Benicia is and has been recognized over the decades as one of the best places to live and grow your family. We moved to this wonderful city in 1986 because of the great schools, the warm friendly people and the ambiance of its small town feel. Over time, Benicia has worked to embrace that image and has won numerous awards including being named a Main Street City in 1986 and one of the 40 most livable beach towns in the United States in 2017.
Benicia is now confronted with a conundrum of what to decide regarding the Proposition 64 legalization of marijuana against how the city will be able to balance the budget in this and future years. The promise of new tax money that could indeed be significant from marijuana sales must be balanced against the environment and culture of our community. While proposition 64 passed by a majority, it is noteworthy that antidotal discussions and even the most recent survey conducted by the city reveals that while it may be legal, it is not good enough to reside in our main street or shopping centers. Simply stated, marijuana is OK but not in my backyard. The survey response seems to say, just put it in the Industrial Park where it will not be seen and we citizens can remain separated and not responsible.
I think the issue is far more complex than simply burying one’s head in the sand and ignoring that marijuana is legal and readily available to anyone that is 21 years of age or older. Many other cities have engaged in this same issue and a large number, more than 160, have decided not to allow any form of marijuana to be available within their cities. I believe Benicia is behind the curve on this issue and think it important to seriously explore all real and unintended consequences associated with allowing any form of marijuana– medical or recreational– dispensaries including all forms of manufacturing, processing and testing to reside within our city. The current law prohibits regulating home growth of up to six plants for personal use but does allow cities to require that any such effort is not viewable from the street.
Information is readily available regarding what has occurred in other states that have legalized recreational and medical marijuana. A short list of issues that must be considered, studied and reconciled are:
Federal Law – classifies marijuana as a Class 1 drug and prohibits all use, sale, and cultivation and states that a violation can result in a punishment of up to 1 year in jail and a $1,000 fine. The issue is that federal law will always take precedent over any state law. The previous federal administration declined to prosecute violations of this law. However, there is ample evidence that the new federal attorney general and the chief of staff of the Trump administration have indicated a much stronger interest in enforcing this law. At the present time there are 23 federal marijuana bills introduced in Congress that have yet to be processed in 2017. Time will tell, but I think the prudent thing is to take a wait and see approach as to who prevails over the next few years. There are additional federal issues pertaining to cash, IRS, employment, housing, insurance, banking, military service, gun ownership, health care and federal grant applications that will be introduced below.
Cash – Businesses established for the purpose of growing, manufacturing, processing, testing and selling marijuana are refused bank accounts by the Federal Reserve. This prohibition also is applied to applications for credit card services. In many examples, businesses have tried numerous work-arounds only to be found out and have their accounts cancelled. This fact causes a number of problems:
* Collecting, handling, accounting and paying bills including tax bills poses significant problems not only for the business but for the cities, counties and states that collect taxes on such revenue. Most agencies are/were not equipped to accept cash as tax payments. Businesses were not prepared to store and transport large sums of cash. It is a major problem.
* Cash attracts unwanted attention from less than legal institutions interested in laundering their own cash by comingling it with marijuana cash or simply using illegal drug money to purchase a legal marijuana business.
Federal Internal Revenue Code 280E – IRS Code 280E has very unusual provisions pertaining to any marijuana based business. Essentially, a marijuana business is not allowed to deduct any business expenses when filing income tax. Basically, all marijuana based businesses are taxed on gross income resulting in a tax rate of 70 percent or higher. When combined with local and state taxes, a business can hardly break even and it is predicted that these businesses face a very bleak financial future. This fact deeply affects their ability to reinvest profits back into their local communities and fulfill the will of regulatory bodies.
Employer and employee issues – Employers retain the right to enforce a drug free environment. An increased use of marijuana presents a challenge to an employer’s ability to find qualified candidates that can pass a drug test. In addition, employers that have motorized employees or employees that work with or around dangerous equipment are within their right to require random drug tests. Advocates for legalized marijuana challenged these rights in Colorado only to receive a 6-0 ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court in favor of the employer.
