An Overview of California’s Marijuana Control, Regulation and Education Act

California Assembly Member Tom Ammiano

On February 23, 2009, Assembly Member Tom Ammiano introduced A.B. 390, California’s Marijuana Control, Regulation and Education Act, a sensible marijuana policy that essentially legalizes the cultivation, possession, sale and use of marijuana by adults twenty one and older; raises money to fund programs that discourage substance abuse through a substantial tax on marijuana and proposes a wholesale and retail marijuana sales regulation program similar to that of alcohol.

What are the intentions of A.B. 390?

• Legalize and regulate the use of marijuana and its derivatives by adults over the age of twenty one.
• Raise money to fund programs that discourage substance abuse through a substantial tax on marijuana.
• Institute a regulatory system for both the wholesale and retail of marijuana.
• Encourage the federal government to reconsider its position on marijuana.

What exactly does A.B. 390 propose?

• Adults twenty one and older may legally use marijuana at home without facing criminal penalties.
• Adults twenty one and older may legally use marijuana at the home of another, so long as a resident age twenty-one or older has consented to the use.
• The possession and sale of marijuana paraphernalia would be legal for adults twenty one and older.
• Adults twenty one and older may grow and possess up to 10 mature marijuana plants.  (Plants grown outside may not be visible to the public.)
• State and local agencies may not willfully assist federal law enforcement nor use state or local funds to enforce those federal laws that conflict with California law.
• Industrial cultivation of hemp would be legal.

What would NOT change under A.B. 390?

• Possession and use of marijuana would remain illegal for those under the age of twenty one.
• Driving under the influence of marijuana would remain a crime.
• Public consumption of marijuana would remain illegal, punishable by a $100 fine.
• Employers may continue to drug test employees and terminate or deny employment to individuals because of their use of marijuana.
• Marijuana possession and sales on high school and elementary school grounds would remain illegal.

What are the some of the benefits of legalization under a bill such as A.B. 390?

• Decreased access to and use of marijuana by teens. Legalizing and regulating marijuana sales in a fashion similar to that of alcohol and tobacco would actually reduce teens’ access to the substance. (Regulatory programs currently in place for sales of tobacco and alcohol have actually decreased their availability to teens.) While a leakage effect still occurs, teens can access alcohol and tobacco through friends who are of age, the existence of system that requires retailers to “card” customers means marijuana is less likely to end up in the possession of underage users.
• A safer product. Regulating the production and sale of marijuana and its derivatives means that the state can regulate not only the THC level of the product but users are less likely to end up with marijuana that has been tainted or laced with other illegal substances.
• Financial Incentives. While public officials should never legalize a dangerous product simply for financial gain, there are numerous financial benefits that accompany legislation such as A.B. 390. Not only do the state and local agencies save millions of dollars associated with the costs of marijuana prohibition, but a net gain will result from revenue generated by taxes on marijuana.  The California Board of Equalization estimates an annual tax revenue of $1.4 billion dollars from marijuana taxes.  This money could fund education, health care and public safety programs.
• Greater focus on public safety.  The criminal justice system could refocus their efforts on those who jeopardize public safety:  violent offenders, property offenders and those who drive under the influence of drugs and alcohol.

Meridith Spencer is an adjunct Professor of Criminal Justice and Sociology at Bridgewater State College and Fisher College and an advocate for public policy that is “smart on crime.” She can be reached at meras28@gmail.com.

Get on the crime map at CrimeReports.com

What Constitutes a Sensible State Marijuana Policy?

Last November, by a margin of 65% to 35%, the citizens of Massachusetts passed Ballot Initiative #2: “An Act Establishing Sensible State Marihuana Policy.”  The law, enacted on January 2, 2009, established civil penalties for adults possessing less than an ounce of marijuana.  The law reduced the penalty from up to six months jail time and a $500 fine to a $100 civil fine and forfeiture of the marijuana.  Additionally, possession of less than an ounce of marijuana is no longer a CORI (Criminal Offender Record Information) offense; citizens now found in possession of less than an ounce of marijuana no longer face the stigma of a criminal record and remain eligible for public housing, federally subsidized student loans and jobs.

Public Consumption Fines

In the wake of the passage of Ballot Initiative #2, many cities and towns immediately began to take steps towards passing additional measures that fine those who publicly consume marijuana, up to an additional $100 to $500—an option made available to individual cities and towns through the language of the original ballot initiative.  Attorney General Martha Coakley drafted model legislation that called for an additional $300 fine for the public consumption of marijuana in essentially “any place accessible to the public.”

As of March 2009, Duxbury, Lynn, Methuen, Medway, Milford, Salem and Springfield had all passed public smoking fines ranging from $100 to $300 in addition to the statewide $100 fine for possession.  Other cities and towns such as Braintree, Medford, Quincy, and Plymouth have considered additional fines as well.  The city of Everett, which borders Boston, recently passed a $300 public smoking fine as well.

Questions to Consider

Several questions come to mind.  First, are these cities and towns seeing an increase in public consumption since the passage of the new law?  If so, what is the best approach to discourage public use, and do additional fines accomplish this goal? After all, shouldn’t criminal justice be something more than simply “getting tough” on crime? Shouldn’t we aim to “get smart” on crime by enacting policies that actually accomplish the underlying goal?

What Are We Trying to Accomplish?

The underlying goal in this case should be to discourage people from smoking marijuana in public, especially in places that would expose children to this practice.  That would seem to be a “smart on crime” goal behind which most citizens of the Commonwealth can get behind.  How, then, can we best accomplish this?

Instead policymakers seem to be enacting fines because they are displeased with the decriminalization of marijuana, despite the overwhelming approval of the voters. Several policymakers enacted the suggested $300 fine, a fine that is three times the fine for possession.  These fines often penalize economically disadvantaged citizens in heavily patrolled, densely populated areas, the type of cities and town where the citizens who can least afford the fines are most likely to receive them.

Let’s compare two cities with similar fine structures: Everett and Duxbury, both with $300 public smoking fines, in addition to the $100 possession fine.

• The City of Everett, primarily a working class city, has a median per capita income of $19,845 (per the 2000 Census).
• The town of Duxbury, more affluent than Everett, has a median per capita income of $40,242 (per the 2000 Census).
• A resident in Everett paying a $400 fine ($100 for the possession and $300 for public smoking) pay a median of 2% of their yearly income for public smoking of marijuana while a resident in Duxbury pays a median of only 0.99% of their yearly income.

Is THIS policy, the right policy?

Public consumption of marijuana can already be addressed under the current statewide penalties; the law already calls for a $100 fine and forfeiture of the still illegal substance for possession of less than an ounce.  If cities and towns are seeing an increase in public consumption why not follow the fine structures already in place for public tobacco use and public alcohol consumption?

While few people, including myself, would argue the merits of public consumption of marijuana, one has to wonder if the current approach to eliminating public consumption actually works.  Is it smart to simply tack on additional fines and if so, what is the appropriate fine?  Are such high fines cost prohibitive to some residents and therefore counterproductive?  At some point the fine is too expensive relative to one’s income to be meaningful as either a general or a specific deterrent. Furthermore, does the fine address the actual underlying problems associated with marijuana consumption and if not, why use it?

For more information on relevant law enforcement issues, please see Question 2, Law Enforcement Q & A.

Meridith Spencer is an adjunct Professor of Criminal Justice and Sociology at Bridgewater State College and Fisher College and an advocate for public policy that is “smart on crime.” She can be reached at meras28@gmail.com.

Get on the crime map at CrimeReports.com