The legal U.S. cannabis market just got a little greener.

In midterm elections that saw Democrats gain control of the House and reaffirmed Republican control of the Senate, more states also voted to legalize marijuana. The outcome will help expand a U.S. pot market that could be worth $75 billion by 2030, according to an estimate from Cowen & Co. Pot stocks, led by Tilray Inc., surged on the news.

Michigan became the 10th U.S. state — and first in the Midwest — to legalize recreational pot. Sales there, estimated to start in 2020, could grow to as much as $1.7 billion in the coming years, according to the trade publication Marijuana Business Daily. The total legal U.S. market is expected to hit about $11 billion in sales in 2018.

With Michigan voting to legalize adult use, neighbors like Ohio and Illinois could soon follow suit to help build a market in that region, according to Ken Shea, an analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence.

“Michigan can act as an anchor,” he said. “You could get a cluster effect.”

Long demonized as a dangerous drug, and still considered an illicit substance with no medical use by the federal government, marijuana is increasingly going mainstream as investors pour billions into the industry. Cannabis is now legal across Canada, and U.S. firms are rushing north of the border for public listings and to access capital markets. In the U.S., meanwhile, the steady creep of legalization has companies buying up licenses and expanding operations.

In addition to the recreational market, more states are embracing medical marijuana. Missouri became the latest state to allow medical use, while a proposition in Utah also appeared poised to pass as of Wednesday morning.

Adding two more states with medicinal marijuana would mean almost 70 percent of Americans could have access to the drug for that purpose. Some in the industry see federal legalization of medical marijuana as the best path to ending prohibition in the U.S., which has held big banks and institutional investors on the sidelines.

Still, not all states were ready to follow Canada’s lead: North Dakota’s ballot measure to decriminalize marijuana failed. More than 60 percent of Americans support making pot legal, but with cannabis still illegal on a federal level, the politics remain fraught.

Cannabis stocks gained Wednesday, led by Tilray and Cronos Group Inc. Tilray, the largest publicly traded pot stock, gained as much as 9.3 percent, while U.S.-listed shares of Cronos rose as much as 6.6 percent. Aurora Cannabis Inc. and Canopy Growth Corp. gained as well.

In the aftermath of the midterm election, attention in the cannabis industry will turn to Congress and, soon enough, the 2020 presidential election. Democrats in the House may hold hearings on marijuana and pursue legislation that would ease banking restrictions or even end federal prohibition.

It’s unclear if marijuana bills could get through the Republican-held Senate. Nonetheless, pressure will continue to mount on lawmakers to ease restrictions, particularly as more countries move forward with medical cannabis, according to Chris Walsh, vice president of Marijuana Business Daily.

“You’ll see immense pressure for them to do something,” he said. “At some point they’ll realize we’re falling behind.”

Voters approved ballot measures to allow and tax cannabis in every Inland Empire city where it was on the ballot Tuesday, Nov. 6, except one.

In San Bernardino County, voters approved measures to allow cannabis, tax it or both in Adelanto, Colton, Hesperia and San Bernardino. In western Riverside County, voters favored such measures in Banning, Jurupa Valley, Moreno Valley and Perris. But Hemet bucked the trend by voting to continue a council-backed ban and against allowing and taxing non-retail cannabis.

And in Pomona, voters gave more than 70 percent of the vote to a measure allowing the city to tax future legal cannabis businesses, according to Los Angeles County registrar results posted just before 5 a.m. Wednesday, Nov. 7.

The San Bernardino County numbers are final but unofficial. Riverside County’s numbers, posted at 7:30 a.m., don’t yet include some vote-by-mail, provisional or damaged ballots.

Prop. 64, which legalized recreational marijuana statewide, also gave cities and counties the power to regulate commercial cannabis within their borders.

Each measure needs a majority to pass. In cities with competing proposals, if both receive more than 50 percent, whichever measure receives more “yes” votes will become law Jan. 1.

San Bernardino County

Adelanto: Measure S took more than 71 percent of more than 2,500 votes cast. It will tax cannabis businesses up to $5 per square foot of space used for cannabis cultivation and nurseries, and up to 5 percent of the gross receipts from the retail sale, delivery, manufacturing, processing, testing and distribution of cannabis and related products.

Colton: Measure U won 69 percent of nearly 6,000 votes cast in Colton. It will put a tax on cannabis businesses of up to $25 per square foot of space utilized for cannabis cultivation/processing, and up to 10 percent of gross receipts from the sale of cannabis and related products.

Hesperia: With more than 60 percent of the vote, Measure T is set to add a tax of between 1 percent and 6 percent on all commercial cannabis businesses except cultivation. Every square foot of space used for commercial cannabis cultivation would be taxed up to $15 per year. Both taxes could increase annually based on the consumer price index.