Housing – No one who is in a Section 8 or Federally Subsidized housing is allowed to use marijuana. Renters not receiving Federal assistance can face eviction even if they are in compliance with Proposition 64 if their lease prohibits “illicit drugs”. This applies to residential and commercial renters.
Insurance – Businesses and individuals associated with marijuana are frequently denied obtaining liability, property, life, health and auto insurance. This is a significant issue that should be researched before anyone decides to go into this type of business.
Military service – Despite the promise marijuana has shown when treating PTSD and chronic pain, active members of the military still can’t use marijuana without jeopardizing their positions.
Gun ownership – Marijuana users do not have a Second Amendment right to own a gun, according to a federal appeals court decision ruling. This decision was upheld by the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals and was underscored by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives by adding a new version of the form aspiring gun owners must complete that states marijuana is still illegal under federal law.
Business Services – Marijuana related businesses report having great difficulty getting an attorney, a certified public accountant, payroll services, finding AC companies to install air conditioners, finding contractors willing to build out their business or investors willing to invest in their business. Most of the reasons for refusing to provide services stem directly out of the federal prohibition on marijuana.
Health care – Marijuana consumers report difficulty accessing some medical procedures or participating in health care studies solely because of a positive test for marijuana.
Federal grants – Cities like Benicia rely heavily on the ability to apply for and receive grants from the federal government. This is especially true for our police and fire departments but also applies to other areas of our city. Each application has requirements of compliance with federal laws including drug laws. It is my opinion that these grants could be denied to cities embracing Proposition 64, but we are too early in the process to see any direct evidence.
Unintended consequences – Like any effort to change or implement new laws there will always be implications not predicted or considered when the law was enacted. I found a few examples but believe there will be many more as the proliferation of marijuana use grows at its present pace.
* Pot problems in school – Colorado schools have experienced an alarming increase in marijuana drugs being brought to school. Officials believe this sharp rise is directly attributable to the message that marijuana is legal (even though it is prohibited for anyone under 21) is sending to kids: that marijuana is a medicine and a safe and accepted recreational activity. They believe marijuana previously hidden by parents from kids may now be openly available and easier for kids to get at home.
* Increased car crashes – Recent studies in Colorado, Oregon and Washington indicate a direct link between driving while high and auto accident rates. Colorado had a 15 percent increase in auto crashes while Washington had a 6 percent increase and Oregon’s increase was 4 percent. Larger studies to understand personal injuries and property damage are underway by the Highway Loss Data Institute who conducted the initial study. The Auto Insurance Industry’s position on legalized marijuana is crystal clear regarding the causes of increased crash rates by refusing to issue or cancel policies of marijuana users.
* Increased cancer risk – The British Lung Foundation found that smoking cannabis (marijuana) is more harmful than cigarettes and more likely to trigger cancer. Just three joints a day can cause the same amount of damage to the lungs as an entire pack of 20 cigarettes.
* Law enforcement – There is ample evidence that our law enforcement officers are significantly handicapped when trying to enforce this new marijuana law. Tools like a breathalyzer are not presently available to help determine an individual’s level of impairment. Normal sobriety tests will help confirm those under the influence but efforts must be made to clearly articulate levels of enforcement and provision of tools to help with that enforcement.
I believe the above issues are just the tip of a very large iceberg. It is incumbent on our representatives to weigh all of the issues and to explore all areas of this issue before making a decision to allow Proposition 64 marijuana in the city of Benicia. I strongly recommend adopting an ordinance against all aspects of Proposition 64.
Dennis Lowry is a Benicia resident.
Sharing is caring!
So now the poll is to be considered an accurate assessment of community sentiments re: cannabis in Benicia, in contrast to your previous work here saying the results could be skewed and the poll disregarded? The poll also demonstrated that close to 75% of respondents support cannabis either way. BIPA has laid out the welcome mat for cultivators/processors, labs, warehousing, distribution, and anything else related to cannabusiness. More importantly, they have rejected the presence of point of sale in BIP, advocating for main stream retail locations. BIP will be where all the heavy lifting is done to support robust cannabis commerce in Benicia and beyond. There is a conspicuous absence of protest from related business groups or the Chamber.
If you voted in the last Benicia election, nobody you voted for wanted crude-by-rail (talk about unintended consequences!) or to continue the prohibition of cannabis in Benicia.
