fares.

In his appeal to authority fallacy, OP seems to think that the opinion of a criminal defense lawyer means that his opinion is carved into stone. Specializing in criminal law is not the same as specializing in Constitutional law. You wouldn't hire a real estate lawyer to litigate a criminal case, and you sure wouldn't hire a criminal defense specialist to litigate Constitutional law. Based on my observations lawyers seem to lose about 50% of the cases they litigate. That's a pretty dismal record of always being right. Perry Mason is the only lawyer that wins all his cases, and he's fictional.

I'll call your defense attorney says it's true fallacy, and raise you a US Senator, the president of MADD, a police chief, a deputy police chief and a long standing Superior Court judge that say it doesn't. Not only say it doesn't, say it in the ballot pamphlet which the Appeals Court has stated would be their primary arbiter of voter intent. I believe that my judge trumps your lawyer all by himself.

 

[localhero]

so you believe its impossible for a city to alter its med program based on their interpretation of 19? look, what this guy seems to think is that its possible to interpret it that way. will a judge agree with him? who knows.

the prop doesnt say 19 will not affect 215 in any way. it doesnt say that. propositions can change propositions. it will be up to a judge.

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

Here's what californias lawyers say, not some self interest asshole spin doctor.... Notice how nowhere it says that 215 would conform to 19?

Proposition 19

Changes California Law to Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be Regulated and Taxed. Initiative Statute.

Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact

Fiscal Impact: Depending on federal, state, and local government actions, potential increased tax and fee revenues in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually and potential correctional savings of several tens of millions of dollars annually.
Yes/No Statement

A YES vote on this measure means: Individuals age 21 or older could, under state law, possess and cultivate limited amounts of marijuana for personal use. In addition, the state and local governments could authorize, regulate, and tax commercial marijuana-related activities under certain conditions. These activities would remain illegal under federal law.

A NO vote on this measure means: The possession and cultivation of marijuana for personal use and commercial marijuana-related activities would remain illegal under state law, unless allowed under the state’s existing medical marijuana law.

Background

Federal Law. Federal laws classify marijuana as an illegal substance and provide criminal penalties for various activities relating to its use. These laws are enforced by federal agencies that may act independently or in cooperation with state and local law enforcement agencies.

State Law and Proposition*215. Under current state law, the possession, cultivation, or distribution of marijuana generally is illegal in California. Penalties for marijuana-related activities vary depending on the offense. For example, possession of less than one ounce of marijuana is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine, while selling marijuana is a felony and may result in a prison sentence.

In November 1996, voters approved Proposition*215, which legalized the cultivation and possession of marijuana in California for medical purposes. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2005, however, that federal authorities could continue to prosecute California patients and providers engaged in the cultivation and use of marijuana for medical purposes. Despite having this authority, the U.S. Department of Justice announced in March*2009 that the current administration would not prosecute marijuana patients and providers whose actions are consistent with state medical marijuana laws.

Proposal

This measure changes state law to (1) legalize the possession and cultivation of limited amounts of marijuana for personal use by individuals age 21 or older, and (2) authorize various commercial marijuana-related activities under certain conditions. Despite these changes to state law, these marijuana-related activities would continue to be prohibited under federal law. These federal prohibitions could still be enforced by federal agencies. It is not known to what extent the federal government would continue to enforce them. Currently, no other state permits commercial marijuana-related activities for non-medical purposes.

State Legalization of Marijuana Possession and Cultivation for Personal Use

Under the measure, persons age 21 or older generally may (1) possess, process, share or transport up to one ounce of marijuana; (2) cultivate marijuana on private property in an area up to 25*square feet per private residence or parcel; (3) possess harvested and living marijuana plants cultivated in such an area; and (4) possess any items or equipment associated with the above activities. The possession and cultivation of marijuana must be solely for an individual’s personal consumption and not for sale to others, and consumption of marijuana would only be permitted in a residence or other “non-public place.” (One exception is that marijuana could be sold and consumed in licensed establishments, as discussed below.) The state and local governments could also authorize the possession and cultivation of larger amounts of marijuana.

State and local law enforcement agencies could not seize or destroy marijuana from persons in compliance with the measure. In addition, the measure states that no individual could be punished, fined, or discriminated against for engaging in any conduct permitted by the measure. However, it does specify that employers would retain existing rights to address consumption of marijuana that impairs an employee’s job performance.

This measure sets forth some limits on marijuana possession and cultivation for personal use. For example, the smoking of marijuana in the presence of minors is not permitted. In addition, the measure would not change existing laws that prohibit driving under the influence of drugs or that prohibit possessing marijuana on the grounds of elementary, middle, and high schools. Moreover, a person age 21 or older who knowingly gave marijuana to a person age 18 through 20 could be sent to county jail for up to six months and fined up to $1,000 per offense. (The measure does not change existing criminal laws which impose penalties for adults who furnish marijuana to minors under the age of 18.)

Authorization of Commercial Marijuana Activities

The measure allows local governments to authorize, regulate, and tax various commercial marijuana-related activities. As discussed below, the state also could authorize, regulate, and tax such activities.

