California is Fighting a Losing Battle with Cannabis Enforcement, Now What?

California, often regarded as the birthplace of the modern cannabis movement, has experienced a tumultuous journey since the legalization of recreational cannabis in 2016. While the state set out to create a regulated and safe cannabis market, it now faces significant challenges in enforcing its laws against illegal cannabis operations. This article explores the complexities of cannabis enforcement in California, examining the effectiveness of current measures, the factors contributing to the persistence of illegal operations, and potential pathways forward.

The Landscape of Cannabis Legalization in California

A Pioneering Move

California made history in 1996 by becoming the first state to legalize medical cannabis through Proposition 215. This landmark decision laid the groundwork for subsequent legalization efforts, culminating in Proposition 64 in 2016, which legalized recreational use for adults aged 21 and older. The primary goals were to regulate the market, generate tax revenue, and reduce criminal activity associated with cannabis.

Initial Optimism

Initially, there was optimism about the potential benefits of legalization. The state anticipated significant tax revenue projected at over $1 billion annually which could be allocated to public health, education, and infrastructure. Additionally, legalization was expected to diminish the illegal market and associated criminal enterprises.

 The Rise of Illegal Cannabis Operations

Despite these optimistic projections, California’s illegal cannabis market has remained robust. Estimates suggest that unlicensed growers account for approximately 80% of the state’s cannabis production. This thriving black market poses a direct challenge to licensed operators, undermining their ability to compete due to lower prices and fewer regulatory burdens.

Factors Contributing to Illicit Growth

Several factors contribute to the persistence of illegal cannabis operations:

• High Taxes and Fees: California imposes some of the highest taxes on cannabis in the nation. These include a state excise tax of 15%, local taxes that can reach up to 10%, and additional cultivation taxes. For many licensed operators, these costs make it difficult to compete with unregulated growers who do not bear such financial burdens.

• Complex Regulatory Environment: The regulatory framework governing cannabis in California is intricate and often confusing. Local municipalities have the authority to regulate or ban cannabis businesses entirely, leading to a patchwork of regulations that can stifle legitimate businesses while allowing illegal operations to flourish.

• Limited Access to Licenses: Obtaining a license can be a lengthy and expensive process. Many aspiring entrepreneurs are deterred by high application fees and stringent requirements, leading them to operate illegally instead.

• Cultural Attitudes: In some areas of California, there remains a cultural acceptance of cannabis use that complicates enforcement efforts. Communities may be more tolerant of illegal grows, viewing them as part of a broader acceptance of cannabis culture.

Enforcement Efforts: A Double-Edged Sword

 State Initiatives

In response to the growing challenges posed by illegal operations, California has implemented various enforcement measures:

• Cannabis Administrative Prosecutor Program (CAPP): Launched in 2021, CAPP aims to expedite legal actions against unlicensed operators by providing resources for local jurisdictions to pursue enforcement more effectively.

 Mixed Results

Despite these efforts, results have been mixed:

• Seizures vs. Production: While enforcement actions have led to significant seizures over $1 billion worth of illegal cannabis seized since legalization the scale of these operations often dwarfs enforcement efforts. For instance, in 2023 alone, authorities reported seizing over 1 million plants from illegal grows; however, this represents only a small fraction of total illicit production.

• Resource Limitations: Law enforcement agencies often lack adequate resources or personnel dedicated solely to cannabis enforcement, hampering their ability to conduct sustained operations against illegal growers.

The Impact on Licensed Operators

Licensed cannabis businesses are feeling the pinch from both high taxation and competition from illegal operators. Many have reported significant declines in sales and profitability since legalization:

• Job Losses: In 2024 alone, thousands of jobs were lost within the legal cannabis sector as companies struggled to remain viable amidst fierce competition from unlicensed growers.

• License Reductions: The number of cultivation licenses has also decreased significantly as businesses close or consolidate due to financial pressures.

Calls for Reform

In light of the challenges facing California’s cannabis market, licensed operators are increasingly calling for reforms to create a more sustainable and equitable environment. Key proposals include:

Community Perspectives on Cannabis Enforcement

Public opinion on cannabis enforcement is varied across California:

• Support for Legalization: A majority of Californians support legalization; however, there is growing frustration over the inability of law enforcement to effectively tackle illegal operations.

