Historical precedents...
The epicentre of the American hippy movement passed landmark legislation in 1996 with one of the world's first systems for the regulation of medical cannabis. This was a pioneering initiative that came as a logical consequence of cannabis-related developments stemming back decades, to the 60s, when young people from all over the country decided to rebel against the system, move to California, and start growing marijuana. Their activities were kept under wraps for more than three decades and carried out mainly in the "Emerald Triangle," comprised of the counties of Trinity, Humboldt and Mendocino, regions whose mountains and vast expanses of "virgin" land granted growers the seclusion necessary to develop their plantations. Their activity has ended up becoming one of the main economic engines driving the State of California, which, with its thriving medical cannabis industry, produces and sells more of the green stuff than any other state, including Colorado, Washington and Oregon, where its recreational use is already legal. California marked a milestone in the history of cannabis legalisation after becoming the first state to approve a system to regulate medical cannabis, back in 1996. This example would spearhead a regulatory movement that has slowly been spreading, and not only to other states in the country (25 at present), but also globally (Canada, Uruguay, etc.) Twenty years on, and with firmly established medical cannabis dispensation system, California could once again take a leap forward on 8 November if it passes a cannabis regulation bill that would constitute a pioneering breakthrough.
Let's look at why ...
The so-called "war on cannabis" has generated great confusion about what can be done and what is prohibited with regards to cannabis in the USA. Much of this general confusion is due to the fact that some states have already approved regulatory models that permit the recreational (and medical) use of cannabis, but at the federal level cannabis continues to be listed as a dangerous, Level-1 narcotic (still classed in the same group as heroin). Although federal law takes precedence, technically, if California approves this proposal next week, it would place significant pressure on the federal government to alter that classification.
A turning point
The possession or use of recreational cannabis is currently illegal in California. Bill 215, approved in '96, which paved the path for the current regulatory model, only covers the medical use of cannabis. The new Bill 64 would legalise its recreational use by adults over the age of 21 statewide. However ...What specific changes does this new model propose? If you are interested in thorough information about Bill 64 you can out more by clicking here. If you do not want to read all 62 pages of this document, here's a summary of the most important provisions that would take effect if the people of California vote "Yes" on 8 November: • The measure would allow people over the age of 21 to grow up to 6 plants of non-medical cannabis (provided they are not visible from the street), and would also allow the possession, transport and consumption of up to one ounce of marijuana for recreational purposes. • A system for the regulation and taxation of recreational marijuana would be established, applying a 15% tax on the retail sale of cannabis. The funds raised through these taxes would be deposited in a California cannabis tax fund, with part of this money earmarked to subsidise youth programmes designed to prevent abuse of the substance, education, and addiction treatment. Smaller amounts of the money would also be allocated to deal with ecological disasters caused by illegal crops. • The new proposal would also entail a change to the sentences for cannabis-related criminal convictions, reducing the penalties for its illegal sale from four years in prison to six months. The law would also apply to people who are already serving time for illegally selling or growing marijuana, which would allow judges to reconsider their cases.
Winds of change ...
Although a similar proposal was already rejected in 2010, the surveys on Proposition 64 suggest that it will pass. According to recent polls, about 60% are in favour of it. If passed, the new law could mean a powerful boost to one of the USA's strongest and most economically buoyant states. According to a study at the University of the Pacific in Stockton, this new measure will bring about a significant boost to the California economy, generating thousands of jobs and economic benefits even greater than those seen in states like Washington and Colorado when they approved the use of recreational cannabis. This financial windfall would also benefit the State itself, as much of the profits would end up in public coffers, which could rake in up to 1 billion dollars annually. However, for the time being this is all speculative, as we do not yet know whether California, the most populous state in the US, and that with the highest rate of cannabis use, will pass this bill on Saturday the 8th. This vote, more important than ever, might be a kind of weathervane indicating the wind of change and pointing in a new direction in countries all around the world, where prohibitionist policies have failed and it has become clear that another way of doing things is possible, as cannabis regulation not only means a significant reduction of risks to public health, but also huge financial benefits for governments.
A double-edged weapon…
However, although polls suggest that Proposition 64 could be adopted, there is one sector that strongly opposes this new legal framework; this is, surprisingly (or not so much), that of cannabis producers. A recent survey by the California Farmers Association shows that of the 750 farmers currently operating in California, only 31 percent support the new bill, 31 percent oppose, and 38 percent are undecided. There are a number of reasons that have caused a significant portion of state cannabis producers to oppose the new bill. One of the reasons is the high economic cost for farmers to adapt their crops to the environmental regulations. If Proposition 64 is approved, damage to the environment through the drainage of local rivers for irrigation and contamination of local waters with pesticides would be compelling reasons to revoke state cultivation licenses. Fines for green breaches could range from $ 20,000 to $ 100,000 per farm, a difficult amount to take on for small-scale local farmers and that could put them out of the game. One measure, which despite good intentions towards the environment, could give way to the monopoly of the sector by large corporations (who would be able to assume the cost of penalties), and cause the extinction of small producers, until now the engine of the Californian cannabis industry. Another factor that would play to the detriment of local producers would be the fees they would be required to pay: a tax of $ 9.25 per ounce of flowers and $ 2.75 per cannabis leaves. Rates that would significantly lower their profit margin. Finally, and perhaps the greatest concern of this group, is the imminent arrival of large corporations to the cannabis market. Californian small producers believe that this bill would pave the way for large corporations to take over cannabis production. If Proposition 64 is approved next Tuesday, in five years five types of cultivation licenses would be issued that would enable large-scale production. This means that large corporations could become cannabis producers and, as in other industrial and agricultural sectors, drown the small producer. The usual story, the big fish eats the small.