Will California Let Marijuana Businesses Grow Big Enough 'To Overly Influence' ?

[Jacob Redmond]

An unintentionally hilarious progress report from California's Blue Ribbon Commission on Marijuana Policy illustrates the difficulties politicians face as they try to break to harness a product and an industry that has thrived quite nicely without them, thank you. Chaired by Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, the report agonizes over the already well-established and well-accepted trade in marijuana that thrives on the fringes of the allowed medical marijuana business, or else completely under the table. In anticipation of a likely successful 2016 ballot measure to legalize pot for recreational use in emulation of legal changes in Colrado, Washington, and elsewhere, the Commission report discusses regulatory, tax, and legal considerations with all of the gravity of a youthful Kevin Bacon in a ROTC uniform screaming "remain calm" just before disappearing under the feet of a heedless mob.

There's plenty in the report over which to chuckle, but a discussion of how to keep marijuana businesses from growing powerful enough to contend on an equal level with regulators is particularly amusing (to me, anyway). The report acknowledges "It is likely that the current illegal market has many operations at the full range of scale, from small to very large," but then muses over just how large businesses should be allowed to get out in the open.

Keeping marijuana businesses small increases the cost of inspections (due to more numerous sites to be inspected), but also may yield smaller operations which can less easily marshal the resources necessary to overly influence the regulatory process. Allowing large corporate entities makes regulatory inspection easier, but raises risks of regulatory capture.

Oh, so we're going to sculpt the industry to the proper shape, are we? Perhaps the "very large" existing illegal operations will cooperatively downsize so as to avoid accumulating too much political clout.

Keep in mind that Newsom, who now has his eyes on the governor's office, is a wholly owned creature of the teachers unions who lashes out even at fellow Democrats who challenge their malevolent influence over education policy and reform. Those teachers unions somehow gained regulatory capture over California politics without recourse to the "large corporate entities" that so trouble the pol who benefits from organized labor support. Just sayin'.

Elsewhere, the report acknowledges the likelihood that slapping high taxes on pot "can contribute to the continued operation of a large-scale illicit market." Regulations on just who could participate in a newly legalized industry also "could drive some actors into the illicit market."

Overall, the report reads like what it is: An effort by people accustomed to exercising control to get a handle on something that's already largely out of their reach.

Remain calm, Gavin. All is well.

News Moderator: Jacob Redmond 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: Will California Let Marijuana Businesses Grow Big Enough 'to overly influence the regulatory process'? - Hit & Run : Reason.com
Author: J.D. Tuccille
Contact: jdtuccille@reason.com
Photo Credit: SF Sentinel
Website: Reason.com

 

[Snerval1]

Below is a copy of a commenting letter I sent to both Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, and the Blue Ribbon Commission:


In reviewing your policy statements’ “Neutrality” section I find somewhat disturbing language I wish to comment on:
“Support for marijuana legalization is not required of members of the Commission. Neither the Commission nor individual members will be asked to endorse marijuana legalization…” Yet, after reviewing your panel’s members public track record on drug use I see it heavily weighted with those who oppose drug use; for example, Dr. Keith Humphreys. As a quick search on Google of Dr. Humphreys background as related to drug use shows he is a proponent of “quick and sure punishment” for drug users, which is further substantiated by the fact he was extensively involved in the formation of public policy, having served as a member of the White House Commission on Drug Free Communities under U.S. President George W. Bush and Senior Policy Advisor at the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy under U.S. President Barack Obama, none of which bode well for “neutrality.”

With the possible exception of Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom, public comments previously made by all members of your panel show a preponderance of anti-drug attitudes, not neutrality.

For your panel to objective, in total, I feel you do need an equal number of critical thinking supporters for the legalization of cannabis as you have members who are not in support of such.

Right now California, and indeed our great nation as a whole is struggling to come out from under a specious blanket of deceptions around and punishment for the use of cannabis. Every day more and more articles are coming to light pointing out the ever growing wider benefits from cannabis, the ever growing wider acceptance of cannabis by the public, health care providers, by government officials, and even law enforcement personnel. California has a golden opportunity here to become the standard for cannabis legalization nationwide within what policy it establishes. However, such can only be accomplished if you who are wanting to set the constraints on cannabis access and use are equipped with the full panoply of facts from all sides of this issue. I implore you to reconsider who is on your panel, to open it up to new members who have as strong of a stance in support of cannabis legalization as you now have staffed by those who oppose such, thus providing a true neutral panel for deliberation here.

Thank you very much for reading my words.

Most respectfully yours,

Grady Padgett
Los Gatos, CA 95033