Front Page  »  

California initiative expected to generate billions in marijuana sales

September 19, 2016

legalize-marijuana-california-environmentWith a proposed marijuana cultivation ban slated to return to the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, some local officials are weighing the potential harm pot farms pose to public health and safety against the possible financial boom cannabis production can create. Recently, observers have likened the financial opportunities both in the California and SLO County marijuana markets to the Gold Rush.

Legal marijuana sales in California will grow from $2.7 billion to $6.6 billion by 2020, if voters legalize recreational cannabis in November, according to the Archview Group, a pot investment and research firm. The nationwide market for legal marijuana sales is currently $5.7 billion, a total that is expected to rise to nearly $23 billion by 2020.

California’s marijuana legalization measure currently has the support of 58 percent of voters, according to recent poll conducted by the LA Times and USC Dornsife.

Some proponents of cannabis legalization are pointing to the recent success of the Mojave Desert town of Adelanto in luring investment from the marijuana industry. Last November, the city became one of the first in California to permit medical marijuana cultivation. [AFP]

Adelanto, a city of 32,000 residents, was on the brink of bankruptcy and struggling with double-digit unemployment. But after Adelanto adopted its marijuana ordinance, high-end investors rushed in to buy up warehouses and plots of land in the two areas city officials earmarked for marijuana cultivation. Rapper Snoop Dogg; actor Tommy Chong; and Ky-Mani Marley, one of Bob Marley’s sons, have each reportedly joined the scramble to secure a producer license in the city.

City officials have issued 35 licenses to grow marijuana and expect to distribute more in the coming months. Adelanto’s marijuana ordinance requires business to obtain 40 to 50 percent of their workforce from the local population.

John “Bug” Woodard Jr, a councilman and real estate agent, said an Adelanto building that was purchased for $725,000 a couple years ago is now worth $4 million.

On Tuesday, the SLO County Board of Supervisors is expected to vote on an urgency ordinance that would put a halt to new marijuana cultivation for commercial purposes. Under the urgency ordinance, individuals with marijuana prescriptions or their caregivers could cultivate up to six plants at a time.

In recent months, growers poured into the sparsely populated California Valley in eastern SLO County after a marijuana magazine stated the county does not have any regulations and is tolerant of large cannabis grows. The influx of growers has led to numerous complaints about men with guns protecting the pot farms.

Also, county inspectors have found documented gang members at several of the sites, as well as harmful chemicals, many of which are banned in California. Additionally, dangerous electrical and plumbing problems are frequently encountered at the California Valley pot farms, according to county staff.

Sheriff Ian Parkinson has thrown his weight behind the proposed marijuana moratorium, saying growers in the California Valley are threatening the safety of the community.

But, four votes are needed to adopt the moratorium, and there is a strong likelihood the regulation will not pass. Supervisors Bruce Gibson and Adam Hill have expressed opposition to the proposal.

Gibson, and particularly Hill, favor the idea of attracting marijuana businesses to SLO County. Hill has said marijuana will be a big industry in California, and SLO County must capitalize on it.

Regardless of the outcome of the vote on the urgency ordinance, the supervisors are expected to discuss permanent marijuana regulations following the statewide initiative in November.


Loading...
Subjects:                         
Related:


45 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Ladies & Gentlemen,


I plan to vote Yes on Proposition 62.


Although I do not smoke or use any intoxicants, it is apparent to me that it is time for new direction with regard to cannabis, I do not know a single person who thinks that our current policy is working.


Use some of the generated tax revenue for treatment, education and prevention of all intoxicants, including alcohol.


Yes on 62.


Just saying,


Josey


0

Well stated.


0

I’m with you. Don’t use myself but unless we are going to ban drinking too (don’t it didn’t work before) then what is the point. Weed is no worse than alcohol. Lets fry the bigger fish and move on.


0

It doesn’t matter what the Supe’s do, and it never has mattered. It’s not a question of whether weed is “good” or “bad”, it’s a question of are we willing to continue to imprison a huge number of productive citizens over weed, and the answer from the public is NO while those who have financially benefitted want to string the gravy train out for as long as possible.