San Bernardino: The city’s two marijuana measures, both put on the ballot by the City Council, won by commanding margins as the Fourth District Court of Appeal decides whether to uphold or overturn a judge’s invalidation of Measure O, which voters approved in 2016.

Measure W, with nearly 64 percent of the vote, will impose a Cannabis Business Tax of up to $10 per square foot for cultivators and up to 6 percent of gross receipts on other businesses operating in the city.

Measure X had nearly 60 percent and will authorize council members to approve one commercial cannabis business permit per 12,500 residents of the city. With the current population of the city, the council could approve up to 17 permits.

Riverside County

Banning: Two measures, both put on the ballot by the Banning City Council to allow cannabis in the Industrial Zoning District and tax it, both had between 60 and 62 percent of the vote.

Measure N will authorize the city to enact an annual tax of between $15 and $25 per square foot for marijuana cultivation businesses and up to 10 percent of yearly receipts for manufacturing and testing businesses.

Measure O will add a 10 percent yearly tax on the gross receipts of cannabis retail businesses in the city, which the council could raise as high as 15 percent in the future.

Jurupa Valley: Six months after voters shot down their proposal to allow marijuana businesses in parts of Jurupa Valley, the same advocates are narrowly winning in their attempt to pass another ballot measure. This time, there’s one key difference: It would mean tax money the city could spend on other city services.

Measure L took nearly 52 percent of the vote, leading by 345 votes out of 8,903 cast. It would allow up to seven dispensaries and tax them $25 per square foot of space used for retail marijuana sales and $3 per square foot on other commercial cannabis activity.

Moreno Valley: The City Council voted in March to allow dispensaries and other marijuana businesses.

Measure M had more than 72 percent of more than 16,00 votes cast. It will allow a tax on those sales of up to 8 percent per year, along with a maximum of $15 a year per square foot of growing space for commercial growers.

Perris: Measure G, which had 71 percent of more than 4,000 votes, would impose a tax of up to 10 percent on cannabis distribution and manufacturing businesses that the City Council voted in January to allow.

Those operations are in two industrial zones: one in north Perris, and one in the southern part of the city.

Hemet: Nearly two out of every three voters — 65 percent — rejected Measure Y, which sought to allow an unlimited number of non-retail cannabis businesses in manufacturing zones as long as they’re not in residential zones, within 600 feet of schools or within 1,000 feet of three or more cannabis businesses. They would be taxed $10 per square foot.

To counter that measure, the City Council put Measure Z on the ballot, which bans marijuana businesses for at least two years. The continued ban was ahead much more narrowly, with nearly 53 percent of almost 11,000 votes counted.

A controversial Half Moon Bay cannabis measure holds a narrow lead, suggesting that the town’s three greenhouse farmers will be allowed grow legal marijuana sprouts in “nurseries” – but residents have rejected other measures that would have expanded cultivation and sales in the traditional coastal town.

The measure – ahead by only 39 votes in a 51 to 48.8 percent tally, with fewer than 1,700 votes counted – would help farmers like 72-year-old “Farmer John” Muller, former mayor and longtime pumpkin farmer, who seeks to rent out his dilapidated greenhouses as a place for the baby plants.

The town, famed for its pumpkins, will not allow the growing of adult psychoactive plants or sale of cannabis products.

Cannabis is fiercely opposed by the town’s Catholic church, a committee of high school parents and others who warned it will change the town’s small-town character.

“I think it was a sympathy vote for Farmer John, who has done a lot of good for the community and is very popular here,” said Rick Southern, a parent on Half Moon Bay High School’s Health and Wellness Committee, who sought to suspend all commercial cultivation, processing and sale of cannabis for two to three years until more research can be done. “People felt that if it was the only way he could stay on his far, they wanted to provide support.”

The defeat of other measures shows that “a lot of people are uncomfortable with having more commercialization in town, whether it be adult plants, retail sales or manufacturing,” said Southern.

The tally only represents electronic votes; all of the mailed, dropped off, provisional and other paper ballots have yet to be counted. The county has 30 days to finalize results.

“It is a beginning,” said farmer Muller on Wednesday morning, as he was feeding his chickens, after a restless night of watching election returns.

It nurseries are approved, “we have to make sure it moves forward in the proper manner, and ensure it is done right,” said Muller, a registered Republican, Vietnam War veteran who was born on a San Gregorio dairy farm and has never used cannabis but needs additional income to sustain his small 18-acre farm. “If done properly, with licensing and permitting, we will look to move in the future with potential new planting.”

