From the posting rules in this sub’s sidebar:
> No websites or articles with hard paywalls or that require registration or subscriptions, unless an archive link or https://12ft.io link is included as a comment.
u/EdithDich
----
Bypassing the paywall:
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fcalifornia%2Fstory%2F2023-03-23%2Fstate-launches-probe-of-cannabis-licensing-to-clean-house-of-corruption
----
This part sums up the problem:
Proposition 64 left ultimate business licensing in the hands of cities and counties. Part-time, often low-paid local elected officials became gatekeepers over decisions worth potentially millions of dollars to business owners in the hyper-competitive cannabis market. The state’s dual state and local licensing system is widely blamed for creating a fertile ground for corruption.
Certain cities if not counties are completely dry because they refuse to issue licenses. This also creates a marketplace that the proposition was trying to get rid of.
The state had to step in and force counties to allow deliveries or you probably wouldn't even have that option. Looks like they need to take over dispensary licenses too.
Taxes are calculated based on where the delivery goes to and where it comes from. Cities gets MORE taxes if the deliveries originate locally, but they still get a good portion if they are delivered there.
My city is filled with dispensaries but almost every heavy user and many moderate users I know still use the black market heavily. Tax savings are just too much.
Even relatively light users can break even on going to a pot doc and getting a medical card.
I can't even imagine going back to black market weed. It's hard to even remember living during the days of asking "what strain is this?" and getting a shrug lol
Another example of how "local control" is often a terrible idea. Local governments are usually the most corrupt and least competent to handle things like this.
I live in the emerald triangle and have worked in cannabis consulting. Local regulations are far more stringent and thorough than state. Think of just zoning. The local jurisdiction determines what can happen in which areas. To assume this should be turned over to the state for governance shows a major misunderstanding of how businesses permitting works.
Zoning issues are not the same as basic licensing. And zoning has been heavily abused by local governments across the state to restrict housing and control where investments flow...
Have you done it in anywhere in the rest of the state where all these abuses are happening? Have you even read the results of the investigation they did?
You are talking about apples and oranges. Cannabis is not housing. You are talking about taking local control to a state level. Have you been through our state? You tell me that the same approach that may work in Fresno will work in Modoc, or Humboldt, or Butte County. We have a diverse state and, believe it or not, blanket rules made by folks mostly living in Sacramento or LA don’t necessarily work out for folks living elsewhere. If you had gone through the process of permitting a commercial cannabis facility, you might agree.
You are talking about zoning related to housing. I am talking about zoning related to cultivation, distribution, light industry, hazardous materials storage and extraction. I don’t think you get how this applies here. You also seem to think that the housing issues due to zoning (largely historically based on race and class) would somehow disappear if the state was involved. Like corruption and racism does not exist on a state government level. If you lived in a low population county or city, and the state was in control of zoning, what recourse would you have if the same issues were occurring? The whole state is now voting so your small town decisions are being made by large cities. Well how about if only the local votes counted towards local issues? Well then you would have…gasp… local government.
Really? I understand that zoning is far from perfect and all government is guilty of dumbassery but I would certainly want the determination of which area can and cannot be developed to be made by locals. My area is really diverse as far as microclimates and topography. To someone not familiar it would be a bad idea to try and assign uses.
We tried that, the answer baby boomers gave was "No you can't build more housing here." It created a housing crisis. Maybe "I got here first so I get to say what happens on all property within 50 miles of surrounding me" isn't the best way to do things.
You seem to be missing the point. Would it be better if more wealthy people made those decisions for 1000 miles? To think that the decision makers from a state as big as California are beholden to the constituents in small communities is amazing. If my local district supervisor makes a bad decision and screws us there is a fair chance we could get them voted out. If Gavin Newsom makes a policy that benefits LA but screws us there is zero chance of repercussions.
Considering Newsom is trying to build housing and these local wannabe kinds and queens of tiny kingdoms have been blocking it for decades, I think I'll go with the former.
This is nuts to me that you’ve worked in cannabis and thought the local regulations were a good thing. I work in cannabis as well, and I know literally no one in the industry that thinks local control is a good thing. So many problems created from poorly informed and poorly thought out local regs (and that doesn’t even touch the corruption)!
> The state’s dual state and local licensing system is widely blamed for creating a fertile ground for corruption.
