Pot advocates settle on 2016 initiative

Does Sean Parker-backed measure go too far in regulation direction?

By Steven Greenhut

FILE - In this Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2015, file photo, a flower nearly ready for harvest sits atop a mature marijuana plant at the Pioneer Production and Processing marijuana growing facility in Arlington, Wash. According to results published Wednesday, Oct. 21, 2015, in JAMA Psychiatry, marijuana use among U.S. adults doubled over a decade, rising to almost 10 percent or more than 22 million mostly recreational users, according to government surveys. The trend reflects a cultural shift and increasingly permissive views about the drug, researchers say, noting that other studies have shown increasing numbers of adults think marijuana should be legalized. (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson, File) The Associated Press

Sacramento — The attorney general’s office has been so inundated with marijuana legalization measures that it’s been hard to separate the wheat from the chaff – or the stems from the buds, to use a more appropriate analogy. It costs less than the average price of an ounce of the stuff to file a statewide initiative, so it’s been unclear which ones might emerge with enough financial backing to get on the ballot and maybe even win approval.

That has all changed. In November, former Facebook President Sean Parker backed something called the Adult Use of Marijuana Act. Parker is a billionaire who has said he will dedicate millions to the effort. The proposal also earned the backing of Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, the 2018 gubernatorial candidate who headed the state’s blue-ribbon commission on marijuana.

The basics, per California NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws): "(1) allow adults 21 years and older to possess up to one ounce of marijuana and cultivate up to six plants for personal use; (2) regulate and tax the production, manufacture, and sale of marijuana for adult use; and (3) rewrite criminal penalties so as to reduce the most common marijuana felonies to misdemeanors and allow prior offenders to petition for reduced charges."

Some veterans of past marijuana battles – e.g., the successful effort to legalize medical marijuana in 1996 (Proposition 215) and the failed effort to legalize recreational marijuana in 2010 (Proposition 19) – had been part of the "Reform CA" coalition, which had submitted its own initiative to the attorney general. Many observers figured theirs would be the "adult" proposal that would galvanize support.

Earlier this month, a majority of the group’s board voted to withdraw support for its proposal – and six board members signed onto the Parker-backed initiative. "(W)e’re convinced it’s time to endorse that initiative and unite everyone behind a single, consensus measure … ," according to a statement from a Reform CA board member. That was big news.

But the controversies have not faded away. GOP congressional candidate Paul Chabot, of the Coalition for a Drug-Free California, has been quoted opposing the measure. His group argues marijuana is a dangerous drug. Some of the most intense initial opposition, however, comes from those in the pro-legalization camp who believe the measure is too restrictive.

Steve Kubby, a Proposition 215 activist, last month warned that the Parker initiative "is a Trojan Horse that gives us little, but authorizes cops and agents to perform warrantless searches and six months in jail for growing over six plants or possession of over an ounce."

Kubby recently stated in an email that he will "hold my nose and support this initiative" provided it eliminates the warrantless-search provision, a provision that treats open containers of marijuana in the same way that open containers of alcohol are treated, jail time for possessing more than an ounce of marijuana or more than six plants, and a requirement that those convicted of marijuana offenses register for five years as drug offenders.

The "adult use" initiative is designed to provide something palatable to voters and law enforcement. It is modeled on the new law that creates a state bureau to regulate medical marijuana clinics and gives local governments much control over its sale and use within their city borders. It is designed to boost tax revenues.

It has provisions allowing employers to test employees for marijuana use. It requires that larger marijuana facilities have a "labor peace agreement" that promotes unionization. In other words, it is designed to ameliorate opposition from powerful interest groups.

And that’s where the dilemma comes in. The current system isn’t particularly oppressive for most marijuana users. Recreational marijuana is illegal, but the state imposes modest penalties for possessing it. It’s also easy to receive a medical-marijuana card. The initiative would let adults possess some marijuana without any hassle (and grow a small number of plants indoors), but it creates 62 pages of new rules and enforcement mechanisms.

The initiative’s backers argue that legalizing marijuana "will incapacitate the black market," thereby making it harder for children to access the drug. They say legalization will "alleviate pressure on the courts." They say it will protect the environment by undermining the market for illegal pot operations which "steal or divert millions of gallons of water without any accountability." Those are the right arguments.

One need not support marijuana use to understand that Prohibition doesn’t stamp out its use – it only sends it underground. Yet if the state overly regulates something, black markets grow, even for legal products. The question is whether the initiative goes too far in the regulation direction. That remains to be seen, but at least everyone now knows the language they’ll be fighting over in the election.