Medical Cannabis Regulatory Initiative to launch with unanswered questionsPosted by Mickey Martin on January 24th, 2012

The Medical Marijuana Regulation, Control and Taxation Act is a medical cannabis initiative being put forth by UFCW and ASA that they believe will “save the industry” and keep the Feds at bay. The only problem is that the Feds will never be satisfied, and that this initiative does nothing more than blow smoke screens about regulation, and actually establishes very few “regulatory” conditions at all.

What it DOES DO is establish a Bureaucracy that is top loaded with pre-determined positions that will guarantee the Union, and certain policy groups have a seat at the table; and make no qualms about it…that table will be there to EXPAND PROHIBITION in CA. But do not believe me, read it yourself.

First off, I am not sure how if currently we are questioning a City’s ability to regulate something Federally illegal, then how do we think a member of the CA DOJ and a “full-time sworn peace officer” will be allowed to under the oath they have sworn to, or would even really want to, develop and implement a system for people to break Federal law either. That is the first appointment I see as problematic.

Then number 5 allows for the appointment by the Lieutenant Governor for an appointment of a “representative from a medical marijuana union as defined in section…” Here is that definition:

And there you can see the clear interests of UFCW and why they are backing this effort. Hell, if you go to the webpage for the initiative you might think you were on the UFCW page by looking at it. Considering the term “currently has members working in the medical marijuana industry” is big, as it cements in the Union as the only group with members “currently” working in the industry. The Teamsters did have a group of growers at one time, but I do not believe they still do (don’t take my word on that); so “currently” UFCW does have people, which would almost certainly ensure this position is filled by a UFCW representative. Anyone want to bet that one of the regulations they develop has something to do with union membership? I have been assured that there is “companion legislation” already developed by the Union.

But let us move on….There are several positions that seem to be open for “patient advocates, people familiar with cannabis policy, those involved with dispensary/production, and someone familiar with cannabis science.” That seems swell on the surface, except there are groups that have been lobbying the Lieutenant Governor (who is currently Gavin Newsome who spoke at the DPA conference last year) for these positions already. Anyone wanna bet that many of these positions are filled already?

But the membership of this Bureaucracy is not even the issue…it is that the initiative really does not do much more than appoint this new Government administrative department (yeah… voters are really into more government bureaucracies these days), and will open up the entire industry to major criticisms as the campaign heats up. This will undoubtedly not be good for our cause and could potentially be a disaster if this campaign is rejected by the voter. What happens when the opposition heats up and calls bullshit, and the voter (who does not think the problem is that dispensaries are not regulated enough) realizes this is a forced expansion of the industry that they already think is out of control?

THe UFCW has done a push poll to help with their fundraising efforts that supposedly shows that people support this effort, but if you carefully look at the wording and the choices given, it is clear that it is a wobbler at best. Here are those results:

The only real number that one needs to see in this poll is that only 13% of respondents believe “the current system is working about right;” or to translate 87% think things are kinda fucked up. Then they only gave them two other options…”stronger and stricter regulations” and “improved access.” It is no surprise that “stronger and stricter regulations” won the battle of these three choices, as it is basically the only answer that says “shit is out of control.” There is no question for “do you think most people using cannabis are really seriously ill?”; or “Do you want a dispensary forced upon your town?” They call this “push polling” because it pushes the respondent to one of three answers, and generally the one you are trying to get people to believe so they will give money to your campaign. That is great and all, but let us not pretend that this is a legitimate test of whether voters will pass this initiative. Last time I checked 46% were not a majority of anything, and as previously stated, this initiative does no real regulating.

I have challenged the proponents at UFCW to a mock debate, where we would assemble a panel of contrived opposition to try and figure out how this may play out in the court of public opinion. For some reason, the folks putting this on do not really want to have this conversation, and that is fine. But below is the “What will the MMRCT do?” section from their website. I will make some of the opposition points that I think will come up in a campaign for this initiative, and the campaign can decide if they want to respond or not.

What will the MMRCT do?