It will be legal very soon no matter what they do, and violations of the new regulations will be a civil matter, not criminal, as they should be.


SLO county has been 100 miles behind reality on this since the beginning and that has not changed. The current debate is just more of the same.


0

… maybe this money will offset the closing of DCPP. Grass for waste..


0

I am not,not have I ever been to legal marijuana use. However,I don’t in anyway condone the activity not strongly regulated where it is to the point of inhabited dwellings that have “men with guns” protecting weed. What about families that did not purchase land to reside on,minus armed facilities. You can bet,if things go really wrong,hill will run like a dawg. All for the $$ and the sherriff cannot babysit Hills misguided choices for the $$. That is a FACT !


0

Some of those down votes are probably because your comments were damned hard to comprehend. I am still not sure of your point although I think I may have deciphered it.


0

Our initiative process is seriously flawed. Weed is practically decriminalized now! Vote no on this and carry on. Big government is evil!


0

slojustice says:”Weed is practically decriminalized now”


No it is not


Big government is evil and still arresting people for a weed at your expense.


0

Ah something we can both agree on. Yes get Gov. out of weed enforcement. Waste of my tax dollars. Prohibition didn’t work before and it ain’t working now.


0

I am 60 and have been using cannabis off and on since my late teens (over 42 years). I’m a husband, father, electronics engineer, community volunteer, musician and successful business owner. I never drink alcoholic beverages or use tobacco products. I vaporize cannabis (no smoke, no smell, no problems) in the evening after work or on weekends. I am in excellent health, my memory is perfect and I run 20-30 miles per week and finished my 2nd Marathon May 22, 2016 in 3 hrs, 35 mins. I am just one of millions of health conscious Americans seeking the least harmful buzz. How long do we have to suffer the lies and ridiculous nonsense from a government whose own data at the CDC shows cannabis nearly harmless by comparison to prescription drugs, tobacco and booze??


Center for Disease Control numbers of deaths per year in the USA


* Prescription Drugs: 237,485 + 5000 traffic fatalities

* Tobacco: 390,323

* Alcohol: 88,013 + 16,000 traffic fatalities

* Cocaine: 4,906

* Heroin: 7,200

* Aspirin: 466

* Acetaminophen (Tylenol): 179

* Marijuana: 0, none, not a single fatal overdose in all medical history and almost no traffic problems.


So, which is safer???? Legalize, regulate and TAX!


0

I know many who benefit from medical marijuana, and some who just enjoy it casually. Just eliminating the cartel/crime implications of this is good enough for me. I have a friend who’s grandaughter lives in Colorado. They have art, dance, music, plays….all fully stocked with supplies and costumes….teachers to engage with…all from the marijuana taxes. Why spend the money chasing criminals who cross a border that hasn’t got the resources to help us prosecute–instead, legalize it–save millions of trees (makes great paper and fabric products) and let the teachers keep their whole paychecks–instead of purchasing supplies for class!


0

Since the legalization of dope in Colorado you might wanna check into those, no more car incidents from dope thoughts.


0

It’s more likely that you would benefit from reading “How to Lie with Statistics” by Darrel Huff, first published in 1954. It’s a bit more complicated than just conflating the presence of phytocannabinoids with impairment.


In 2015: A barrel of oil sold for $37.20

Colorado’s population was approximately 5,456,574.

The Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) says that there were 23,140 arrests for DUI in Colorado.


In 2012: the Colorado voters approved Amendment 64 which decriminalized petty possession, petty cultivation and allows limited retail sales. Also in 2012:

A barrel of oil sold for $111.47.

Colorado’s population was approximately 5,189,458.

The CBI says that there were 23,323 arrests for DUI in Colorado in 2012.


In 2008: A barrel of oil sold for $151.72.

Colorado’s population was approximately 4,935,213.

The CBI says that there were 29,022 arrests for DUI in Colorado in 2008.


0

In Y2K Colorado voters approved The Colorado Medical Use of Marijuana Act. Also in Y2K:

A barrel of oil sold for $45.78.

