State Campaigns: Proposition 64 (CA) – More Than Industry, Justice

*Editor’s Note: As we enter the homestretch of the critical 2016 campaign season, NCIA has invited the state campaigns on marijuana policy to submit blog posts about the important work they’re doing. These campaigns need the support of the industry and the movement as they approach the finish line. If you haven’t already, please consider making donations of money or time to one or more of the state campaigns that are working to end the failed policies of marijuana prohibition.**

by Amanda Reiman, Drug Policy Alliance

They say there are moments that define an industry. A point where the creators and innovators look around and realize that things will never be the same. For the cannabis industry, that moment is November 8, 2016. It is that moment when the industry stands poised to enter the sixth largest economy in the world, the state of California.

On November 8th, Californians will vote on Proposition 64. Like the states that have gone before it, this initiative would legalize the personal possession and cultivation of cannabis for adults 21 and over in California, and like other states, it establishes a regulatory system for the cultivation, manufacturing, testing and distribution of cannabis products throughout the state. But, aside from the basics, there are several aspects of Prop. 64 that the cannabis industry should be particularly aware of.

First, Prop. 64 allows for, but does not require vertical integration. This means that businesses have the opportunity to perform more than one cannabis-related function, but they are not required to. Limits on vertical integration increase as the size of the business increases. For example, the smallest cultivator under the microbusiness license (less than 10,000 square feet), can vertically integrate under one license, whereas the largest Tier V cultivator, which will not be licensed until 2023, cannot vertically integrate at all. There is a flexibility in California’s regulations designed to accommodate the large variety of business types already operating in the state.

Secondly, Prop. 64 does not deny a license to an individual simply due to a previous drug felony. The first state to put this in the initiative language, California has an industry that has, for the most part, been operating in a gray/illicit market for the past two decades, despite the fact that California has allowed medical cannabis since 1996. For many of these folks, an arrest is par for the course, and these experiences should not exclude a person from participating in the legal market. This is especially true for people of color, who run a greater risk of arrest and felony charges for marijuana than white people.

Additionally, it’s not all about the plant. Although a lot of attention is paid to the growing of marijuana, creation of marijuana edibles, and the sales of marijuana, most of the new industry will revolve around ancillary products and services that do not touch the plant. This is especially relevant in California, which has a legacy of innovation, not just in tech, but also in agriculture and tourism. The infrastructure needed to support the legal market, especially given the high levels of regulation, still needs to be constructed in California, and should Prop. 64 pass, there will be an additional 39 million people living under these new rules.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, passing Prop. 64 will create opportunities for partnerships between the cannabis industry and the communities who have been most impacted by the war on drugs. Marijuana prohibition has caused immeasurable harm to vulnerable communities in California. And, while these communities exist in the current legal states as well, none of the legal states are as heterogeneous and have as much income and quality-of-life disparity as California. With a billion dollars a year of potential tax revenue on the table, and with 50 million dollars of that revenue promised to communities most impacted by the drug war, passing Prop. 64 is more a social justice issue than a regulatory one.

The cannabis industry has a lot to be excited about concerning legalization in California – the jobs and opportunities created and the innovation that can finally come out of the shadows. But it’s so much more than that. Legalization is about more than creating an industry; it is about civil rights, reducing mass incarceration, and advancing restorative justice. Passing Proposition 64 in California will be a powerful blow to the war on drugs, but we must know we must stay vigilant to the over-criminalization of people of color that will continue in America.

Amanda Reiman is Manager of Marijuana Law and Policy at the Drug Policy Alliance, where she works to develop DPA’s marijuana reform work as it relates to litigation, legislative and initiative drafting, campaign strategy, policy advocacy, media relations, fundraising, and public education in the local, state, federal, and international jurisdictions in which DPA is active. Reiman joined DPA in 2012 after working with Berkeley Patients Group, a renowned medical marijuana dispensary, as director of research and patient services. Reiman is currently a lecturer in the School of Social Welfare at the University of California, Berkeley, where she teaches Drug and Alcohol Policy, Substance Abuse Treatment, and Sexuality and Social Work.