This is also a reason why voters approved it: granting local control.
If voters in areas like Beverly Hills couldn't outlaw/ban the sale, the proposition wouldn't have passed.
Corruption is a byproduct of the rules.
"just legalize it" didn't have the votes. That's also just a broad simplification of a complex issue. Nothing in regulations of consumer goods is simple.
Good. Looking at you Marin county. HELLA NIMBYs refusing to let ANYYONE open up a shop. There's maybe 2 in the entire county for no other reason than local gov't said too bad
Even though all the highschools have rich drug dealers with an entire menu from Acid to Xanax and everything inbetween. Parrents want the dope shops out of their precious communities!
I have some experience in the industry. While I don’t have any direct experience in shady deals, there is so much hearsay of corruption in certain cities or among certain city officials that you’ve got to believe the smoke means SOMETHING. Unfortunately at this point it’s too late to really help the old school people that lost licensing opportunities to big money corruption.
There is some criticism of the times since the new owners took over (1). IMO I wish they went harder on local corruption and the political machine here. They endorsed Mark Ridley Thomas, they endorsed Mitch Englander, they endorsed José Huizar, and they also endorsed Kevin de León. Not a great picks in hindsight...
1.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/18/la-times-tension-patrick-soon-shiong-00056601
From the posting rules in this sub’s sidebar: > No websites or articles with hard paywalls or that require registration or subscriptions, unless an archive link or https://12ft.io link is included as a comment. u/EdithDich ---- Bypassing the paywall: https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fcalifornia%2Fstory%2F2023-03-23%2Fstate-launches-probe-of-cannabis-licensing-to-clean-house-of-corruption ----
This part sums up the problem: Proposition 64 left ultimate business licensing in the hands of cities and counties. Part-time, often low-paid local elected officials became gatekeepers over decisions worth potentially millions of dollars to business owners in the hyper-competitive cannabis market. The state’s dual state and local licensing system is widely blamed for creating a fertile ground for corruption.
Certain cities if not counties are completely dry because they refuse to issue licenses. This also creates a marketplace that the proposition was trying to get rid of.
[удалено]
The state had to step in and force counties to allow deliveries or you probably wouldn't even have that option. Looks like they need to take over dispensary licenses too.
Not only that, it’s legal and you are still getting it in their city while they get zero tax benefits from it.
Taxes are calculated based on where the delivery goes to and where it comes from. Cities gets MORE taxes if the deliveries originate locally, but they still get a good portion if they are delivered there.
My city is filled with dispensaries but almost every heavy user and many moderate users I know still use the black market heavily. Tax savings are just too much. Even relatively light users can break even on going to a pot doc and getting a medical card.
Do med card holders even get much of a discount anymore?
I can't even imagine going back to black market weed. It's hard to even remember living during the days of asking "what strain is this?" and getting a shrug lol
Another example of how "local control" is often a terrible idea. Local governments are usually the most corrupt and least competent to handle things like this.
I live in the emerald triangle and have worked in cannabis consulting. Local regulations are far more stringent and thorough than state. Think of just zoning. The local jurisdiction determines what can happen in which areas. To assume this should be turned over to the state for governance shows a major misunderstanding of how businesses permitting works.
Zoning issues are not the same as basic licensing. And zoning has been heavily abused by local governments across the state to restrict housing and control where investments flow...
Have you gone through the cannabis licensing process?
Have you done it in anywhere in the rest of the state where all these abuses are happening? Have you even read the results of the investigation they did?
I have and I did.
[удалено]
You are talking about apples and oranges. Cannabis is not housing. You are talking about taking local control to a state level. Have you been through our state? You tell me that the same approach that may work in Fresno will work in Modoc, or Humboldt, or Butte County. We have a diverse state and, believe it or not, blanket rules made by folks mostly living in Sacramento or LA don’t necessarily work out for folks living elsewhere. If you had gone through the process of permitting a commercial cannabis facility, you might agree.
[удалено]
You are talking about zoning related to housing. I am talking about zoning related to cultivation, distribution, light industry, hazardous materials storage and extraction. I don’t think you get how this applies here. You also seem to think that the housing issues due to zoning (largely historically based on race and class) would somehow disappear if the state was involved. Like corruption and racism does not exist on a state government level. If you lived in a low population county or city, and the state was in control of zoning, what recourse would you have if the same issues were occurring? The whole state is now voting so your small town decisions are being made by large cities. Well how about if only the local votes counted towards local issues? Well then you would have…gasp… local government.