• Establish a self-sustaining Bureau of Medical Marijuana Enforcement (BMME) made up of state agencies, patient advocates, physicians and knowledgeable experts on medical marijuana.

IMO, I think the CA voter wants another government agency like they want a hole in their head, regardless if it is paid for or not. The average voter thinks there is too much government BS already and has little faith that another agency is going to help that. The opposition will sell this as law enforcement being forced to oversee something that is Federally illegal, and that the bureau is stacked to favor making cannabis more readily available, and not more tightly controlled. It does not take a genius to figure out that 16 of the 21 positions on the Bureau are “pro-cannabis” or have a stake in making cannabis more available, not less. Every op-ed written about this campaign by our opposition will include this fact, and the average voter that believes we need “stronger and stricter regulations” as the poll shows, will not believe that a group of 21 people in which 16 of them have vested interest in the expansion of the industry will provide “stronger and stricter regulations.” You could have at least made it an 11-10 split or something…

• Establish a 2.5% tax on the sale of medical marijuana to pay for the BMME and the registry system.

While the 2.5% tax rate seems like the carrot on the stick that will encourage the voter, the fact is that most major cities who allow for dispensing already have these taxes in place, and they are generally at 4% or higher; therefore you will have City officials in places with these taxes in place up in arms because you are further draining their already struggling budget. On top of that, when the voter finds out that they have to have a dispensary in their area, chances are a lot of the NIMBY voters this may have encouraged will turn away, as people do not like to feel as if they are forced into having marijuana in their neighborhood. You can be sure that the “we are selling out the safety and morals of our communities for blood money” conversation will be put out by the opposition. I have no doubt about that.

• Explicitly protect patients’ civil rights, which were implicit in Prop. 215 but subsequently rejected by the courts.

If only patients made up more than maybe 3% of the electorate….The problem is that many people a.) do not believe patients are really patients; and b.) do not give a shit about “patients civil rights” if it infringes upon their own liberties and forces them to have dispensaries in their area regardless of what they want. Then it will become about their rights vs. the rights of patients, and the conversation about most people using medical cannabis not even really being patients will be sure to come front and center.

• Grant authority to the BMME to issue regulations regarding registration approvals, inspections, security and anti-diversion measures, promotional practices, labeling, packaging, environmental practices, security, etc., and to enact civil penalties for violations.

As stated above, once the opposition comes to the same conclusion I have, that the Bureau is made up of mostly people with a vested interest in cannabis being more available, there will be no confidence in this agency to really control or regulate anything. It does sound very pretty on the surface, but it simply will get torn apart in the court of public opinion.

• Allocate any additional funds raised beyond that which is needed to run the BMME to: the California Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research, grant programs for medical marijuana education, low-income assistance and health services, the Maddy Fund for emergency medical services, and research to develop environmentally sound cultivation practices.

Super…so the carrot on the stick will not even go to improving infrastructure, or funding public education; a lot of it will go back into promoting cannabis through research, and medical services for low-income people…which is its only saving grace that may get the voter’s attention. But be sure the opposition will play this as a “See….the taxes are not even what they seem.”

• Outlaw the issuance or use of fraudulent physicians’ recommendations.

Here is the section that supposedly does this:

This is simply window dressing that will be picked apart by the opposition. First off…it is ALREADY ILLEGAL to produce fraudulent physician recommendations. The problem is not that people think the recommendations are fraudulent, but that they think the law, Prop 215, allows for too much leeway for physicians and that immoral physicians are writing recommendations to anyone and everyone with $100. It will be exploited that this initiative does absolutely nothing to change that, and that it will be business as usual because it is not that the recommendations being written now are “fraudulent,” but that they are given to people for almost anything and that many doctors abuse the term “any other condition for which cannabis provides relief.” It will be exposed that this does nothing to change that and that the proponents are simply giving the voter false hope.

• The Bureau of Medical Marijuana Enforcement (BMME) would be established under the Department of Consumers Affairs, the same department under which similar agencies, such as the Alcoholic Beverages Commission and California Medical Board, operate.

Yay! More big government because everyone thinks that is working so well…..