Regulation. The measure allows local governments to adopt ordinances and regulations regarding commercial marijuana-related activities—including marijuana cultivation, processing, distribution, transportation, and retail sales. For example, local governments could license establishments that could sell marijuana to persons 21 and older. Local governments could regulate the location, size, hours of operation, and signs and displays of such establishments. Individuals could transport marijuana from a licensed marijuana establishment in one locality to a licensed establishment in another locality, regardless of whether any localities in between permitted the commercial production and sale of marijuana. However, the measure does not permit the transportation of marijuana between California and another state or country. An individual who was licensed to sell marijuana to others in a commercial establishment and who negligently provided marijuana to a person under 21 would be banned from owning, operating, being employed by, assisting, or entering a licensed marijuana establishment for one year. Local governments could also impose additional penalties or civil fines on certain marijuana-related activities, such as for violation of a local ordinance limiting the hours of operation of a licensed marijuana establishment.

Whether or not local governments engaged in this regulation, the state could, on a statewide basis, regulate the commercial production of marijuana. The state could also authorize the production of hemp, a type of marijuana plant that can be used to make products such as fabric and paper.

Taxation. The measure requires that licensed marijuana establishments pay all applicable federal, state, and local taxes and fees currently imposed on other similar businesses. In addition, the measure permits local governments to impose new general, excise, or transfer taxes, as well as benefit assessments and fees, on authorized marijuana-related activities. The purpose of such charges would be to raise revenue for local governments and/or to offset any costs associated with marijuana regulation. In addition, the state could impose similar charges.

Fiscal Effects

Many of the provisions in this measure permit, but do not require, the state and local governments to take certain actions related to the regulation and taxation of marijuana. Thus, it is uncertain to what extent the state and local governments would in fact undertake such actions. For example, it is unknown how many local governments would choose to license establishments that would grow or sell marijuana or impose an excise tax on such sales.

In addition, although the federal government announced in March*2009 that it would no longer prosecute medical marijuana patients and providers whose actions are consistent with Proposition*215, it has continued to enforce its prohibitions on non-medical marijuana-related activities. This means that the federal government could prosecute individuals for activities that would be permitted under this measure. To the extent that the federal government continued to enforce its prohibitions on marijuana, it would have the effect of impeding the activities permitted by this measure under state law.

Thus, the revenue and expenditure impacts of this measure are subject to significant uncertainty.

Impacts on State and Local Expenditures

Reduction in State and Local Correctional Costs. The measure could result in savings to the state and local governments by reducing the number of marijuana offenders incarcerated in state prisons and county jails, as well as the number placed under county probation or state parole supervision. These savings could reach several tens of millions of dollars annually. The county jail savings would be offset to the extent that jail beds no longer needed for marijuana offenders were used for other criminals who are now being released early because of a lack of jail space.

Reduction in Court and Law Enforcement Costs. The measure would result in a reduction in state and local costs for enforcement of marijuana-related offenses and the handling of related criminal cases in the court system. However, it is likely that the state and local governments would redirect their resources to other law enforcement and court activities.

Other Fiscal Effects on State and Local Programs. The measure could also have fiscal effects on various other state and local programs. For example, the measure could result in an increase in the consumption of marijuana, potentially resulting in an unknown increase in the number of individuals seeking publicly funded substance abuse treatment and other medical services. This measure could also have fiscal effects on state- and locally funded drug treatment programs for criminal offenders, such as drug courts. Moreover, the measure could potentially reduce both the costs and offsetting revenues of the state’s Medical Marijuana Program, a patient registry that identifies those individuals eligible under state law to legally purchase and consume marijuana for medical purposes.

Impacts on State and Local Revenues

The state and local governments could receive additional revenues from taxes, assessments, and fees from marijuana-related activities allowed under this measure. If the commercial production and sale of marijuana occurred in California, the state and local governments could receive revenues from a variety of sources in the ways described below.

Existing Taxes. Businesses producing and selling marijuana would be subject to the same taxes as other businesses. For instance, the state and local governments would receive sales tax revenues from the sale of marijuana. Similarly, marijuana-related businesses with net income would pay income taxes to the state. To the extent that this business activity pulled in spending from persons in other states, the measure would result in a net increase in taxable economic activity in the state.
New Taxes and Fees on Marijuana. As described above, local governments are allowed to impose taxes, fees, and assessments on marijuana-related activities. Similarly, the state could impose taxes and fees on these types of activities. (A portion of any new revenues from these sources would be offset by increased regulatory and enforcement costs related to the licensing and taxation of marijuana-related activities.)
As described earlier, both the enforcement decisions of the federal government and whether the state and local governments choose to regulate and tax marijuana would affect the impact of this measure. It is also unclear how the legalization of some marijuana-related activities would affect its overall level of usage and price, which in turn could affect the level of state or local revenues from these activities. Consequently, the magnitude of additional revenues is difficult to estimate. To the extent that a commercial marijuana industry developed in the state, however, we estimate that the state and local governments could eventually collect hundreds of millions of dollars annually in additional revenues.