California Ballot Measures Test Local Public Support for Cannabis Businesses as Six Years After State-Wide Cannabis Legalization, 61% Of California Cities And Counties Continue To Ban Retail Sales

California Ballot Vote

An important provision of Proposition 64 was the right for local jurisdictions to determine whether to ban, tax, and/or regulate cannabis within their local jurisdiction. This power extends to what kind of cannabis businesses will be permitted, how many will be permitted, when it will be permitted, and how the operators of the cannabis businesses will be selected. Because of this freedom, each jurisdiction can be completely unique to their own community. In fact, according to the California Department of Cannabis Control, over 60% of the 539 cities and counties in the State continue to prohibit the retail sale of cannabis within their jurisdiction six years after legalization of cannabis at a State level by the voters.

On November 8, 2022, more than twenty California cities and four counties have some form of cannabis taxation and/or regulation on the ballot. Whether by voter initiative, or City Council or Board of Supervisors action, many voters will be making a statement about cannabis in their local jurisdiction.

A popular method of testing the waters of citizen support for commercial cannabis is to place a cannabis tax measure on the ballot. If the tax is adopted, then the City or County elected officials will likely pursue cannabis regulation. If the tax fails, the City or County will not pursue cannabis regulation and it is likely a voter initiative will be required to make cannabis businesses legal in that jurisdiction.

Regulation by voter initiative is not in the local jurisdiction’s best interest as it usually removes the elected officials from any future decision-making even if a local jurisdiction wants to increase the number of cannabis businesses or provide for additional locations for cannabis businesses. As has happened in several cities, both the Cities of Huntington Beach and El Segundo began discussions of cannabis regulations and taxation in direct response to the threat of a voter initiative.

In 2022, the voter initiative process placed cannabis regulations on the ballot in at least four cities in Los Angeles County: Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, and South El Monte. The City Council of Manhattan Beach placed a competing ballot measure which would continue the current ban on all cannabis businesses. The City Council of Redondo Beach scheduled a special election in advance of the November 8, 2022, election day and that voter initiative recently failed by a wide margin. The City Councils of Hermosa Beach and South El Monte placed a detailed cannabis tax structure on the ballot to take effect if the initiative is successful.

Three counties have placed a general commercial cannabis tax on the ballot without any potential regulatory provisions. Both the counties of Los Angeles and Sacramento are asking the voters if they support a general cannabis tax without any specific rate or formula, whereas San Diego County has placed on the ballot a very detailed tax structure for voter approval. In all three counties, there are several incorporated cities that have already established regulatory processes for licensed cannabis businesses. In addition, Lassen County has placed a measure on the ballot to permit indoor cultivation on unincorporated county property.

In contrast, most cities have placed a very specific tax structure on the ballot in advance of establishing a regulatory framework. In the largest County in the state, the County of Los Angeles, which includes the largest regulated cannabis market in the state in the City of Los Angeles, several cities have placed cannabis taxes and/or regulations on the ballot. The Cities of Claremont, Baldwin Park, Lynwood City, and Santa Monica have all placed structured cannabis taxes on the ballot, while Cudahy City and El Segundo have separate tax and regulatory measures.

Two cities in Orange County, Huntington Beach and Laguna Woods, have placed a specific cannabis tax structure on the ballot for voter approval. In addition, Avenal (King County), Healdsburg (Sonoma County), Montclair (San Bernardino County), Monterey (Monterey County), Tulare (Tulare County), Woodland (Yolo County), McFarland (Kern County), Corona (Riverside County), Encinitas (San Diego County), and Burlingame (San Mateo County) all have structured cannabis taxes on the ballot. Pacific Grove (Monterey County) has separate tax and regulatory ballot measures. Sausalito (Marin County) has a ballot measure to permit one retail storefront and one delivery-only business. Red Bluff (Tehama County) has a specific regulatory ballot measure placed on the ballot by voter initiative to change the existing cannabis regulation adopted by the Red Bluff City Council. While South Lake Tahoe (El Dorado County) voters will consider replacing the existing cannabis community benefit fee with a tax structure, the Susanville City Council (Lassen County) placed a previously adopted cannabis ordinance on the ballot based on a successful referendum effort by the residents.

In short, County residents and City residents will have an opportunity to weigh in on the cannabis issue and educate their elected Supervisors and Councilmembers in 2022. Unfortunately, these ballot measures only represent a small number of residents in the State of California. However, if the ballot measures pass, the State will be one step closer to meeting the voter’s will in adopting Proposition 64.