• The BMME would operate under a representative 21-member board including state agencies, patient advocates, physicians and knowledgeable experts on medical marijuana.

As stated, the only real thing this initiative does is establish this Bureaucracy, which when it is revealed is made up of 16 “pro-cannabis” positions out of 21 total, will be soundly rejected as a ruse.

• Anyone in the business of cultivating, distributing, selling, processing, manufacturing, transporting, etc. medical marijuana for use by others would be required to apply for registration with the Bureau after July 1, 2013.

“Required to apply for registration.” Here is where you will lose many in the industry, especially in a time where nobody wants to register for shit because of the ongoing Federal crackdown. And then if you do not register, and you grow ror produce anything over a personal amount, you are now a criminal because you did not register. Why do I feel a huge backlash within the industry brewing on this one?

• Collectives that are now legally recognized under local regulations in cities such as San Francisco, Sacramento, etc., would be automatically granted registration for three years.

While this is great for existing dispensaries, it is unclear if some voters, who some already do not like the amount of dispensaries in their town (like say some in San Jose or LA), will be stuck with this amount for at least 3 years. Remember…only 13% of people in the polling referenced above thought things were working well right now. Some of those do not think things are working because there are too many dispensaries that they feel are abusing the system (google “dispensaries” and “Starbucks” to see how many reference are made about “more dispensaries than Starbucks in town”). Many of those now will be stuck in a situation they feel is out of control for another 3 years. Do you see where I am going? It will be exposed that this entire act is a softball for the industry to expand, and not the regulation it is made out to be.

• Patients and primary caregivers growing at home for personal use only would be exempt from registration.

Note the word “only.”

• Cities and counties would be forbidden to prohibit the operation of state-permitted medical marijuana businesses, but could establish reasonable zoning regulations on the location of facilities. Local governments would be required to allow at least one dispensary per county and one per 50,000 inhabitants. This requirement may be overridden by ballot initiative in cities or counties of more than 50,000, or by local governments in smaller jurisdictions provided they show that patients had adequate access by other means.

This is the NIMBY kicker. This is where people will be up in arms. Sure…there is an out; but they either have to have a vote or “show that patients have adequate access,” which are all very confusing to the average voter. Here is your headline in every conservative neighborhood and NIMBY community in CA…‘forbidden to prohibit the operation of state-permitted medical marijuana businesses.” People do not like to be forbidden from things. Many communities do not like being told what to do by big state government and do not like having medical marijuana imposed upon them, whether they approve of it, or not. This is where we will be handed our asses. Mark my words.

And what happens IF we do get handed our asses? Nobody wants to answer that. What does November 7th look like if this thing goes down in flames at the ballot box? How do we believe that law enforcement, the state legislature, and the Attorney General might respond if a clear mandate comes back from the voters that they do not want dispensaries? Where does that leave us? Remember…CA rejected 19 soundly (and supported Prop. 8 too) after being attacked, and that was just based on what “could be.” This campaign will be based in the what is and already has been. It will be a huge platform for our opposition (I am looking at you Bishop Ron Allen) to grandstand on every abuse of the system, on every “not sick” kid caught with medical cannabis, on every dumb advertisement ever run, every crime ever committed in or near a dispensary, and on every dumb thing a member of the medical cannabis community has ever said in the press. It will be a nightmare.

But if UFCW and ASA want to continue to press this out and ensure it qualifies for the ballot then super. I suppose we will just have to wait and see who is right and who is wrong. The only issue is that if I am wrong we have a new system in place that limits who can be involved in the industry, and if they are wrong the entire industry could potentially be shut down. That is a big fucking gamble and not even a good reward for winning. If I were laying down $2-3 million in cash to gather signatures, it sure would not be on an effort to expand prohibition that could ultimately result in losing everything. I would take my shot that 55% of CA agrees cannabis should be legalized for adults to use, and that in a Presidential Election year we have a good shot of getting that 50% + 1 vote we need.

But I have no real say in the matter, and it is up to the community to decide if they will support or reject this effort. I have said my piece and voiced my concerns. I look forward to Cannadome.