I won't bore all you San Franciscans with the full list of Oakland and
East Bay measures (two of each), but Oakland's measure Z bears mentioning.
"Title: Cannabis Regulation - An Ordinance that Would Require that
the City (1) Establish a System to License, Tax and Regulate Cannabis
(Marijuana) Sales As Soon as Possible under California Law; (2) Create
a Committee to Oversee the Ordinance's Implementation and Disbursement
of Revenue from Licensing and Taxation of Businesses that Sell Cannabis;
(3) Adopt Law Enforcement Policies Related to Cannabis; and (4) Advocate
for Changes in Laws to Support Implementation and Goals of the Ordinance."
Sounds great, right? But there's a constituationality issue -- and it's
not what you'd expect. According to the City Attorney (who should know!):
"Sections 5 and 8 of this measure are unconstitutional and therefore
unenforceable. Section 5 requires that the City of Oakland license, tax
and regulate the sale of cannabis for adult use if state law is amended
to permit such actions. Section 8 requires that the City of Oakland lobby
for changes in laws to (1) eliminate criminal penalties for private adult
cannabis use, distribution, sale, cultivation and possession and (2) allow
cities and counties to license, regulate and tax cannabis businesses.
These provisions are unconstitutional because they do not enact a
law. Neither the lobbying provision, nor the requirement that the City
pass legislation that would regulate and tax cannabis businesses, if
state law is amended, enacts a law."
Therefore, if it passes, the only parts which will actually count are
that "the City must (1) make investigation, citation and arrest of
private adult cannabis offenses...its lowest law enforcement priority",
and creating a committee.
http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/alm/meas/Z/
I'm going to vote for this, but I think perhaps whoever wrote it was
spending too much time with the vaporizer and not enough with the
law books.
