Balancing local, state and federal regulation of marijuana

California voters expressed in November the will to make marijuana use recreational, now local governments are left with the problem of finding a way to do that.

City governments have been wrestling with creation of new regulations on growing, selling and using marijuana products, and now the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors has stepped into the fray, albeit not unanimously.

The board voted 4-1 at a recent meeting in Santa Maria directing staff to come up with recommendations on guidelines for licensing, permitting, taxing and other fee schedules.

The lone dissenter was 2nd District Supervisor Janet Wolf, who expressed concern about the marijuana industry in general, and the momentum legalization has gained in recent years.

Wolf has been active in her support of health and youth organizations, so her concerns seem entirely reasonable. While the medicinal benefits of marijuana have generally been quantified, there remain questions about the weed’s ill effects, especially on children.

The Board of Supervisors asked staff to come back with recommendations on regulations by January of next year, which is the deadline for local jurisdictions to have rules in place, and if they don’t have those policies set up, the county could lose control of marijuana, and the state would regulate the industry.

That seems unlikely, because state policy makers are in just as much of a quandary as their local counterparts.

One might reasonably assume that, given the wave of favorable public sentiment for decriminalizing the medical and recreational uses of marijuana, governments at all levels would have created at least templates for rules and regulations long ago. That’s not how governments roll.

In fact, local governments should get a move-on because losing local control on the marijuana industry could turn out to be a very costly mistake. And besides, when is the last time the California Legislature did something to actually help county governments?

The whole marijuana issue sort of floats above the real world, a fitting analogy if ever there was one. State and local governments can respond to voters’ wishes, but the big question should be asked at the federal level, and that question is — just how much longer will marijuana remain a Class-1 controlled substance? Until the feds provide an answer, research into the weed’s benefits and/or liabilities will remain in limbo.

With that federal restriction hanging over local policy makers’ heads, creating local regulations becomes a guessing game. One participant in last week’s board meeting characterized it as “trying to fly an airplane while building it .” A better comparison might be, fixing an airplane while it’s in flight.

County officials expressed skepticism about their ability to come up with an entire set of permanent regulations by the January 2018 deadline, another clue that the county really didn’t recognize the potential for decriminalization, which suggests haphazard policy making procedure.

What may save counties in that regard is the fact that there is plenty of skepticism about the state’s ability to come up with a set of cogent regulations, an assumption we base on the Legislature’s past performances.

Speakers at last week’s board meeting expressed the need for local regulations being in place, if for no other reason than having the county be in position to collect fees and taxes, thus helping cover enforcement costs.

In fairness to governments struggling to cope with this new marijuana paradigm, there are still too many unknowns, a situation exacerbated by the federal government’s foot-dragging on marijuana research.

Everyone needs to get moving on finding answers, figuring out the unknowns and preparing for the future.