Please Sign Our Call for More Cannabis Retail Stores in California

We need your support. The cannabis industry must address local control and its negative effects on the industry as a whole and the hardships it creates for seniors, veterans, young people with childhood maladies and individuals with disabilities for whom cannabis serves an important medical purpose.

On behalf of California’s leading cannabis trade, labor, advocacy, veterans, and patient organizations, as well as individual stakeholders throughout the industry, we’ve drafted this position paper to serve as a template for other local jurisdictions in their fight for reasonable access to cannabis. Every industry signature helps, so please read the full text below and show your support today.

Highlights

• • California must prioritize its retail footprint to expand availability of cannabis products
  • Local Control creates hardships across the entire supply chain
  • There are several hundred under-served jurisdictions across the state, of which the small town of Sonoma is one example
  • All stakeholders must work together to devise strategies that support wider access at the local level

Take Action

Sign Your Support for Our Call for More Cannabis Retail Stores in California, below.

Position Paper (quick read)

Position Paper                                                                                                                                                        1 January 2024

I. Retail and Local Control

Most industry professionals believe California must address and prioritize its retail footprint before it can have real impact on the availability of cannabis products. California’s Proposition 64 grants city and county governments local control to restrict retail cannabis dispensaries from operating within their jurisdictions.¹ Not only does local control create hardship for seniors, veterans, young people with childhood maladies and individuals with disabilities for whom cannabis serves an important medical purpose, it also

• • threatens consumer safety and perpetuates the illegal market;
  • undermines the survival of smaller scale cultivators;
  • blocks access and business opportunities to minority communities; and
  • creates space for corruption and scandal among elected officials.

II. Sonoma, California

Over-concentration of retail in a few large cities may be of some concern, but there are several hundred under-served jurisdictions across the state. The town of Sonoma is just one example of how local control makes it nearly impossible to open stores. This small northern California municipality has just one dispensary serving the city and its surrounding population of 40,000. Patients and consumers want local access to competitive prices and more choices, but those options are limited if there is only one provider. Capitalism without competition is exploitation.

Though Sonoma’s ordinance allows for two dispensaries, the city council continues to forestall the process for a second retail outlet. This, despite the fact that the city’s own consultant, HdL Companies, indicated that Sonoma could sustain two dispensaries.² Why would a city council choose to ignore the expert opinion of its own consultant and reduce by half the options a second dispensary would provide its constituents? Why would it choose to deny the city additional revenue? Why does it support a monopoly of service in Sonoma, rather than let the market decide?

III. Conclusion

The health, safety, and personal well-being of both patients and consumers come first, and should guide every decision our industry makes. When California voters supported Prop. 64, they made clear the importance of replacing the illicit market with a legal system that would grant Californians safe access to cannabis products, while also creating good jobs and significant tax revenue. It is essential that all stakeholders work together to support wider access at the local level and encourage a positive outcome that reflects the will of the people.

___________________________
¹HdL Companies, Elections Code Section 9212 Report Regarding an Initiative Measure to Permit Personal Cannabis Cultivation and Commercial Cannabis Businesses within the City of Sonoma, City of Sonoma, P 18, https://sonomacity.civicweb.net/document/16396/Hear%20and%20Accept%20Impact%20Report%20(Elections%20Code%20S.pdf?handle=70A2016EF223479AA0B2C4E92A0CE069

²Alexander Nieves, California’s legal weed industry can’t compete with illicit market, POLITICO, https://www.politico.com/news/2021/10/23/california-legal-illicit-weed-market-516868

To:   The Honorable Members of the Sonoma City Council

Cc:    Mr. David Guhin, City Manager, City of Sonoma

Jennifer M Gates, Community Development Director, City of Sonoma

Joseph Erich Pearson, CEO, PARC Ventures LLC.

Amy O’Gorman Jenkins, Founder, Precision Advocacy

Emily Paxhia, Managing Director, Poseidon Investment Management, LLC.

Morgan Paxhia, Managing Partner, Poseidon Investment Management, LLC.

Patrick Rea, Managing Director, Poseidon Investment Management, LLC.