Here is interesting reading about the origins of the filthy m word, now scrubbed from official state legislation regulating medicinal and adult-use cannabis.
https://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2017/06/01/should-we-stop-using-the-word-marijuana
“Unintended Consequences” seems to be the catch phrase of the dissenters. However,, it remains poorly defined. Maybe it should be changed to “Yeah, but what if….?”
The majority of the list seems to involve issues of personal choice and responsibility and have nothing to do with allowing MJ businesses in Benicia. Additionally, previously debunked issues, such as “Increased car crashes”, are once again being trotted out. Finally, I’m not real clear on the opposition to MJ testing.
You know what I realized when I moved to this lovely town almost 30 years ago? That people drank… a lot. Bar fights, drunks on First Street, dealing with drunks at the family oriented parades, kids drinking, violence from drinking- the list goes on. Do you know what people smoking pot don’t do? Get violent. Shoot their spouses. Beat their kids. It is about the nicest drug out there. I have seen incredible results from medical pot for people with chronic pain and other symptoms that other “legal” drugs have had no effect on. So I am all for legal pot shops. Want to talk about bad drugs? Nothing tops alcohol or tobacco… and opioids (thank you pharmaceutical
companies). And BTW-I don’t smoke pot but I’d sure rather have pot smoking neighbors than raging and dangerous drunks.
Christine, You have really nailed it with your comment. You clearly get it.
Cannabis tax revenues are exceeding projections, and in many cases are double alcohol sales taxes.
https://tinyurl.com/yd379kbg
You may be correct. Show us the data you got that from. Until we see the facts it is an opinion.
http://vsstrategies.com/wp-content/uploads/VSS-CO-MJ-Revenue-Report-July-2017.pdf
Literally 3 sentences into the posted article.
Literally 15% that the cities will not see for their general funds in California. All I asked was how much will Benicia get? Do you know BB. I do not think you know. If it is a financial windfall for Benicia how much is it. If you know share that with the residence. Colorado has nothing to ,do with Benicia. I also said you may be correct.
Again, not picking a fight. If you want a more polite tone, try being polite to others first.
“You may be correct. Show us the data you got that from. Until we see the facts it is an opinion.”
The word “Benicia” is never used, so no, you did not ask.
I’m also not going to formulate an entire city plan for free, just for your enjoyment, especially since you’d refuse to accept it anyway.
BB I do know how to formulate it and it is very easy. It just takes a little effort by the folks that are telling us about the financial bonanza. The city will do it. I will never challenge a formula that has been verified. So if you have a formula that can be verified have at it. You be nice to me and I will do the same. We need proof not headlines.
BB you want to pick a fight with me. You just did. Read my comment. The word data was there not headlines. BB do the research and now tells us the data on how that number was achieved in Colorado. I do not doubt the numbers but there is more to it. It is not just a headline which you read with limited data. Now tell me how many stores in Colorado, square footage of each store, dollar revenue per square foot, average size of each store, geographical area with population per store, hours of operation, dollars per hour plus much more data is needed. You nor Stan have given that data for a model for Benicia. Just headlines and total data. Remember double alcohol sales is more than just words. Is it double only on alcohol sales such as liquor stores or is broken down by the amount an eating place that also serves alcohol, . There is an addition 25% charge on cannabis sales in Colorado. In Benicia this city will get little of the 15% added tax. What this city will see is the initial 1% of sales tax plus the 1% of measure C Tax and no sooner than 2019 the 10% added tax plus license fees. The 10% will not even go to the ballot until 2018 for a 2019 tax. So as you see BB there is more to it than just three sentences. Do the homework and give us the financial windfall the city is going to get. The city does not have that info yet. . They will do the research and come up with a model. Do you know the amount of sales tax revenue First Street does? I hope you do. When you get all the data necessary you then can tell us how many stores and where this city will need them. Remember you will need a location either standing or to be built. How many square feet etc. BB answer those very important questions and you could be a contender to have a fight with me. Until then you are an another person that just read headlines with out critical thinking. I will be waiting for your data and a model. You have about 4 1/2 months to come up with that data and a model. Who will be first BB/Stan or the city.
