STILL DEFYING VOTERS

San Diego County's $11k Pot License an Abuse of Power

The members of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors don't like
the fact that voters legalized medical marijuana. They've made that
clear in the 14-plus years since Prop. 215 was passed (including by a
majority of voters in San Diego County). They've spent hundreds of
thousands of dollars unsuccessfully suing to overturn the measure,
refusing to issue clear guidelines to regulate dispensaries and
looking the other way while the sheriff and district attorney (who
are independently elected and funded by the county, but don't report
to the board) used county resources in cooperating with federal
agents to harass the dispensaries.

So we get the fact that the Board of Supervisors is strongly opposed
to the notion of medical marijuana dispensaries.

But we are a nation of laws, and the voters legally enacted
legislation directing their elected officials to allow these
businesses to sell marijuana to patients with a doctor's recommendation.

And yet the board decided earlier this week to impose an $11,000
annual fee on dispensaries - yet another slap in the face to
voters. It is an onerous, unreasonable fee designed not to regulate,
but to financially strangle. (By comparison, the county license to
operate a massage parlor - another business open to abuse -
costs just under $400 a year.)

The state charges $12,000 for a license to sell liquor, with an
annual renewal of less than $1,000. And a business with an alcohol
license can transfer that license down the road, recouping the original outlay.

A $12,000 investment is high enough to strongly encourage good
behavior on the part of liquor establishments (i.e., not serving
minors, not serving those who are already drunk) - because
repeated violations of laws governing the sale of alcohol can result
in a business being stripped of its license and losing that $12,000.

That sort of financial incentive is a good one - the initial fee
is an investment in the business, and the annually recurring fee is
not so high that it can't be recovered as a normal cost of doing business.

Considering that the medical marijuana dispensaries are required by
law to be run as nonprofits, an $11,000 annual fee is unreasonable,
the purpose behind it duplicitous.

Given the uneven implementation of Prop. 215 throughout California,
and the overt defiance of some jurisdictions, we wonder whether the
state Legislature shouldn't revisit the issue and impose statewide regulations.

A framework similar to that used to regulate alcohol sales would
respect voters' wishes while also protecting the public from those
who would abuse Prop. 215.