Prop 64 - Adult Use of Marijuana Act

[SonomaCountyGrowersAlliance]

On October 5th, 2016 the Sonoma County Growers Alliance board voted unanimously to oppose Proposition 64. For six months, SCGA has carefully reviewed Prop 64 (aka: The Adult Use of Marijuana Act), paying close attention to the arguments marketed as the ‘pros’ and ‘cons’.

SCGA prides itself on being a community organization; our membership includes a diverse group of small business owners, spanning variety of industries that are an integral part of our community’s intricate economic and environmental web.

Prop 64 is an extensive 62-page document, written by well-funded private interest groups. This in itself forced SCGA to review with due diligence, and look for potential conflicts between ‘private interest groups’ and California’s community values. To be clear, SCGA is in favor of adult use in California, but supports the California Legislature drafting these guidelines in due time, using the full MCRSA foundation as a model for adult-use, not just pieces of it as 64 does.
The four points below are the key reasons SCGA opposes Proposition 64:

1. Unlimited canopy (Type 5) is bad for economics and environment

• A majority of cultivators in Sonoma County will be applying for cottage and specialty licenses in the Type 1,a,b,c categories. There is already an overproduction of cannabis in the state for the existing outlets available. It is imperative that the regulations focus on transitioning the thousands of existing small farmers, and provide a viable opportunity to successfully participate in the market. Creating opportunity for mega-grows is not in the interest of California or of our communities.

• Prop 64’s ‘five year delay’ in type 5 licensure is an empty protection; there is nothing that prevents immediately acquiring multiple type 3s to achieve the same purpose.

1. Taxes: One adult’s choice to partake in cannabis recreationally should not impact the cost to a legitimate medical patient.

• Unlike other states that have enacted recreational use, California’s Prop 64 imposes the higher of the two taxes (sales and excise) upon the patient. Section 34011 (a) includes a 15% Point of Sale tax for patients; taxing those who genuinely need medicine belies the original intent of the compassionate care.

1. Removal of mandatory distribution: 50,000+ California farmers will rely on distribution as an integral component of the supply chain.

• Segmentation is essential in the marketplace; it creates order, prevents monopolies and provides dynamic pathways to the market for craft businesses and local farms. Prop 64 will remove MCRSA’s restrictions on cross-licensure that were established expressly to protect small cannabis entities. Prop 64 allows for full-scale, unrestricted vertical integration by well-capitalized corporate entities. In addition, mandatory distribution enables taxes to be collected from distributors rather than cultivators.

1. Prop 64 proposes to exchange one aspect of a social injustice for a major economic injustice.

• The proponents openly state that small farmers will not survive the impacts of Prop 64.
• The CA Dept of Corrections & Rehab report up to 285 people were incarcerated in 2015 for cannabis offenses.
• With over 50,000 small farmers in the state at risk of ‘not surviving’ the impacts, we feel it is irresponsible for this adult use initiative to ignore this major segment of the industry in order to fight for justice for a few hundred. Simply put, this proposition seems to ignore the welfare of many to gain privilege for a few.
• This Friday, the PD also came out against Prop 64. You can read more here: https://www.scgalliance.com/news/son...poses-prop-64/

[Barry]

On October 5th, 2016 the Sonoma County Growers Alliance board voted unanimously to oppose Proposition 64. For six months, SCGA has carefully reviewed Prop 64 (aka: The Adult Use of Marijuana Act), paying close attention to the arguments marketed as the ‘pros’ and ‘cons’.

I am really disappointed to see this. I would have liked to think that cannabis growers would have been a little more enlightened than your typical business interest, but alas, they aren't.

If you read through their objections (you can see them better laid out here) it basically comes down to protecting their industry from higher taxes and competition, just like every other industry lobbies for.

I don't think taxes is really going to be an issue, because legalization is going to bring the market price down. So even with the added tax, cannabis will still end up costing less.

Regarding competition, there's 5 year protection for small growers in the bill. It may or may not be effective. Big Pot is inevitably coming, which I hope will be a good thing, but it will also leave lots of niche's available "Craft Pot", whether it be strains, outdoor organic, etc.

Beyond all that, it's time for pot to be legal!

[Valley Oak]

VOTE NO ON 64!

My understanding is that the passage of this new law would completely annul the original Prop 215 passed in 1996?

Also, you are now able to legally grow up to 12 plants without anything more than a doctor's prescription. But as a consequence of Prop 64, if it passes, that number drops to only 6! Furthermore, if you are caught growing 7 or more plants, you will go to jail for 6 months!

Another huge inconvenience is that the 6 plant limit applies arbitrarily to the entire household/property. This means that a 20 acre ranch with a family of eight people living on the property cannot grow more than 6 plants total!

Still more, under Prop 64, the age limit will be raised from 18 to 21. This will deprive adults of their rights and keep them away from their medicine and their freedom. This is clearly a move away from what we have now and certainly not the direction we need to be going. This is a move towards prohibition, which doesn't work.

And yet still more, just think of the fact that you can only have 6 plants. This includes the seedlings that sprout. What is a person going to do if half of their plants are males? They have to throw away the 3 males and if they are fortunate, will be able to plant 3 more seedlings. Also, people who are just starting out and don't know what the hell they are doing, are going to end up with no plants at all because they are going to do it wrong and ignorantly kill the few that do survive. What if you have an accident or unforeseen event and you suddenly lose some or all of your plants before they can produce the needed amount? You are screwed with this proposition.

Additionally, Prop 64 will require people to "hide" their 6 plants from public view and there are consequences if you don't, such as confiscation.

Finally, Prop 64 is designed to protect the privilege of large producers who are expected (and will) come into the industry of pot cultivation, distribution, and sale, while at the same time squeezing out the little guy who is simply trying to produce for his own consumption and maybe a little bit of a sale here and there.

All of these are stand alone reasons not to vote for 64. Let's keep 215.

I am going to vote NO on 64!