It’s my opinion that as more states move to legalize cannabis, more pressure will be put on the federal government to make changes to federal drug, tax and banking laws.
Until then: Business Opportunities
• Bank of Cannabis (funds not FDIC insured)
• United Cannabis Collective – offering Casualty, Life, Auto and all of your Insurance needs
• Cannabis Law Offices: “we burn the midnight oil too”
• Grow Supplies, Inc.
• Cannabis Labs – testing potency and purity since 2018
IRS issues: If we’re a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants, can’t we be a sanctuary for (federal) tax dodgers too?
I fully agree with the issue of Employer/Employee issues. Employers today are having a hard time finding candidates who can pass a simple drug test. But those policies can be slightly modified to mirror current alcohol policies. My current employer requires a BAL of less than 0.02 to be on the job. Similar levels could be developed for TCH. I don’t know what those might be or what levels of THC would be considered impaired.
We have time to work through these issues. I think it’s best to be thinking about it now instead of waiting until the last possible minute.
Good comment.
Dennis, you lost on Valero expansion, Prop. 64, and continuing cannabis prohibition in our town. Now you are telling the city council to ignore the will of the majority based on your own biased reasoning and absent knowledge? Maybe you and Hoot Owl can get matching T-shirts for next meeting, “I’m With Harry” or better still “Just Say NO!”
I assume your candidate lost the presidential race. Love to see you in your Bernie Sanders T-Shirt. By the way my name is very clear. Bob Livesay. I assume BHS1968 stands for Benicia Hi graduate 1968. Now what is your real name? I hope you are not afraid to publish it.
Here is interesting reading about Nevada consumer demand for cannabis. Judge clears way for more distributor licenses.
https://tinyurl.com/yayxprsk
The ED Board agenda for next week indicates 18 commercial/industrial vacancies in BIP. Our General Fund is anemic and in dire need of a sustaining charge to meet our needs going forward. We lost talent to Martinez and other cities because they pay more. We are looking at $400 water bills in the future. Our economic plan should be cannabis oil processing and plenty of it, with a dispensary on the south end of First Street and in Southampton. The people I know in the business are eager to start up in Benicia as soon as the light turns green.
There are reasons that we lost people to Martinez. It is the hostile work environment cause by two elected officials. It has nothing to9 do with pay. It is the work place environment.
Nice. You want to simply disregard the majority will to suit your own ignorant views. Well, you have one friend on the city council as it stands now. It will take some time for the dinosaur prohibitionists to die off or get smarter, the sooner the better.
“Liberty and freedom to act are as American as mom and apple pie. Unfortunately, processes put in place by government entities — from local cities to the federal government — continually work to erode both.” Dennis Lowry December 16, 2014
Janet do you want to attack me if that is who you are addressing or discuss what I already know will happen. If you have followed me, I assume you are talking about me if not just who are you addressing. If you are addressing me or anyone that wants all areas covered we are not ignorant. If you are addressing me I am 84 years old the die off comment with the sooner the better is way over the top. I consider it a threat. If you are talking about me it appears I am a lot smarter than you. I know what is going to happen all I want is what’s best for the city and the residents. I am very well aware of the vote., But that was not the whole issue. I assume you want heath and safety issues covered before rather than have issues later. If you reviewed the survey it appears some of your views what ever they are, are worthy of discussion. I brought some financial issues that must be reviewed and considered for store front sales. Everyone in town may want store front sales all over the place but it must be in the best interest of all. I do not care who uses cannabis weather its for health or recreation. I do not care. But all the issues should be looked into very thoroughly and proceed in the best interest of the residents. If you are addressing me I an not ignorant and am sorry to disappoint you but I will live to be 127 years old. I do not know how old you are but I wish you good health and a wonderful life., If you want to disregard info that may be considered a very one sided argument. I hope you do have an open mind on this. I do and have already predicted the vote. It does appear you want to get rid of someone my age the sooner the better. I sure hope you do not have any family members that old. They would now know where they stand with you. I respect your feeling but please respect the feeling of someone like me that does know what is going to happen. I want no surprises.
