Democracy in Action: Legalization of Cannabis
To see democracy in action, witness the events around California’s Proposition 64 and then the follow up regardless of whether or not it passes. I had the opportunity to get a wide variety of opinions by interviewing some really cool and awesome folks in the industry, including one of the chapter heads of the California Growers Association, and of course users.
Aaron Flynn: Chapter Head San Francisco / Oakland California Growers Association:
Prop 64 is a highly divisive issue. Each person or organization is affected differently by the proposition as they have different incentives and goals:
• Doctors
• Dispensaries
• Medical users
• Recreational users
• Growers
• Edible manufacturers
• Big tobacco and Pharmaceutical
• Investors
• Advertisers
The key question at hand is actually 2 questions:
1. Do you think Cannabis in general should be legalized for recreational use?
2. If the answer to #1 is yes, do you think that this particular Proposition should be put into effect, or do you think it will create more harm than good, and we should try for a better Proposition in another election cycle?
Wouldn’t it be great if everybody voting had the time to read the 62 page proposition!!..(Not to mention all the other ones they’re voting on). But of course, we typically rely on the analysis and commentary from others. So here are some salient points to add to the mix:
• There are many medicinal users of Cannabis who have easy access to Cannabis, this law is targeted towards those who use it for recreational purposes who wouldn’t need to get a Cannabis card.
• So goes California goes the US and goes the World. Yes on Proposition will more than triple the size of the US population that has legal access to Cannabis. (i.e. this has a broad affect beyond each person’s consideration for what affects them)
• Why is it illegal? — Especially considering that alcohol and cigarettes are far more harmful, are physically addictive, and have no medicinal value.
• Sean Parker (co-founder of Napster and early investor in Facebook) is the key force behind the Proposition (Some call the Proposition the “Parker Initiative”.)
- He has put up approximately $8.8M out of $24.3M(40%) raised FOR the Proposition(He is the largest donor). That comes out to $370K a page (there are 62 pages) or maybe around $50K a paragraph — Yes politics is about money. $1.6M has been raised AGAINST the proposition
- What is motivating Sean? Is this important? Sean has purposely said very little other than he wants to “…see activists coming together”. Sean is a Philanthropist. He’s probably not secretly trying to make a big financial score off of this, like for example colluding with big Tobacco — although we don’t know if he has the political savvy or focus to avoid such companies twisting the law to take advantage of it.
• The bill provides for a “Cultivation License” that allows a company to have an unlimited amount of growing capacity. However, these licenses will not be available for 5 years — to allow existing growers (most of them small) time to prepare for new market environments.
• It is not clear what big Tobacco and big Pharma intend to do. (Many have said they will not participate, but that could just be talk).
The pros and cons that I surmised from the various folks I interviewed:
PRO
It reduces sentencing and will allow certain people who are currently in jail/prison to be released
Voting NO will send many people to jail who’s sentencing is being delayed awaiting the outcome of the election
CON
It doesn’t go far enough, some people will still go to jail. The effect on incarceration should be considered first because this affects people who have to live behind bars
…
It will encourage children to become stoners
PRO
There are plenty of children who are stoners already, and if it’s legal it probably won’t make a difference, some might actually chose NOT to smoke because it will no longer be cool
…
It will stimulate economic growth (i.e. a new wine industry)
CON
It will degrade the quality of the products as mass producers come in
PRO
It could actually improve the quality of the products, and the highest quality producers will always find a market, just like wine
…
Hemp products (e.g. rope, hemp paper) will open up new markets and stimulate growth
CON
Dupont doesn’t want hemp to compete with nylon or other synthetic products. It will hurt the stock price of some large companies.
…
The Proposition was written with very little input from the industry and this alone is reason to vote NO and try again. It will hurt many constituents such as growers who will now incur extra expenses to comply with new regulation. Some business (e.g. collectives) would essentially have to re-open as a new state-regulated business (and who knows what kind of payoffs will be needed to get the license). People who wrote the bill don’t smoke and don’t understand there are families who have been in this for generations. Their ignorance allows them to be manipulated by the money people. Big Tobacco and Pharma will take over.
PRO
If we vote NO waiting for a better Proposition, we will send a signal that will push back liberalization in California and possibly throughout the country many years. The law isn’t perfect, but some argue it was designed to ensure that at least 60% would vote yes (i.e. it couldn’t be too liberal). Just get the law passed, and then industry groups and advocates need to be involved once the law passes to ensure the execution of the law is consistent with the interests of the various constituents and big business doesn’t dominate in the long run.
…
People you meet in bars are mostly douche-bags. People you meet at Cannabis clubs and events are way cooler. It would be great to extend this culture more easily to a broader group of people.
CON
There is no upside to people who already get the cannabis they need now…why change the status quo unless we have a better bill. If you make it legal, the douche-bags will take over, leave it alone.
…
Costs will go up. Taxes will increase almost 20% and increased costs of compliance will be passed on to the customer.
PRO
The increased volume, and ability to advertise will drive up volume and reduce costs.
CON
Cannabis ads will be targeted at children, and the law will make children think it’s OK to be a stoner when they see their parents smoking regularly.