Colorado’s population was exactly 4,301,261

The CBI says that there were 36,135 arrests for DUI in Colorado in Y2K.


The Colorado Bureau of Investigation provided the number of arrests, the US Census provided the body counts and the Chicago Board Options Exchange provided the historical prices for a barrel of oil.


I picked 2008 because the prohibitionist LEO’s seem to get cranky when we don’t include an acknowledgement that the Colorado Legislature authorized medicinal cannabis dispensaries in 2009.


The price of a barrel of oil is inversely proportional to the number of miles people are willing to drive and is especially true for discretionary driving.


It’s time for prohibition to go the way of the Norwegian Blue and I don’t mean just pining for the fjords.


0

Just curious why a good nights rest is not enough to feel good? Congrats for your luck of the draw but there are many losers thus comes the term, “Pot Heads”. As for the money, what will it cost for the consequences?


0

Interesting message today…cigarette smoking is BAD…marijuana smoking is GOOD! Yegads…I am living in the world of Alice in Wonderland and as Alice said so well..”it gets curiouser and curiouser!”


0

There has never been a single peer-reviewed scientific study that link cannabis Conception 2 lung disease or cancer in any way shape or form. Do United States government did a study during the Nixon Administration on Rastafarian culture and cannabis use in Jamaica. The Rastafarians smoke cannabis all day long and yet they showed no higher incidence of lung disease or cancer than there non cannabis consuming peers. The study actually showed that the Rastafarians live on average 3 years longer


0

There is a recent study( UK based I believe), that passed peer review, on lung cancer that had very interesting results. It assigned risk factors that are correlated lung cancer. The study had; cigarette smokers, non-smokers, and pot smokers.


Non-smokers had a risk factor of “0”..which makes sense.


Smokers had a risk factor of “1”…..which should also make sense.


Pot smokers risk factor for lung cancer?…….. “-1”.. that’s right..minus 1!! Which means you’re more likely to get lung cancer as a non-smoker than you are as a Pot smoker.


One might consider this recent study prescriptive….


……..a joint a day keeps the lung cancer away……might make that apple a day taste better too!!


0

While I find it believable that smoking pot does not cause significant lung cancer, I have doubts that it actually counters the cancer-causing properties of cigarette smoke. Do you have a source/citation for that study from which you make that claim?


In any case, I doubt that marijuana smoking is a net positive for anyone who doesn’t have specific medical needs for it. Its just that the negative effects don’t outweigh the positive ones enough (on average) to be worth dealing with it through the legal system.


This whole philosophy of “prohibition” as a way to deal with addictions has little to support it — even in the case of much more dangerous drugs like meth and heroin. The costs of enforcing such laws has to be as great as the costs of treating addicts in an expanded treatment program and probably has no better record in long-term successes.


The biggest argument against prohibition though is that the laws unnecessarily create a large “criminal class” of users, make dealing profitable enough to be judged “worth the risk” and, in some cases, the laws are abused by the enforcers to create a funding source (civil asset seizure) or to give them an excuse to harass someone when they can’t find another legal justification to do so.


0

Did I say that it counter-acted the affects of a smoker? No.


What you could draw from this study is that compared to not smoking at all, you’re less likely to get lung cancer if you are Pot smoker.


You said..

“In any case, I doubt that marijuana smoking is a net positive for anyone who doesn’t have specific medical needs for it”.


If viewed through the “need” to avoid lung cancer, then your doubts are misplaced, as this peer reviewed study proved it to be a net positive. If you view it through a moral lens, or other criteria, you may draw a different conclusion.


There is one sure fire way to avoid lung caner though……work in the dairy industry–as lung cancer is virtually non-existent in that community…they are constantly exposed to microbes etc. and their lungs are always in a heighten state of protection…kind of like letting babies play in dirt or be around animals at a young age.


BTW–similar results in a different study when comparing lung capacity( COPD issues). Pot smokers actually increased lung capacity over non-smokers, and in this one the Pot smoking did help the Smoker’s–gain lung capacity.


Leave doubts and assumptions in the dust and rely on empirical data. One allows you to state what you “think”, while the other allows to state what you “know”.


0

Smoking is not required to gain the benefits of cannabis, whether for medicinal need or just for enjoyment. Any potential health hazards from smoking cannabis belong to purposefully inhaling the gasses produced by combustion, not to the cannabis.


Be that as it may, if you can get your pals to agree to codifying cannabis law at parity with cigarettes I’m confident that we could put this controversy to bed by the end of the month.

————————


Q) Tell me Mr. Prohibitionist, how many of you and your pals does it take to screw in a light bulb?


A) None. Aren’t the liboralz always yipping and yapping about saving the environment, now they want us to burn more energy with lightbulbs? Isn’t that just like a liboral?


0

Boy, this should do wonders for Adelanto. Instead of double digit unemployment they’ll have triple digit brain deadedness. As if the blazing sun and dust isnt enough to make one a few quarts shy. As a former user of various drugs, anyone who says weed wont lead to more and harder drug is full of shit. Congrats Ca, Maybe we should auction off brown to the highest bidder but who pay good money for a sack of dung balancing on 2 legs.


0

You need to go back to college and review your fallacies. Do you even know what an empiric study is? Your reasoning is illogical. Just because you suffer from addiction and consider it a gateway drug—does not mean that is the experience for the majority of others. You are in a vast minority–and it is erroneous logic to assume this is what causes rising unemployment.


0

Studies….yeah, kinda like polls. I dont suffer from anything, I used what I used for 20 years or so and walked away when it wasn’t fun anymore. I it works for terminally illness great, have at it. If you think it works for you cause you think it makes you better ,your already cooked upstairs. My reasoning is just fine, its actually based off life experiences of 55 years.Its also based off hundreds I attended schools with, and those in the work force I’ve met in the last 40 years. Guess we’re all a vast minority and not really part of some douches “study”


0

Snoid says: “Maybe we should auction off brown to the highest bidder but who pay good money for a sack of dung balancing on 2 legs”


Wow classy, really makes your logical case.


0

I wouldn’t go counting on this money quite yet. There are many people out here who are sick of paying high prices for cannabis. There are also many people out here who know how relatively inexpensive and easy the plant is to grow. In an effort to keep the greed out of the market, I will be helping my neighbors and as many people as I can grow their own after cannabis is sort of legalized later this year. The yield from six plants is plenty to keep many people away from the rampant greed of the new gold rush.


0

But, if you read the initiative you will be required to get an annual permit (for a fee) and you will be allowed to grow a limited amount for your personal use only, you will not be able to sell (requires another permit (for a fee), and there many other terms and conditions set up in this initiative. You will also lose your permit, gun, etc if you do not comply. People should really read this initiative, sort of like the Obamacare and Pelosi saying you have to pass it to know what is in it, don’t get fooled twice.


0

SLOBIRD says:”You will also lose your gun, etc if you do not comply. ”


No, not true.


SLOBIRD says:”you will be required to get an annual permit (for a fee) and you will be allowed to grow a limited amount for your personal use only”


No, not true no permit to grow small amount in my yard.


You should really read this initiative SLOBIRD, it is not like the affordable care act at all and your attempt to scare people? Pelosi saying? Fail.


0

How about if you read the text of the measure and point out where you see a requirement for a license for personal cultivation? It must be written with invisible ink:

https://www.oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0103%20(Marijuana)_1.pdf?


Neither the word gun nor the word firearm occur anywhere in the text of the Initiate. Yes, Federal law makes it illegal to own or possess a gun for any person who chooses to enjoy cannabis. California can’t change that but the Federal gun laws will be exactly the same on the day after Election Day as it was on the day before.


Ironically Oregon Sheriffs are required to issue CCWs even if they know first hand that the applicant is on the Oregon medicinal cannabis patient registry. The SCOTUS didn’t grant certiorari in the appeal.

http://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/supreme-court/2011/s058645.html


0
1 2