“Opponents of marijuana legalization say licensing requirements laid out in ballot measure are inadequate”

With the election just days away, California is poised to legalize recreational marijuana use for persons 21 years old or older. Most likely voters support the state’s legalization initiative; and, with both The O.C. Register and The San Diego Union-Tribune recently endorsing the initiative, most of the state’s largest newspapers agree with them. But legalization opponents still have a few days to convince enough legalization supporters that continued prohibition is better than the alternative. This week, opponents hope to achieve this in part by arguing that the initiative’s licensing requirements unjustifiably exempt websites that provide guides to and reviews of industry participants, as detailed by this The Los Angeles Times article by Patrick McGreevy, in which he writes: 

Opponents of an initiative to allow recreational marijuana use in California said Wednesday that its extensive licensing requirements would not include websites, including Weedmaps, that provide guides to cannabis stores, varieties and doctors without handling the product.

 

A spokesman for the Proposition 64 campaign called the complaint “silly and desperate” and noted that existing laws regulate such websites.

 

The issue was looked at by the Office of Legislative Counsel, the nonpartisan public agency that prepares legal opinions, at the request of state Sen. Jim Nielsen (R-Gerber), an outspoken opponent of Proposition 64.

 

Proposition 64 requires state licenses for businesses that grow, transport, process and sell marijuana.

 

“Because the technology platform would not sell or deliver marijuana products within the meaning of Proposition 64, it follows that it would not require licensure as a distributor or retailer,” wrote Richard Mafrica, deputy legislative counsel. “Therefore, it is our opinion that the technology platform would not be required to obtain a license under Proposition 64.”

 

That also would mean that the website would not be subject to Proposition 64’s restrictions on advertising, Mafrica wrote.

 

The opposition campaign noted that Weedmaps, an Irvine company, has contributed close to $1 million to the campaign for Proposition 64.

 

“This is a blatant and egregious example of a special interest writing regulations that maximize profit at the expense of public health that do not even apply to the largest advertising platforms in the pot industry,” said Ken Corney, president of the California Police Chiefs Assn.

 

Federal law considers marijuana to be an illegal drug, which cannot be advertised on federally regulated television and radio stations.

 

Jason Kinney, a spokesman for the Proposition 64 campaign, said the opponents are “brazenly attempting to mislead voters.”

 

He said under Proposition 64, advertising by licensed marijuana businesses on any platform will be subject to restrictions in the measure “and any future restrictions set forth by state regulators or the Legislature. Moreover, as the Legislative Counsel clearly points out, any technology platform will be further subject to all existing state advertising and marketing restrictions.”