I do believe your comment was directed at the writer and I assume anyone that might agree with the issues. If you are looking for a fight I do believe the writer will avoid that. Not me.
Sure am glad I moved to Lincoln.
Bruce, Will you have to travel to Roseville to stock up on buds?
I think it is wrong to ask elected officials to disregard the voters majority on an issue. Benicia will get my business for sure. I may even shop for myself instead of having my daughter do it for me in Vallejo. I now live with her in Vallejo. Benicia is so wonderful. Good luck.
No majority of retail sales.
should be no majority for retail sales.
Will making potent and powerful marijuana extraction oils more available be good for Benicia children? Will consuming marijuana in public be detrimental to Benicia youth? The answers are obvious. These answers alone should be sufficient reason for the council to NOT allow pot in Benicia.
Courageous leadership is difficult. But they wanted the job!
Surely, you can back these “obvious answers”. I’m sure I can trust you to answer these questions, with objective evidence. Please present some form of study that shows statisticly significant increase of abuse.
Admittedly I do not have the statistical studies currently. I am sure that they can be found.
Some things are obvious. Allowing pot to be smoked, eaten and vaped in public will send a message to kids and youth that that behavior is acceptable. Making powerful marijuana extracts more readily available will mean that more kids try it. And more lives will be wasted. That’s not what I want for the youth of Benicia.
These answers are obvious.
Do you have studies that show that increased access to higher potency drugs lowers youthful experimentation?
Good luck.
Would you actually try to make a logical argument as to how allowing bong hits at the gazebo and vaping at the 1st Street Pier will not lead to increased experimentation with pot?
Is this not a gateway drug?
Is there not an opioid epidemic in the US (largely mid-west and east coast)? Do you not see that there are increasing numbers of meth and opioid arrests in Benicia?
Keep it out of Benicia! Having a great school system is a strength for Benicia. Having stoners and hard drug users…not so much.
You mean like how drinking on First Street tells children that binge drinking is Okay? Shall we create dry city ordinance in Benicia, outlawing the use of alcohol in city grounds? If we are truly concerned about the children, we certainly haven’t been showing it. How many businesses allow outdoor use of alcohol, and how many public bars does the city have?
By the way, here’s a study.
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/2593707
While rates of youth use increased in Washington, this was not consistent. In Colorado, no significant differences have been found, and the primary difference is currently thought to be programs teaching children about use and abuse.
Also, it’s important to note that this issue has nothing at all to do with use. The city government is not going to fight a proposition that was approved by Democratic process.
The democratic process legalized pot. It did not however legalize unfettered access everywhere. We now get to decide how we limit access and use in Benicia. Keep it out!
Alcohol has ruined many lives. At one point it was prohibited. Since that prohibition was overturned, there have been increasing levels of control, restriction and education regarding alcohol use and abuse.
At one point Coca Cola containing cocaine could be purchased over the counter. Cocaine was determined to be detrimental to society and its availability restricted. Those restrictions remain in place.
Morphine used to be sold over the counter in “tonics”. Morphine sales have been controlled and restricted for decades now. Thank God!
Just because alcohol is not longer prohibited does not mean that treating marijuana as a controlled substance should cease.
Look into the current opioid epidemic. Making more powerful derivatives of heroine is decimating a generation. More potent pot more readily available isn’t going to help society at large any more than increasing access to highly potent opioid painkillers. Just because prohibition of alcohol didn’t work doesn’t mean that we should lift all restrictions on drug availability.
Think about a marketing slogan for Benicia, “Great Schools, Inaccessible drugs. We put our youth first!”
No response to backed data suggesting your hypothesis is flawed? Okay.
That slogan can work just as well now. Don’t pretend alcohol isn’t incredibly dangerous, as if Benicia doesn’t already advocate the use of drugs right on First street, more than anything else.
Now, certainly, you have some sort of evidence that cannabis has a chemical reaction that promotes the use of other drugs such as opioids. That’s a bold claim to make, and one that would be embarrassing if you couldn’t prove it.
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/1898878
Here is a journal what suggests that the legalization of cannabis lowers the mortality rate of opioid use. Do you have similar proof of your “gateway drug” claim?
