Big majority of MV voters back pot legalization

Proponents of legal recreational marijuana scored a big victory last week after California voters approved Proposition 64, dubbed the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA), by a significant margin. As the vote-count continues, about 5.4 million voters, or 56 percent, voted in favor of the proposition, paving the way for adults ages 21 and over to legally smoke, possess, cultivate, and eventually sell, recreational pot.

Here in Mountain View, voter support for Proposition 64 was even stronger. Just over 17,000 city residents — about two-thirds of the total ballots cast — voted in favor of Proposition 64, and every single city precinct held at least a simple majority in favor of pot legalization.

Despite the strong support, big questions remain about what legal recreational marijuana will look like in Mountain View. It will be up to city officials whether to welcome marijuana retailers into the city, or to to crack down on outdoor cultivation. Other cities are grappling with the same questions, making it difficult to determine just how much city and state tax revenue will be generated by the measure.

What’s more, local law enforcement officers fear teen drug use will continue to rise in the city, and that legally permissible weed will make it increasingly difficult to explain the dangers and harm associated with illicit teen drug use. Murky guidelines for when someone is “too stoned” to drive also poses a challenge to traffic officers who need to enforce DUI laws before clear standards are even written.

Much of Proposition 64 took effect on Nov. 9, immediately after the election, making it legal for adults ages 21 years and older to possess, process, transport, purchase and give away up to an ounce of marijuana. Within these constraints, marijuana itself is no longer considered contraband and can’t get a person in trouble with the law.

There are still fairly strict limits on where people can smoke marijuana. The new law prohibits smoking in public areas, or areas that are visible from a public place, and retailers and businesses can only allow marijuana consumption in areas restricted to people ages 21 and older. Smoking pot in a public area is still an infraction with fines up to $100, though the fine increases and comes with community service if the infraction occurs at or near a school, day care center or youth center.

What didn’t go live last Wednesday, however, was the ability for businesses to sell recreational marijuana. California’s legislature still has to create a sizable regulatory and licensing infrastructure that would govern marijuana retailers, which is not expected to be completed until the start of 2018. The delay means cities won’t have to scramble to create moratoriums or restrictions on marijuana businesses in the near term, but it also leaves uncertainty over what kind of local regulatory hurdles will be put in place.

Other aspects of the new law prompted immediate action. Just days before election night, the Mountain View City Council members voted to put a 45-day ban on outdoor marijuana cultivation, which is permissible under Proposition 64, until the city can draft ordinances regulating the practice. The council is scheduled to consider next month whether to turn that lengthen that ban into a one or two-year moratorium.

At the Nov. 1 meeting, council member Mike Kasperzak said he supported the 45-day urgency ordinance, but was not in favor of dragging out the moratorium on outdoor cultivation longer than necessary to draft city regulatory ordinances — particularly if the city’s voters largely support Proposition 64. Following the election results, Kasperzak told the Voice he’s inclined to follow the will of the voters and allow the urgency ordinance to expire sooner rather than later.

“I’m really not in favor of saying let’s wait two years to deal with this,” Kasperzak said.

The city hasn’t been the most pot-friendly town in Silicon Valley. In 2011, the Mountain View City Council voted to ban medical marijuana dispensaries. Former council member Margaret Abe-Koga, who just won another four-year on the council, was one of four council members who voted in favor of the ban. Mountain View Police Chief Max Bosel, who was a police captain at the time, also voiced concerns about allowing medical marijuana dispensaries in the city.

The local and state regulatory uncertainty makes it tough to determine what kind of sales and excise tax revenue Proposition 64 will bring to the state, and whether it can deliver on the increased tax revenue promised by the measure’s supporters. A report by California’s Legislative Analyst Office found that the proposition could generate upwards of $1 billion in new annual revenue, but conceded that there’s “significant uncertainty” in the overall fiscal effects. Criminal justice costs are expected to decrease as the number of marijuana-related criminal cases are reduced, though there will likely be an initial rise in costs when people with marijuana-related convictions head back to court for resentencing and changing or expunging their criminal records.

New costs associated with regulating the budding marijuana industry, as well as an anticipated increase in costs for publicly funded substance abuse treatment programs, are expected to also take a bite out of the new revenue, according to the report.

DUI laws related to drug intoxication didn’t change under Proposition 64, so it will still be illegal to drive while under the influence of marijuana or any other controlled substance, according to Mountain View police spokeswoman Katie Nelson. Anyone found guilty of DUI because they are stoned will be arrested, put on probation and face county jail time, fines and possible driver’s license suspension.

The trouble is that there still isn’t a widely accepted, universal method for determining intoxication levels for marijuana consumption, and there’s no simple roadside test similar to a breathalyzer test. The proposition sets aside an annual $3 million annually for the California Highway Patrol to “establish and adopt protocols” to determine whether a driver is impaired by the use of marijuana or marijuana products, but that money doesn’t even begin to flow to the CHP until the 2018-19 fiscal year. Nelson said the department isn’t expecting any policy changes on traffic enforcement as it relates to marijuana consumption, at least until the state legislature is back in session.

“This remains a big issue,” Nelson said. “This is something that is going to have to be addressed eventually.”

In 2013, the Colorado legislature passed a bill that made driving with 5 nanograms of THC in a milliliter of blood the legal limit for driving under the influence of marijuana, though that measure has been scrutinized. Critics say the law fails to account for frequent marijuana users who would test positive even while driving sober.

Beyond DUIs, the Mountain View Police Department is unlikely to ratchet up enforcement of marijuana laws under Proposition 64. Lt. Frank St. Clair told the Voice last week that weed remains a low-priority crime in California, and that the department intends to do complaint-driven enforcement rather than cracking down on marijuana-related crimes.

“It’s low priority in the sense that we don’t put any special investigative effort in this crime,” St. Claire said.

Although the text of Proposition 64 claims that it will “incapacitate” the black market for marijuana, St. Claire said he believes the measure may have the opposite effect by making it harder to figure out what’s legal marijuana and what’s not. Prior to medical marijuana, officers had no trouble determining whether marijuana possession was illegal and a crime. After the introduction of medical marijuana, it became harder for police to determine whether pot was legally permissible or contraband, and recreational marijuana will only add one more layer of confusion.

“It further insulates the black market in the sense that it puts barriers into the investigation into that particular contraband,” St. Claire said.

The department will still education students on the dangers associated with drug use, including marijuana, the same way it has prior to Proposition 64, but St. Claire said he worries that the message might get muddled when the rest of society is saying that it’s recreational and safe. But above all, he said the biggest issue he has with Proposition 64 is that any juvenile can sell marijuana illegally to another juvenile, regardless of age, with minimal consequences.

“If you are under 18, anything you do with marijuana — grow it, process it, sell it — it’s all a $100 fine and a four-hour class,” he said.