zoning rules,” Barrett said, and she hopes the council sets rules for a possible dispensary analogous to the rules that exist at present for the sale of alcohol. But at present “there are no rules about that.” It is just as well that the new law will not be implemented until Jan. 1, 2018, so such issues can be worked out. In general, as to abuse of any substance, “If you take it out of the criminal justice system you can treat it accordingly,” as a medical matter. Many in California are concerned that the new Trump administration will prove hostile to all of these state liberalization experiments. Barrett said, “Jeff Sessions doesn’t fill me with a lot of optimism, but if the Trump people are as business-minded as they say they are, they’ll perceive that this is a business that could take off.” She thinks the “jury is still out” about the new administration’s position. All Over the Map The director of California NORML, Dale Geiringer, agrees with Barrett about that jury. He said in a recent interview with Marijuana Industry News that Trump has himself indicated he wants to leave the matter up to the states. But he doesn’t expect that the new administration will put a priority on an anti-pot crackdown. Geiringer also believes that it is possible Congress will yet address the “banking thing,” that is, the issue of granting state-legal marijuana entities access to the federally regulated banking system. Advocates might sell such a change to a Republican House and Senate “as a deregulatory measure on the one hand and as a law enforcement issue on the other.” Law enforcement because, as often observed, effectively forcing businesses to keep large sums of cash on hand amounts to a poorly stored and maintained powder keg. On the fiscal side of the matter, Geiringer’s observations do remind one of Arthur Laffer. It mightn’t be wise, he said, for municipalities to
30
| mjinews.com
expect a big revenue boost. “The state is going to be taxing at a hefty rate, close to 25%. Anything in excess of that is going to be very burdensome.” Indeed, this is behind his prediction of a continued black market. “Burdens are high enough to make it very likely that an illegal market is going to be around for an indefinite future.” Asked about Mayor David Glass’ reaction to the will of the people as expressed in Prop 64, Geiringer said, “we’ve heard that in a few cases also,” that is, California NORML knows of other instances in which municipal officials have changed views as a consequence of this vote. But the reaction is far from universal, and there will be fights at the local level ahead. Some municipalities are “moving right away not to allow it,” such as Fresno County. Back to Legislative Analysis But to conclude this discussion one might look back to the legislative analysis of the budget consequences of Prop 64 mentioned above. The report has been cited often for the number $1 billion. It does say that total state and local revenues “could eventually range” as high as $1 billion annually. But both the “could” and the “eventually” in that sentence constitutes an important qualification. Further, even if the $1 billion is taken as gospel, its significance shouldn’t be oversold. The 2016-17 state budget calls for the total expenditure of more than $122 billion. That of course does not take into account all of the municipal budgets. California’s Treasury plans to spend $1.5 billion just to “improve or replace deteriorated state office space in central Sacramento, including the State Capitol Annex.” Further, the report acknowledges a negative effect of legalization seldom highlighted by either its advocates
or its opponents: the existence of a black market has its good side for the communities where it thrives. “Precisely how this measure would affect these local economies [in Humboldt, Mendocino, and Trinity Counties] is unknown. Lower marijuana prices and more opportunity for legal cultivation elsewhere could hurt the economy in these areas, reducing local government tax revenues. If, however, local growers and businesses successfully marketed their marijuana products as premium goods, consumers might be willing to pay above-average prices for them. If that occurred, it could help offset some of the negative economic effects in those areas.” The bottom line is that, yes, the victory of Prop 64 is an advance for freedom and, yes, it is sensible to treat addiction as a medical issue, which requires that authorities at every level stop treating it as a crime but it is dangerous to oversell this change, and to imagine that it is a goose that will forever lay golden eggs for states and towns alike.