S.J. leaders divided on Measure B proposal to tax cannabis sales
Let’s look at the numbers. In 2016, California voters approved legalization of the adult use of cannabis by a margin of 57 percent to 43 percent. In San Joaquin County, though, the margin was much smaller: 51.85 to 48.15.
Three months ago, the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors placed a measure on Tuesday’s ballot to tax and to regulate the legal sale of adultuse cannabis in unincorporated parts of the county. Three supervisors voted yes and two voted no, a 60-40 margin.
Here’s the thing: Because Measure B is a special tax, it will need the support of twothirds of San Joaquin County voters Tuesday to become law, a far greater percentage than the state managed to muster to pass the adult-use of cannabis proposition two years ago.
Still, Measure B proponents are expressing cautious optimism that Measure B will squeak through on Election Day.
“We did some upfront polling, and that indicates there definitely is a path to success on this,” Supervisor Kathy Miller, a supporter, said this week.
“The decision on this was made in 2016 and while I sympathize with people’s strong feelings about it, I think at this point it is a far better strategy to generate the needed revenue to stamp out the illegal participants and encourage folks that want to follow the law.”
Measure B, if passed, will allow retail licensees to sell medical and recreational cannabis; will require prospective businesses to be licensed by the state and granted a use permit by the county; will ban cannabis marketing to those younger than 21; and will require cannabis proprietors to provide security at their sites.
Most significantly, Measure B would impose a minimum 3.5 percent tax on legal cannabis businesses, with the potential for supervisors to increase the tax rate to a maximum of 8 percent.
“San Joaquin County currently spends around $4 million a year from its general budget to enforce laws against illegal cannabis businesses,” said Zach Drivon, an attorney whose practice focuses on marijuana-related issues. “Measure B would create new revenue by regulating and taxing legal cannabis businesses to offset the cost associated with eliminating illegal cannabis businesses.”
According to the ballot language, revenues would support “early childhood education, drug prevention, literacy, and other programs for children and youth; public health; public safety and enforcement of cannabis laws.”
Supervisor Chuck Winn and Board Chairman Bob Elliott were against placing Measure B on the ballot. Winn said this week he is concerned about the effects of marijuana on young people’s brains and is skeptical about how much tax revenue Measure B would generate for youth programs.
“I think we all want to reduce crimes and gangs, and increase educational attainment,” Winn said. “But revenue to the programs will be very small.”
Winn added, “I think (Measure B) sends the wrong message. It’s the government telling youth we’re supporting this and allowing this to happen. I don’t want to be someone who looks back five years from now and thinks, ‘What was I thinking?’ I don’t want my fingerprints on it. How would I feel if I voted for the dispensaries and someone bought marijuana and then killed someone in a motor-vehicle accident?”
Elliott could not be reached for comment. In August, he said, “We are making it easier and more accessible for our children to come up with marijuana and use it, and then we’re going to use 50 percent of the revenue to try to teach them that they shouldn’t have done that.”
The other supervisors disagree.
If Measure B fails, Supervisor Miguel Villapudua said, “It’s not going to stop people from using marijuana. If it passes we can control it, monitor it and tax it. If it doesn’t pass, people are still going to do what they want to do. We need this tax to pass.”
Supervisor Tom Patti added, “I support 100 percent Measure B to help us capture revenue that will offset ... the enforcement costs and social impacts. For me, having a tax on the cannabis industry allows us to mitigate and get ahead of the challenges.”
County Counsel Mark Myles speculated this week about one possible consequence if Measure B fails to reach the twothirds plateau.
“What I expect if the county’s ordinance doesn’t become effective is the (cannabis) industry will come forward with its own initiative, which will be less favorable to the county,” Myles said. “I would imagine that there wouldn’t be a tax.”