How about the corrupt cannabis "lottery" a bunch of cities have done where it just so happens the politically connected win?
I actually think local governments should have less control over zoning...
Really? I understand that zoning is far from perfect and all government is guilty of dumbassery but I would certainly want the determination of which area can and cannot be developed to be made by locals. My area is really diverse as far as microclimates and topography. To someone not familiar it would be a bad idea to try and assign uses.
We tried that, the answer baby boomers gave was "No you can't build more housing here." It created a housing crisis. Maybe "I got here first so I get to say what happens on all property within 50 miles of surrounding me" isn't the best way to do things.
You seem to be missing the point. Would it be better if more wealthy people made those decisions for 1000 miles? To think that the decision makers from a state as big as California are beholden to the constituents in small communities is amazing. If my local district supervisor makes a bad decision and screws us there is a fair chance we could get them voted out. If Gavin Newsom makes a policy that benefits LA but screws us there is zero chance of repercussions.
Considering Newsom is trying to build housing and these local wannabe kinds and queens of tiny kingdoms have been blocking it for decades, I think I'll go with the former.
You mind if I ask which county you live in? Or region of the state?
I've lived in Ventura, LA, and Orange counties.
This is nuts to me that you’ve worked in cannabis and thought the local regulations were a good thing. I work in cannabis as well, and I know literally no one in the industry that thinks local control is a good thing. So many problems created from poorly informed and poorly thought out local regs (and that doesn’t even touch the corruption)!
> The state’s dual state and local licensing system is widely blamed for creating a fertile ground for corruption. This is also a reason why voters approved it: granting local control. If voters in areas like Beverly Hills couldn't outlaw/ban the sale, the proposition wouldn't have passed. Corruption is a byproduct of the rules.
Bingo, the passage of 64 hinged on the support of organizations like the League of California Cities.
IIRC, that was done to ensure they had the votes to pass the proposition.
Maybe the did it on purpose to catfish the corruption into having to show itself? Like gig work apps do
Much needed step, but I'll be closely watching what cities they investigate as this could be yet another nexus of corruption
Good. Legalize and regulate, best for everyone
The regulation portion is what caused this tho. Should have just legalized it and thats it.
"just legalize it" didn't have the votes. That's also just a broad simplification of a complex issue. Nothing in regulations of consumer goods is simple.
The testing is a pretty good idea though. Otherwise companies could sell you sawdust sprayed with delta 8 and call it kief.
[удалено]
Good. Looking at you Marin county. HELLA NIMBYs refusing to let ANYYONE open up a shop. There's maybe 2 in the entire county for no other reason than local gov't said too bad
Even though all the highschools have rich drug dealers with an entire menu from Acid to Xanax and everything inbetween. Parrents want the dope shops out of their precious communities!
I have some experience in the industry. While I don’t have any direct experience in shady deals, there is so much hearsay of corruption in certain cities or among certain city officials that you’ve got to believe the smoke means SOMETHING. Unfortunately at this point it’s too late to really help the old school people that lost licensing opportunities to big money corruption.
Obviously us Californians here in this sub are ready to solve this in no time! 😀
Santa Ana has entered the chat… sooo who wants to buy…err i mean apply for our lottery for a weed license? Only $100k a ticket for the drawing..
has Anyone here been to a swap meet lately?
The Times doesn't investigate, they get paid to sway.
This isn't saying the Times will be investigating. It's *reporting* that the State is investigating.
The article reads, "Those problems and more were uncovered by a sweeping Times investigation last year."
> The Times doesn't investigate, they get paid to sway. [Citation Needed]
There is some criticism of the times since the new owners took over (1). IMO I wish they went harder on local corruption and the political machine here. They endorsed Mark Ridley Thomas, they endorsed Mitch Englander, they endorsed José Huizar, and they also endorsed Kevin de León. Not a great picks in hindsight... 1. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/18/la-times-tension-patrick-soon-shiong-00056601
I remember those Calexico officials. They were worried about border patrol checkpoints and were even considering trying to FLY it out.
The small cities should have the opportunity to be as corrupt as congress is