• Concerns About Safety: Residents express concerns about safety issues associated with illegal grows, including environmental degradation and crime linked to unregulated operations.

Local Government Responses

Local governments are taking different approaches:

Environmental Concerns

Illegal Cultivation’s Impact

Illegal cannabis cultivation has raised significant environmental concerns:

Regulatory Solutions

To address these environmental impacts the following can be done:

Strategies for Improvement

As California grapples with its ongoing battle against illegal cannabis operations, several strategies may help improve enforcement effectiveness:

1. Comprehensive Policy Review

A thorough review of existing policies could identify areas needing reform:

Enhanced Collaboration

Collaboration among various stakeholders is crucial:

Conclusion

California’s ongoing struggle with illegal cannabis operations highlights broader challenges in navigating legalization complexities. Despite progress since 2016, issues like high taxation, complex regulations, community attitudes, and environmental impacts hinder effective enforcement. To combat illicit activities, California needs a multifaceted strategy involving policy reforms, better collaboration among stakeholders, community engagement, and public education campaigns. Such comprehensive approaches are essential not only to address the black market but also to foster a thriving legal cannabis industry that benefits all residents. California’s experience will likely serve as a critical case study for other states facing similar challenges in cannabis regulation.

LEGAL CANNABIS VS. BLACK MARKET WEED, READ ON…

HOW DO YOU GET PEOPLE TO BUY LEGAL WEED BASED ON PRICE??

Youth Cannabis Consumption continues to drop despite more legalization

When I was a teenager in the late 90s and early 2000s, you couldn’t escape the anti-drug messaging. It was everywhere – plastered across school hallways, embedded in our favorite cartoons, and drilled into our consciousness through endless PSAs. This was perhaps the height of the Drug War, where “Just Say No” wasn’t just a slogan, it was practically a religion.

I distinctly remember the dire warnings from authority figures about what would happen if we even thought about legalizing cannabis. “It would send the wrong message to the children!” they’d cry, clutching their D.A.R.E. pamphlets like precious pearls. The “What about the children?” argument became the prohibitionists’ favorite weapon, wielded with righteous fury against any suggestion of drug policy reform.

Fast forward to 2024, and we’re living in a vastly different landscape. Cannabis is legal in numerous states, available in sleek dispensaries rather than sketchy back alleys. And guess what? Those apocalyptic predictions about youth consumption skyrocketing? They didn’t just miss the mark – they got it completely backwards.

Recent research has revealed something fascinating: over the past decade, as more states have legalized cannabis, youth consumption has actually dropped significantly. That’s right – while adult use has reached historic highs (pun intended), fewer teenagers are experimenting with cannabis than during the height of prohibition.

Today, we’re going to dive deep into these findings and explore the possible reasons behind this counterintuitive trend. What changed? Why are kids today less interested in cannabis despite – or perhaps because of – its increasing legitimacy? The answers might surprise you, and they certainly offer some valuable lessons about drug policy, youth behavior, and the importance of honest, evidence-based approaches to public health.

Let’s unpack what the research tells us about youth cannabis consumption in the age of legalization, and why sometimes, the best way to protect our kids isn’t through fear and prohibition, but through regulation and honest dialogue.

A groundbreaking study published this month in Pediatric Reports has shattered the prohibitionist narrative about legalization and youth cannabis use. Drawing from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Youth Risk Behavior Survey, which polls high school students from grades 9-12, researchers uncovered a remarkable trend: cannabis use among teenagers has plummeted since 2011, even as more states embraced legalization.

The numbers tell a compelling story. In 2011, nearly 40% of adolescents reported having tried cannabis at least once. By 2021, that number had dropped to just 27.8%. Even more striking, regular use (defined as consumption within the past month) fell from 23.1% to 15.8% during the same period. Perhaps most encouragingly, early experimentation – trying cannabis before age 13 – dropped from 8.1% to 4.9%.

“The significant decreases observed in both the ‘ever used marijuana’ and ‘currently use marijuana’ categories highlight a promising reduction in adolescent marijuana use, with usage dropping to approximately 70% of the levels recorded in 2011,” the researchers noted.