PRO
Don’t be ridiculous, are alcohol ads and cigarette ads targeted at children? Kids already know about alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis, if anything they will think any advertising that they do see will be ridiculous.
CON
Taxes go into a general pool that could be used to feed bureaucrats. Other states like Colorado have done a much better job.
PRO
The money is targeting towards programs that are to help education, public safety and enforcement of the cannabis laws, and it’s not much different from alcohol. Again, it works best when advocacy groups can in part be a watchdog for the allocation of funds and effectiveness of programs.
CON
Advocacy groups are dysfunctional.
PRO
Get involved and donate money. That’s how democracy works
CON
It’s easier to be a functional stoner than a functional alcoholic (less expensive, you don’t get sick, and easier to carry). This law would be an enabler due to easy access, especially to children who will probably have even easier access indirectly as it’s generally more prevalent and less expensive.
PRO
OK, this is the best argument so far. So consider all the pluses and minuses.
……..
So here are the Choices
You think Cannabis in general should NOT be legal
Vote NO — Regardless of your motivation (you think it’s bad or you think it should only be for medicinal use or you love weed, but don’t want the general public to join in on the fun and ruin the party)
You think Cannabis in general should be legal
a. You think this bill will do more harm than good and we should wait for a better bill — Vote NO
b. You think this bill is awesome for good for most everybody — Vote YES
c. You think this bill sucks, and has many problems, but at least we are making it legal, it’s a first step and we can work with the active engagement of industry associations and advocacy groups to make the implementation better over time — Vote YES.
What’s most fascinating about this is seeing democracy in action
After speaking with all the various folks, one thing is clear, democracy only works when people get more involved and this is regardless of whether you get a law passed or not. One of my favorite quotes is “Organized greed is more effective than disorganized democracy”. This should be a bumper sticker. I found it particularly interesting that so many folks claimed that one of the largest advocacy groups “The California Grower’s Association” was largely cut out of the process of the drafting of the proposed law — implying of course a conspiracy. But then when I interviewed one of their key leaders (see video above) he said they actually just weren’t being proactive at the time — they were focusing on other issues, and the culture until recently wasn’t the kind of culture that liked to be in the limelight, especially in politics. Always seek out the real facts — the plot is always thicker than you think.
As an ex-lobbyist (among other things) I can assert from personal experience, if there is one thing about a working democracy that most citizens should probably understand more, it is that people need to get involved and/or support organizations with time and/or money for democracy to work. Voting for a candidate or a Proposition on Election Day every 2 or 4 years, is not even the tip of the iceberg. Voting with your dollars (e.g. products you purchase, donations to advocacy groups) and your time is far more important. Why? Because the law is about engagement, not about a written document. Democracy requires an educated and engaged populace in order for it to work. So how do you get more involved? Well hanging out at Cannabis groups is a great way to meet new people who are cool and then figure it out from there….much more fun than meeting people on Tinder! And think about this, part of me really believes that they don’t teach how politics really works in school because “they” want you to think the government is here to help you — and then less people get involved. People in government are largely order takers — they work for those who give them money, just like any OTHER business! (The other part of me just thinks the school system is weak and mediocre — the natural state of things — without an incentive to be otherwise).
The other interesting aspect is Sean Parker’s involvement. If he is the kind of guy who is on the level, why didn’t he get the industry more involved? Why was the law written in isolation with very little dialog? Did the lawyers he hired get into bed with big business without him knowing? Why didn’t he spend a little extra money and hire a good Steward to manage his investment and reach out to the industry? Is he putting a stake in the ground and indirectly asking us to step up the plate, figuring if we don’t get more involved it’s our own fault? Is Sean sophisticated with politics and we don’t see that, or is he naïve?
Democracy is ultimately about who has the power. And usually it’s those with the big dollars. But the masses always have more power than the corporate and moneyed elite. All we need to do is click our heels together. Well, Sean has given us the opportunity to be involved. People were cut out, it’s not necessarily what the industry wants, but the opportunity to be involved in a growing industry and a growing movement is here. It’s not perfect, but such is the ways of politics and movements.
Some people argument that this whole thing doesn’t really matter. People who want to smoke get their smoke either way. The industry is growing with or without this proposition. Douche-bags will enter the industry and the culture either way. Quality might drop for those non-discerning individuals as volume grows either way, and cannabis connoisseurs will find their good smokes and edibles regardless.
For me, I like to drink and smoke a few times a week. I personally see little difference between alcohol and cannabis. I don’t care whether proposition 64 passes or not from a personal point of view (anybody can get weed in San Francisco). However, from a business and societal point of view, I’m a strong supporter for the following reasons:
• It will provide sponsorship opportunities for projects that I’m personally involved in and have invested in.
• It will generate economic growth and investment opportunity (imagine another wine industry)
• It will provide relief for those who have been incarcerated for minor crimes
• It creates an environment where cool people can hang out (e.g. Dispensaries) instead of the usual douche-bags at a typical bar. I would love to see my suburban brother come to a dispensary in the city and hang out and not have to get his card to do so (which he wouldn’t).
But each of us is different. And regardless of whether Proposition 64 passes or not, the story is just beginning. Don’t you love democracy…