Contact us by phone or email to learn more about California cannabis law including state, county or city cannabis licensing and cannabis regulations, cannabis regulatory compliance, and cannabis litigation.

You may also be interested in reading about the various cannabis bills introduced in the California State Legislature in 2022 which have now been signed by Governor Gavin Newsom.

2022 California Cannabis Bills Become Law

California Legislature Laws

California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a significant number of cannabis bills this year addressing a wide variety of concerns including the cannabis cultivation tax, employment discrimination, interstate agreements, medicinal cannabis access, insurance, packaging, labeling, beverages, veterinarians, resentencing, medical treatment, temporary events, social services, health care facilities & more.

Among the biggest news this year was Budget Trailer bill AB 195, signed in June, which eliminates the cannabis cultivation tax, shifts the point of collection & remittance for the cannabis excise tax from distributors to retailers, adjusts the labor peace agreement requirement from 20 employees to 10, and more. 

Other cannabis bills, many of which were just signed in this month of September, include:

AB 1646 which authorizes cannabis beverages to be packaged in containers of any material that are clear or any color.

AB 1706 which helps get criminal convictions involving cannabis reduced or dismissed.

AB 1885 which prohibits the California Veterinary Medical Board from disciplining a veterinarian who recommends the use of cannabis on an animal for potential therapeutic effect or health supplementation purposes, unless the veterinarian is employed by or has an agreement with a cannabis licensee.  

AB 1894 which places restrictions on the packaging, labeling, advertisement, and marketing of integrated cannabis vaporizers

AB 1954 which prohibits a physician and surgeon from automatically denying treatment or medication to a qualified patient based solely on a positive drug screen for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or report of medical cannabis use without first completing a case-by-case evaluation of the patient that includes a determination that the qualified patient’s use of medical cannabis is medically significant to the treatment or medication.

AB 2155 which defines the term “cannabis beverages” as a form of edible cannabis product that is intended to be consumed in its final state as a beverage.

AB 2188 which amends the California Fair Employment and Housing Act to make it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a person in hiring, termination, or any term or condition of employment, or otherwise penalize a person, if the discrimination is based upon the person’s use of cannabis off the job and away from the workplace or, with prescribed exceptions, upon an employer-required drug screening test that has found the person to have nonpsychoactive cannabis metabolites in their urine, hair, or bodily fluids.

AB 2210 which prohibits the DCC from denying an application for a state cannabis temporary event license solely on the basis that there is a license issued pursuant to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, and requires all on-and-off sale privileges of alcoholic beverages at the venue to be suspended for the duration of the event.

AB 2568 which provides it is not a crime for individuals and firms to provide insurance and related services to persons licensed to engage in commercial cannabis activity. 

AB 2595 which requires the California State Department of Social Services to update all regulations relating to the investigation of a minor to ensure that, when a social worker is investigating an alleged case of child abuse or neglect, a parent’s use or possession of cannabis is treated in the same manner as a parent’s use or possession of alcohol and legally prescribed medication.

AB 2925 which requires a spending report from the California Department of Health Care Services concerning the Youth Education, Prevention, Early Intervention and Treatment Account.

SB 988 which repeals the requirement that health care facilities permitting patient use of medical cannabis comply with other drug and medication requirements and the requirement that those facilities be subject to enforcement actions by the State Department of Public Health. 

SB 1186 which enacts the Medicinal Cannabis Patients’ Right of Access Act and prohibits a local jurisdiction from adopting or enforcing any regulation that prohibits the retail sale by delivery within the local jurisdiction of medicinal cannabis.

SB 1326 which authorizes the California Governor to enter into an interstate agreement authorizing medicinal or adult-use commercial cannabis activity between entities licensed under the laws of the other state (only when allowed by the federal government).

SB 1496 which makes various changes to existing law regarding the seizure of cannabis or cannabis products that are without evidence of tax payment, the payment of cannabis taxes by electronic funds, and the sharing of information by the CDTFA. 

Read more about the various cannabis bills introduced in 2022, many of which did not pass, in the complete 2022 California Cannabis Law Legislative Update.

Contact us by phone or email to learn more about California cannabis law including state, county or city cannabis licensing and cannabis regulations, cannabis regulatory compliance, and cannabis litigation.