This isn’t an isolated finding. A separate JAMA study published in April 2024 found no evidence that state-level legalization led to increased youth consumption. Washington State, one of the first to legalize recreational use, offers a particularly interesting case study. Their student surveys show that not only has youth cannabis use declined since legalization in 2012, but teenagers actually report that cannabis is harder to access now than during prohibition.

Similar trends have emerged north of the border. Canadian researchers found that high-school students reported more difficulty accessing cannabis after nationwide legalization in 2019, with current use rates dropping from 12.7% to 7.5% as retail sales expanded across the country.

Even federal officials have been forced to acknowledge these unexpected results. Marsha Lopez, chief of the National Institute on Drug Abuse’s epidemiological research branch, recently stated, “There have been no substantial increases at all. In fact, they have not reported an increase in perceived availability either, which is kind of interesting.”

Massachusetts provides another compelling example. A study of high school students there found that youth were no more likely to use cannabis after legalization, though they were more likely to perceive their parents as cannabis consumers – an interesting detail we’ll explore further when we examine the potential reasons behind these trends.

The evidence continues to mount. A NIDA-funded study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine found that “youth who spent more of their adolescence under legalization were no more or less likely to have used cannabis at age 15 years than adolescents who spent little or no time under legalization.”

All this comes at a time when adult cannabis use has reached “historic highs,” according to federal data. This stark contrast between rising adult use and declining youth consumption raises fascinating questions about how legalization might actually be helping to decrease teenage interest in cannabis – questions we’ll explore in detail in the next section.

As the data clearly shows, youth cannabis consumption is dropping significantly. But why? The answer lies in a perfect storm of social, economic, and cultural factors that have fundamentally altered how teenagers perceive and access cannabis.

Let’s start with the most obvious factor: regulated access. In legal markets, dispensaries have a powerful incentive to card their customers – their licenses and livelihoods depend on it. Unlike the street dealer who operates with impunity and gladly accepts cash from anyone willing to pay, legitimate cannabis businesses face severe consequences for selling to minors. Now, I have nothing against the small-time grower selling their homegrown stash to other consenting adults, but when we’re talking about organized crime networks controlling the black market, the dynamics become far more problematic.

But access is just part of the story. Perhaps more significant is the radical shift in how we educate young people about cannabis. Gone are the days of hyperbolic “scared straight” tactics that characterized my youth in the late 90s. Today’s drug education tends to focus on facts rather than fear, helping teenagers make informed decisions. This more honest approach, coupled with the “adult use” framing of legal cannabis, has effectively repositioned marijuana as something for grown-ups – like alcohol or tobacco.

Here’s where it gets really interesting: when I was a teenager, smoking weed was the ultimate act of rebellion. Nothing said “stick it to the man” quite like sparking up a joint. But in 2024, “the man” literally dispenses weed through corporate channels. For today’s contrarian teens, being “counter-culture” might actually mean being “counter-pot,” especially when it comes to big corporate cannabis. When something’s legal and commercialized, it loses that forbidden fruit appeal that made it so attractive to previous generations.

The role of technology can’t be overlooked either. Today’s teenagers have unprecedented access to entertainment and social connection through their devices. While my generation might have gathered in someone’s basement to smoke weed and listen to music, modern teens can immerse themselves in vast online worlds, connect with friends through social media, or lose themselves in endless streams of content – all without leaving their rooms.

Back in my day, the internet was just finding its footing. Sure, we had instant messaging and early social media, but it wasn’t the all-encompassing digital ecosystem that exists today. With fewer entertainment options, smoking weed with friends was often the default adventure. We’d get high and create our own fun, usually resulting in the kind of mischief that makes for great stories but questionable life choices.

The decline in youth cannabis use seems to stem from this perfect convergence of factors: better prevention education, regulated access that actually works, the loss of rebellious appeal, and the existence of countless alternative activities. One thing is crystal clear – legalization hasn’t increased youth consumption as prohibitionists predicted. If anything, it’s helped create an environment where fewer kids feel compelled to experiment with cannabis during their formative years.