We will have to agree to disagree. I could cite statistics and studies all night long supporting my position. You could do the same. There are just too many studies backed by too much money.
That’s where our elected officials come in. What is their judgement? If they can explain to the public how easier access to more potent drugs is good for Benicia’s youth and good for people experiencing chronic pain, I’m all for it.
I’m listening.
Otherwise keep our youth safer. Keep pot out of Benicia!
If a politician is using their gut instead of peer reviewed evidence, they may as well roll dice to make decisions.
But Please! You say you could cite courses all night! In that case, it should be simple to provide one or two. Also, the sources I’ve provided are from journals, which are peer reviewed.
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/04/26/is-marijuana-a-gateway-drug/marijuana-has-proven-to-be-a-gateway-drug
Quotes from the article:
“Like nearly all people with substance abuse problems, most heroin users initiated their drug use early in their teens, usually beginning with alcohol and marijuana.”
“People who are addicted to marijuana are three times more likely to be addicted to heroin.”
“The currently legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco, are two of the leading causes of preventable illness and death in the country. Establishing marijuana as a third legal drug will increase the national drug abuse problem, including expanding the opioid epidemic.”
Robert L. DuPont is the president of the Institute for Behavior and Health and the first director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Don’t tell me…let me guess. You’re going to counter with other studies showing the opposite. You’re going to say that the Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse is biased against drug use.
Then I’ll counter your counters. This can go on forever. We need our elected officials, our elected leaders, to lead. More drugs good = sell it everywhere. More drugs bad = keep them out.
Our city council banded together to keep a property owner from legally developing the “Seeno Property”. They can prevent the sale of pot in Benicia. Or they can tell all of us parents why it’s okay to make more potent drugs more readily available.
Go ahead an cite your next study. We can keep this up all night long.
Less access to drugs in Benicia is good for our kids.
My objections with this article have very little to do with the content. More, it has to do with the source. This is a NYTimes article, under “Opinion”. As such, it is the opinion of an individual,not an experiment or study with objective, peer reviewed data used as a source of conclusion. I would say that the observation of cannabis use being in the same area as other illegal drugs is reasonable. It isn’t that extreme to say those who use an illegal drug, might also perform other illegal acts. Already, the premise focuses on those commuting a crime, even if it is a relatively minor one.
As a result, the conclusion creates a correlation between cannabis and other drugs, but could equally be attributed to crime leading to crime. Anecdotal evidence such as this can help paint a picture, but cannot stand on its own that well.
On that matter, what you provided is not a “study. it is an opinion piece. There’s a significant difference between the two, primarily how difficult it is to publish into the public eye. Opinion articles exist at the whim of editors. Journals, on the other hand, have a strict review process that has to be cleared before considered valid. Here’s two sites that collect scientific journals, which i use frequently.
http://jamanetwork.com/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/journals/
These sources tend to have a significant lower risk of “big money” influence, as you worry about, since the scientific community is relatively cutthroat and would love to discredit each other, and as such tend to only allow well-performed experiments to ever be published.
“The federal government now admits that cannabis is not a gateway drug, and doesn’t cause long-term brain damage, or psychosis..”.
http://www.safeaccessnow.org/iqa_victory
I recommend anti-cannabis provocateurs consider the fact that DEA has been forced to clean house on BS about cannabis consumption, and to wise up before continuing to make fools of themselves publicly.
Tom you are correct. The survey clearly stated that the residents do not want retail sales on First Street, Solano Square and Raley’s. Also the survey clearly stated that they want to increase distant from school from 600ft to 1000 ft. Also clearly stated the residents want to restrict dispensaries to 500 ft away from parks. It is clear that the residents see some issues with retail cannabis. Not saying they do not want it but want it restricted. Very sound thinking. First 55/40 no; distant from schools increased 67.5/32.5 yes; Added restrictions from parks 69.0/31.0 yes., The residents have spoken. I know that the pro cannabis folks are going to call the survey flawed. For one reason and one reason only. It did not suit their ,pro retail cannabis sales agenda. Tom I do not think you are trying to change any ones mind. You are up against about two pro cannabis retail sales folks. The council will decide.
