Now that California voters have approved marijuana legalization, the city of Los Angeles needs to be able to responsibly regulate commercial marijuana activity. On March 7, L.A. voters will be presented with two similarly titled ballot initiatives purporting to do just that — Measure M, proposed by the City Council, and Measure N, pitched by a trade association of marijuana dispensaries.
The editorial board recommends voting yes on M and no on N.
Currently, medical marijuana dispensaries are governed by Proposition D, which put in place a level of regulation but is outdated since the passage of Prop. 64 in November. “The question of legalization, for better or worse, was decided on the state ballot,” Councilman Bob Blumenfield said. “We’re going to have the ubiquity of marijuana now. To get a handle of it, we need to regulate it and enforce laws on it.”
Blumenfield backs Measure M, which authorizes the city to establish regulations to govern all commercial marijuana activity, with public input. This allows the city to drop Prop. D and craft regulations responsive to community needs and market realities. It also assesses taxes on marijuana activity, which could help mitigate potential harm.
Measure N would also impose new regulations, but without the flexibility or public input called for by Measure M. Measure N initially was backed by the United Cannabis Business Alliance Trade Association, but the UCBA has withdrawn its support and now backs M.
Los Angeles should be in a position to adapt to an ever-changing landscape, and Measure M gives it the better chance of doing just that.
Measure P is a largely perfunctory measure to align city and state law. We recommend voting yes on P.
Currently, the city and the Harbor Department may only issue franchises, permits and leases on tidelands and submerged lands for a maximum of 50 years. In 2015, state law raised this maximum to 66 years to boost private investment around the Port of L.A.
This measure, backed by the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce and City Councilman Joe Buscaino, would similarly raise the maximum to 66 years. As Chamber President Gary Toebben explained, there’s no downside to the increase, but there could be a downside to rejecting it if it discourages private investment.
Our editors found this article on this site using Google and regenerated it for our readers.
