Recently a local newspaper in an online posting reported that Santa Barbara County Supervisor Janet Wolf said 250 temporary state cannabis operation licenses have been issued for Santa Barbara County, while only three have been issued for San Luis Obispo County, and the county had achieved No. 1 status in the state. This even surpasses pot-friendly Humboldt County.
In reaction to this revelation, Wolf said, “I would like to make our ordinance more restrictive.” And, “once you open the door, you never know what you’ll get.” You should have thought about that before you opened that door.
Ever since the passage of Proposition 64, an ill-conceived effort to aid sick people and allow “personal use” of cannabis, was passed, local governments have been convinced that this industry was a cash cow for their general funds. Of course, the medical benefits of this plant have never been verified by independent, third-party research, only the very unscientific testimony of users. And, “personal use” has been as prevalent as alcohol distilling and consumption was during Prohibition.
This issue has been debated by several local communities since the November 2016 election; most have wisely chosen to reject the idea of cannabis growing, manufacturing, or selling in their communities; recently Santa Maria banned cannabis sales in the city. But, without any regard to unintended consequences, there are other notable exceptions, such as the cities of Santa Barbara and Lompoc.
The county is now discovering what those consequences can be, and at least two less-than-conservative-thinking supervisors, 1st District Supervisor Das Williams and the 2nd District’s Wolf, want to take another look at the enabling ordinance. But, with temporary licenses already issued, it may be too late.
What was most shocking is what 4th District Supervisor Peter Adam said: “I don’t recall [discussing] any caps on cultivation. Being the libertarian that I am, I don’t believe in capping anything.” He also said the natural selection of competition would limit the number of operating retail stores and that no matter how many initially opened, only the successful operations would survive.
This sounds remarkably similar to the words used by Lompoc City Councilmember Jim Mosby early in the cannabis debate in our city. The attitude of these two is indicative of a flawed philosophy when applied to an industry like this. Even the number of permits to sell alcohol are limited by the Alcohol and Beverage Control and local police departments.
On March 20, the Lompoc City Council will discuss a proposed cannabis tax; the idea is to place it on the November ballot. Three council members—Mosby, Dirk Starbuck, and Victor Vega—have previously gone on record as opposing other tax initiatives to rescue the city general fund. How they will vote this time remains unknown.
But you can bet that the same well-financed groups that supported Proposition 64 and are investing large sums of money to develop those 250 license applications will mount a considerable effort to derail any tax initiative proposed by any local government.
The Lompoc City Council should take note: you have flung the door wide open and now, “you never know what you’ll get.”
Ron Fink is chair of the Lompoc Planning Commision and a resident of Lompoc. Send your thoughts to letters@santamariasun.com.
This article appears in Mar 15-22, 2018.