Your pal Lowry admitted here that it was easy to skew the poll results because he cheated “one time” to test it, then came back and said the same baloney as you. You and Lowry are all for cheating to win, shame on you! The poll said 3 out of 4 are cannabis supporters. Looking forward to the next meeting to watch the fundamentally ignorant on cannabis press their case for ignoring the will of the voters. You lost, again. Conservatives are shrinking in our town. The next election will be won by cannabis money. The next mayor will be elected by cannabis money in 2020.
Where do you come up with this cheating info. I do not cheat. Have you reviewed the final survey? I do not know where you got your info. Mine came from the final survey. The writer also stated he did receive a message stating that he answered more than once. Facts are important do not call me a cheater without facts. You have none. Just where did the survey say 3 out of 4 are cannabis supporters. Tell me where so I can see it also. The survey I read said; yes on medical only 12.3, yes, for both 51.1 and no 36.6. That is not 3 out of 4.
I say this town needs revenue. We need money in the general fund to help offset the ridiculous water rates and fees. Go ahead and open up the dispensaries. Go ahead and open up warehouses for growing. I will be happy to see them taxed.
Matter, You are correct. Great to see that you are not anti-business. Cheers!
When cannabis is re-scheduled/de-scheduled, the world will open up to fine California cannabis oils, manufactured and exported domestically/internationally right from little old Benicia.
And, the oil being far more environmentally friendly than that that which is already being refined in Benicia.
One too many “that”s.
Ha! But how are the growers going to be profitable with the city’s water rates? It takes water to grow the weed.
Hydroponics with water treatment and recycling systems?
Please give full explanation. You may gain some fans.
Google “Hydroponics with water treatment and recycling systems”, there you will get all the answers. I have enough fans.
Excerpt from an email I just received. There will be hundreds of new jobs in town with cannabis oil boom, plus an untold number at the state that Benicians can apply for as well:
“As we get closer to January 2, 2018 and a newly-regulated cannabis industry, the State of California’s three licensing authorities are searching for qualified candidates to assist in the ongoing regulation process. The Bureau of Cannabis Control, CalCannabis Cultivation Licensing and the California Department of Public Health are all hiring for a wide variety of positions in the coming months. Active job seekers can find current open positions located on the State of California’s jobs website.
State of California Job Website: https://jobs.ca.gov/
Applicants who have not held a state position before, or have yet to apply for one, are encouraged to watch the following step-by-step video tutorials available on YouTube.
Applying for a State Job: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h98MUb0NkHk
How to Take an Exam: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9STRabaDV8
Information, news and other job openings are posted on each department’s respective social media pages as they become available.
Bureau of Cannabis Control: https://www.facebook.com/BMCRinfo/
CalCannabis Cultivation Licensing: https://www.facebook.com/CACultivationLicensing/
California Department of Public Health: https://www.facebook.com/CAPublicHealth/
All applicants are welcome. Take those first steps in getting a career started with the state of California today!”
Benicia youth, here is a ground floor opportunity in an industry that will be here for the rest of your lives. You will be able to afford to live in the Benicia of the future.
Dennis must have spent weeks putting together his Hail Mary work submitted to the city for the cannabis discussion next week. Basically, ignore will of voters on Prop 64 because other Bay Area cities have done so. and be afraid of Jeff Sessions because he “might” come after us. Are you kidding us, Lowry? I sure hope so.
The big issue the pro retail cannabis folks are selling is revenue. It appears it will not be as you expect. Competition which means across the straits other cities will be in the business also plus other cities in Solano county. The 2.5 mil revenue Vallejo is taking in now is for Medical only. Medical only will be exempt from those taxes or most of that tax.. They are collect 12% on medical now. Not after Jan. 2018. So is the trade to recreational going to offset that or increase sales for more sales tax. That is very questionable. Competition will be the big issue. It will not attract tourist to Benicia. If they are going to come for cannabis only we do not have a good reason for them to come now so cannabis will not do it. I did not know Vallejo was collect the 10% excise tax at present on Medical Cannabis. That changed my whole thinking. I do have an estimate but will not bring forward at present. As things change will go public and make a prediction. I will be very close.