SOURCE:

https://www.marijuanamoment.net/teen-marijuana-use-dropped-in-u-s-as-states

-enacted-legalization-new-study-using-federal-data-shows/

TEEN MARIJUANA DROPS WITH LEGALIZATION? READ ON…

TEEN MARIJUANA USE DROPS IN LEGAL STATES, HUH??

Last Thursday, we learned that the DEA’s marijuana rescheduling hearings are delayed until early next year. We also saw the list of 25 participants invited by the DEA to testify at those hearings. The takeaways here are: a) we will not have a substantive hearing on marijuana rescheduling until a new President takes office, and b) most of the hearing participants “represent law enforcement and anti-marijuana lobbies” as stated by MJBizDaily. Many people online didn’t like this at all, but I’ll humbly submit that it’s closer to a nothingburger.

The sky is not falling; delays are normal (and expected)

Anyone who has been around litigation or other court proceedings knows that delays are typical. You don’t have to be an administrative law expert (I’m not) to appreciate that. In this respect, it is puzzling why some of the industry folks, including cannabis lawyers, were howling at last Thursday’s news. It’s like complaining about the color of the sky.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) John Mulrooney’s Preliminary Order (“Order”) strikes me as a typical housekeeping exercise. He notes that the DEA hasn’t clarified which of the rescheduling hearing’s 25 participants support rescheduling, and which don’t. The Order gives a November 12 deadline (pretty tight!) for clarification on this point, and on related important issues– including disclosures of any known participant or DEA conflicts of interest. The Order also gives the DEA until November 12^th to designate its counsel of record.

The Order is also clear that the previously scheduled December 2^nd hearing remains on the docket. Participants must come prepared with “January-February 2025” dates for the big show. Lest you believe that the question of cannabis rescheduling will be fully and finally resolved at that time, I’m here to tell you otherwise. The hearings may drag on for any number of reasons, and once concluded, the ALJ will likely take his time arriving at a decision. Moreover, that decision could be litigated.

In short, people need to take a breather and understand that things are going as expected. Back on May 1, the day after the DEA agreed to initiate Schedule III rulemaking, I wrote that “I doubt cannabis will be on Schedule III” by Election Day. In the bigger picture, and long before that, I highlighted how Biden “passed the buck, putting us on an uncertain, circuitous path” by kicking off this rescheduling inquiry. For the 1,000^th time, Congress needs to act.

The participant list isn’t a huge deal; could even be helpful

The ALJ is presiding over a rulemaking process and making a record. A “record” in judicial proceedings is a technical term: it means the written account of all documents, evidence and proceedings in a matter. The record has already begun to accrete in this one, by way of the 42,925 comments on marijuana rescheduling submitted prior to the July 22 deadline (69.3% of them in support of rescheduling). The early 2025 hearings will continue to build out the record.

I mentioned above that the ALJ’s rulings may be litigated. If I were in the Judge’s chair, I’d make every possible effort to hear, on the record, from participants opposed to rescheduling. This is a useful way to insulate the Judge’s likely decision to follow the DEA’s Schedule III recommendation: all are fully and fairly heard.

No matter how much “evidence” or persuasive testimony opponents may conjure and enter into the record, it should not be enough to unseat the findings from FDA/HHS. That 250 page script considers the eight factors that determine control of a substance under 21 U.S.C. 811(c)– including that marijuana has a currently accepted medical use (CAMU). The report also contains favorable relative findings on abuse liability, with respect to other scheduled and unscheduled drugs (fentanyl, ketamine, alcohol, etc.). I just don’t see the naysayers getting there.

What’s next for marijuana rescheduling

Obviously, tomorrow’s elections are a pretty big deal. They don’t bear directly on these proceedings, but the composition of Congress and the Presidency for the next few years could potentially obviate the need for this rulemaking, or lessen its impact. Beyond that, a few interesting breadcrumbs may fall from the December 2^nd hearing, including which witnesses will testify on behalf of the 25 selected participants (a few are associations with yet-undesignated reps), whether any conflicts of interest arise, and anything else.

Stay tuned for December 2^nd if you’re a very process-oriented person. Everyone else can probably take a breather. This is what Biden signed us up for, after all, instead of following through with his campaign promises to decriminalize marijuana. (I couldn’t resist.)

For more on this topic, check out the following posts: