Pubdate: Sun, 08 Nov 2015
Source: Sacramento Bee (CA)
Copyright: 2015 The Sacramento Bee
Contact: http://mapinc.org/url/0n4cG7L1
Website: http://www.sacbee.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/376
Author: Dan Morain

DON'T HOP ABOARD GAVIN NEWSOM'S MAGIC BANDWAGON QUITE YET

At first, Gavin Newsom's marijuana legalization initiative took on an 
air of inevitability

Legalization initiative would limit local officials' ability to 
restrict marijuana businesses

Corporations could control all aspects of marijuana business, from 
field to retail

Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom's marijuana legalization initiative seemed to 
be giving off the scent of inevitability last week.

Its unwieldy name aside, the "Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of 
Marijuana Act" heading for the 2016 ballot would strengthen law 
enforcement and allow local control, the proponents claimed. And the 
kids would win, too.

Newsom, the initiative's most prominent booster, called the measure 
"thoughtful" and promised it would make "marijuana difficult for kids 
to access."

One of Newsom's patrons, billionaire Sean Parker, of Facebook and 
Napster wealth, is offering some of his millions to help finance the 
campaign and called the initiative a "sensible reform-based measure 
that protects children."

Consultant Gale Kaufman, whose clients include the California 
Teachers Association, signed on to run the campaign.

But not all the Democratic cognoscenti were climbing aboard Newsom's 
magic bandwagon.

"I may be behind the times," Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon 
told me. "I'm not there on recreational use."

De Leon has no problem with cancer patients and people with AIDS 
finding comfort in medical marijuana. He calls the notion of jailing 
marijuana users "boneheaded." But recreational use is another issue. 
He grew up in Barrio Logan in San Diego, represents inner city Los 
Angeles and has never met Sean Parker.

"Growing up where I grew up, I've seen marijuana used as a gateway 
drug. Maybe not everyone, but I've seen folks graduate from marijuana 
to heroin and crystal meth," de Leon said. "I have seen what drugs 
have done in my community, in my own family."

Polls consistently show Californians back legalization, with caveats. 
A Public Policy Institute of California poll earlier this year showed 
a majority of white and African American voters think marijuana 
should be legal. But only 42 percent of Latino and 39 percent of 
Asian voters support legalization, and 54 percent of parents would be 
bothered if a marijuana store were to open in their neighborhood, the 
poll showed.

Earlier this year, Newsom made a big deal of releasing his Blue 
Ribbon Commission report on legalization, saying it was the product 
of much study and deep thought. At the top of his report's 
recommendations: "This industry should not be California's next Gold Rush."

Not to be a buzzkill, but the 60-page initiative could create 
mega-corporations, curtail local officials' authority to keep 
marijuana retailers out of their jurisdictions, and limit certain 
labor protections.

"It is very problematic for us," said Barry Broad, an attorney and 
lobbyist who represents the Teamsters. "I would predict that we will 
oppose it."

Broad, hardly a prohibitionist, was part of an alliance that included 
labor, cops, local officials and some marijuana entrepreneurs who 
agreed earlier this year to a three-bill package to regulate readily 
available medical marijuana.

Negotiated by Gov. Jerry Brown's top aides and signed into law by the 
governor, the new marijuana regulations seek to guard against 
monopolization by creating a three-tiered system. Individuals could 
receive licenses to grow, distribute and sell marijuana, but could 
not get licenses to do all three.

The Newsom-Parker initiative would undo that restriction by saying a 
person may receive licenses for everything from farm to market. The 
initiative takes the definition of what is a person to a whole new 
realm: "any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, 
association, corporation, limited liability company; estate, trust, 
business trust, receiver, syndicate, or any other group or 
combination acting as a unit, and the plural as well as the singular."

Corporations, evidently, are people, as are syndicates, joint 
ventures, limited liability companies, estates, trusts and the rest. 
Let the gold rush begin.

The legislation signed by Brown ensures that city councils and county 
boards of supervisors retain the power to grant or deny permits to 
marijuana retailers and growers.

In announcing his support for the initiative, Newsom, a former San 
Francisco mayor, said the initiative would preserve "local 
preference." But a provision says cities and counties cannot 
"completely prohibit" marijuana businesses "unless approved by a 
majority vote of the voters of the local jurisdiction."

In other words, voters would get the final say, rather than elected 
city council members or county supervisors. That might seem 
democratic. But here's my wild guess about who would fund such local 
campaigns: syndicates, corporations, trusts and any other "persons" 
who stand to profit from growing and selling marijuana.

The initiative says people under 21 cannot legally buy marijuana. But 
Rachel Barry, a UC San Francisco tobacco researcher who sat on 
Newsom's blue ribbon commission, said the initiative authors seem to 
have ignored tobacco-control experts' recommendations  this in a 
state that has led the nation on anti-smoking efforts.

For all the talk of protecting kids, there is nothing in the 
initiative that would prevent the marijuana industry from marketing 
to young people or any other demographic group. Nor would the 
initiative restrict marijuana industry sponsorship of cultural 
events, or product placement in movies, which have been powerful 
tools for the tobacco industry, and advertising restrictions are lax.

Between now and next November, consultants, financed by Parker and 
other well-heeled donors, will seek to persuade voters that the 
initiative will control, regulate and tax the adult use of marijuana, 
and protect children. They'll assure us that corporations, 
syndicates, trusts, LLCs and other "persons" who would become 
eligible to grow, distribute and sell the weed won't set off a new gold rush.

But in a prequel to an opposition campaign here, voters in Ohio on 
Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected a legalization initiative after 
opponents contended it would have created marijuana monopolies. Come 
to think of it, maybe that scent wasn't inevitability after all, but 
rather the stench of skunk.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom