Marijuana regulations in focus at Riverside Supervisors meeting
The Board of Supervisors tomorrow will review options for the regulation of commercial marijuana activity in unincorporated communities and could decide to completely drop any regulatory proposals, setting the stage for a possible ballot initiative by pro-cannabis groups.
The board has scheduled an afternoon session to evaluate what progress has been made by the Department of Planning and other agencies in drafting a regulatory scheme, which county officials said has bogged down over questions about zoning, taxes and potential repercussions at the federal level.
Supervisors Kevin Jeffries and Chuck Washington, who oversee the board’s Cannabis Ad-Hoc Committee, called for the study session.
According to the Office of County Counsel, a dozen cities within Riverside County have already implemented — or are preparing to implement — regulations permitting the commercial cultivation and trade of marijuana.
The board initiated the process last August, with the goal of having a draft regulatory framework in place by this summer for debate and public comment.
According to a committee statement posted to the board’s Tuesday agenda, planning and public safety officials need clarity on multiple issues, including how to determine which cannabis businesses will be eligible for licenses, how much to tax them and in what fund those monies should be deposited, where they should be permitted to operate and whether controls should be gradually phased in or enacted all at once.
Supervisor Marion Ashley has been opposed to the licensing concept from the beginning, and Supervisor John Tavaglione was absent during the debate last August. The board could decide to suspend action and not permit any regulatory scheme, potentially triggering an initiative drive by cannabis industry advocates.
“If this happens, and the initiative passes, the Board of Supervisors will lose the ability to control regulations and taxes/fees relating to cannabis industries, unless the board decides to put forth its own measure that would be more compatible with the county’s objectives,” according to the committee.
The supervisors said an argument for the do-nothing approach stems from recent statements by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who is a critic of open marijuana usage and has signaled a preference for enforcement against cannabis-related activity, in California and the eight other states where recreational marijuana is legal. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration still views marijuana as a Schedule 1 narcotic prohibited under the federal Controlled Substances Act.
Failing to act, however, would not address the impacts on the county from dozens of illicit marijuana grows, according to the committee. Jeffries and Washington noted that revenue derived from taxing legitimate operators could help put the bandit operations out of business.
The supervisors said the county could simply adopt regulations that the state drew up after the passage of Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, in 2016.
Existing county prohibitions against commercial cannabis cultivation and sales include the following:
— Ordinance No. 925 permits medical marijuana patients and their caregivers to cultivate up to 24 cannabis plants on private property, and under Proposition 64, individuals who are at least 21 years old may grow up to six plants for personal use in a private dwelling, though any type of indoor or outdoor commercial cultivation is strictly prohibited;
— Ordinance No. 928 prohibits mobile or stationary marijuana
dispensaries in unincorporated areas; and — smoking of any kind, including joints, in or immediately adjacent to all county-owned or operated facilities is not allowed under Ordinance No. 866.
— Proposition 64, along with the Medical Cannabis Regulation & Safety Act of 2015, were unified and codified last year, under Senate Bill 94, as the Medicinal & Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation & Safety Act.
While commercial marijuana grows and sales are now permitted statewide, localities continue to have authority to regulate the activity — up to and including blanket bans.
Under Prop 64, there’s a 15 percent statewide excise tax on all cannabis-related retail sales transactions — on top of existing general sales and use taxes — as well as a $9.25 per ounce cultivation tax for cannabis flowers and $2.75 per ounce tax for dried cannabis leaves.
Jeffries and Washington have expressed concern that overtaxing legal growers and sellers in the unincorporated areas could drive them into the black market.
Tentative estimates put county revenue generation from cannabis taxation at between $10 million and $25 million annually.
Download the KESQ & CBS Local 2 app on iTunes or Google Play for up-to-the-minute breaking news alerts & more
More: I-Team and Stands for You investigations
Find us on Facebook: KESQ News Channel 3 & CBS Local 2
Follow us on Twitter for breaking news updates: @KESQ & @Local2
We’re on Instagram! @KESQ_News_Channel_3 & @CBSLocal2
Noticias en español: Telemundo 15
