Riverside County Supervisors Seek Detailed Analysis of Pot Proposition

RIVERSIDE, CA - Concerned about the status of local ordinances, the Board of Supervisors Tuesday directed county agencies to conduct a detailed analysis of a proposal on the Nov. 8 election ballot that would make the use of marijuana legal in California for people 21 years and older.

"We need a list of options regarding what we should do," Jeff Greene, chief of staff to Supervisor Kevin Jeffries, told the board. "We don't want to act in a panic right after the election."

Jeffries said Greene's initial review of Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, revealed the measure could conflict with several ordinances that the board implemented over the last 18 months.

Prop 64 would permit recreational use of pot among adults, while expanding drug addiction programs aimed at discouraging youth from using cannabis. It would also create taxing authorities to collect revenue from pot growers and sellers, as well as institute penalties for the illegal diversion of water to support cannabis grows, and establish a regulatory framework for local governments to follow.

State law currently confines open cannabis use to patients who have a doctor's prescription for it.

Jeffries cited surveys indicating that Prop 64 has 60 percent support statewide and appears destined to take effect on Jan. 1, 2018.

"I'm opposed to this initiative," board Chairman John Benoit said. "We don't need another intoxicant in our society. The ones we have are enough. But if the majority says we're going to legalize marijuana, commensurate with that, we have to be prepared for the likely outcomes."

Benoit, along with Supervisors Marion Ashley and John Tavaglione, looked to Colorado, particularly Denver, for an illustration of how pot legalization could negatively affect Riverside County. Colorado Amendment 64 cleared the way for retail marijuana sales and recreational use, beginning in January 2014.

"Colorado tells us this will cost us dearly," Benoit said. "Based on everything I've heard, they're grossly unable to address public safety problems."

Ashley agreed, saying, "Society is going a very bad way here. But, you know, we're a free society, and we vote. If this is the way people want to go, this is where we'll go and do the best we can under the new law."

Supervisor Chuck Washington said he feared an increase in drugged driving, noting the death last week of a Temecula woman and her grandchild, whose vehicle was struck by a suspected drugged driver.

"We're going to pay a tremendous cost for Prop 64, and we should try to be prepared for the impact," Washington said.

The board expressed a tentative interest in taxing cannabis purchases if the proposition passes. Ashley compared a pot tax to a cigarette tax. All of the supervisors doubted there would be assistance from the state in combating rising levels of drug abuse and crime under the new law, so taxation could be the only revenue-generating source available to cover enforcement programs.

The county is operating under a structural budget deficit, with public safety agencies consuming the largest share of discretionary revenue.

Under county Ordinance No. 928, mobile marijuana dispensaries are prohibited in unincorporated communities.

County Ordinance No. 925, authored by Jeffries, permits medical marijuana patients and their caregivers to cultivate up to 24 cannabis plants on private property, though all cultivation is prohibited within 1,000 feet of schools, parks and daycare centers. Growers are also required to have their pot plants hidden from view and in secure locations.

The board directed County Counsel Greg Priamos and CEO Jay Orr to oversee research into all aspects of Prop 64's likely impact. The Executive Office is due to report back with its findings on Nov. 15.

Under the California Compassionate Use Act of 1996, also known as Proposition 215, the possession and cultivation of marijuana for medicinal purposes is legal. However, localities can regulate the conditions under which grows are established and the responsibilities of the parties involved, according to statutes passed by the Legislature and signed into law in 2004 and 2010.

The measures lie at the core of the Medical Marijuana Program and have been upheld in two appellate court decisions, one of which stemmed from a challenge to a city of Riverside ordinance outlawing storefront and mobile marijuana dispensaries. That culminated in a 2013 California Supreme Court ruling in favor of the city.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration still views marijuana as a Schedule 1 narcotic prohibited under the federal Controlled Substances Act.

— By City News Service / Image via Shutterstock