In addition to Muller’s Daylight Farms, two other Half Moon Bay businesses — ivy topiary grower Schickenberg Nursery and indoor flower and herb grower Rocket Farms — would be eligible to grow cannabis seedlings.

Opponents fear that nurseries could lead to expansion of large-scale operations — bringing out-of-town workers, perhaps criminals, to the quaint and isolated coast. It was also opposed by some of the town’s Latino residents, who fear that their youth could be lured to cannabis work or that undocumented farm workers would be deported if there’s a bust of a crop that’s still illegal under federal law.

In unincorporated San Mateo County, cannabis cultivation is allowed in existing greenhouses on the coast. But few existing greenhouses meet the standards.

In response, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday approved amendments that expand where cannabis can be grown. Specifically, the county reduced buffers from 1000 to 600 feet between cannabis growing and schools and homes, eliminated a 100-foot buffer around a cultivator’s property line and gave county officials the discretion to waive or modify security or surveillance requirements where cannabis is grown.

Cannabis tax measures also did well on Election Day, as local government officials rush to get in on what they see as a potential windfall in tax revenue. Even if cities don’t yet allow sales, officials said they wanted the taxes in place.

Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Santa Clara, Redwood City, Daly City, South San Francisco, Emeryville, Union City, San Francisco and unincorporated Contra Costa County all passed local cannabis taxes by large margins — despite opponents’ concern that it would boost the price of weed, undermining California’s fledgling legal pot industry and driving consumers underground.

Outside California, Michigan voters approved adult sales of recreational cannabis, making it the 10th U.S. state to legalize marijuana – and the first in the Midwest. Missouri and Utah gave the green light to medical marijuana.

Wednesday’s surprise resignation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, an outspoken opponent to all marijuana, also created a buzz in the cannabis community.

“This move by the President opens the door for the marijuana industry,” wrote Nathaniel Geoghegan of CMW Media, representing cannabis businesses, “and begs the question: are we going to see federal legalization sooner than expected?”

Two marijuana ballot measures were resoundingly rejected by Kern County voters on Tuesday, with another appearing to lose by a narrow margin.

Measure J, which would have legalized medical marijuana dispensaries in the unincorporated areas of Kern County, fell well short. With all precincts reporting, 62 percent of voters rejected the measure while 38 percent supported it.

Another unincorporated county measure, Measure K, which would have legalized both recreational and medical dispensaries, lost by 54 to 46 percent.

The lone Bakersfield measure, Measure O, also failed to pass muster, 55 percent to 45 percent.

The three ballot measures asked voters to rescind bans on marijuana dispensaries in Kern County and the city of Bakersfield.

Measure J was brought forward by medical marijuana activists Jeff Jarvis and Heather Epps with local group Kern Citizens for Patient Rights, aside from rescinding the ban on medical marijuana dispensaries, it would have levied a 7.5 percent business tax to be levied on the dispensaries.

Measure K was largely funded by an industrial real estate investment group from Pacific Palisades-based Industrial Partners Group. It offered slightly more restrictive zoning rules than Measure J, while capping the amount of dispensaries at 35..

It would have created two zones along Interstate 5 for cultivation, processing and distribution facilities, and it would have applied a 5 percent gross receipts tax on any marijuana business including dispensaries.

Measure O was also brought to voters by Jarvis, Epps and the Kern Citizens for Patient Rights. It would have allowed medical marijuana dispensaries to operate within the city limits, applying a 7.5 percent business tax on dispensaries.

© 2018 The Bakersfield Californian (Bakersfield, Calif.). Visit The Bakersfield Californian at www.bakersfield.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

(THE CONVERSATION) — The midterm elections could loosen marijuana restrictions in the United States, as four states put ballot initiatives on legalization to a vote.

Voters in Utah and Missouri will choose whether patients should gain access to medical marijuana.

In Michigan and North Dakota, where medical marijuana is already legal, residents will decide whether to allow it for recreational use. If so, they would join nine U.S. states, Washington, D.C., Canada and Uruguay in launching a regulated recreational marijuana market.

Another 22 American states have adopted comprehensive medical marijuana programs since 1996, when California became the first to recognize the medicinal uses of marijuana in easing the symptoms of serious illnesses like HIV, cancer, epilepsy, PTSD and glaucoma. Recently, marijuana’s potential value for treating chronic pain has garnered attention as an alternative to opioids.

No tipping point

Support for marijuana legalization has never been stronger in the United States.

Seventy-two percent of Democrats and a narrow majority of Republicans – 51 percent – support legalization, according to Gallup.

Polling suggests that the upcoming marijuana initiatives in Michigan, Utah and Missouri will pass, while legalizing marijuana seems less likely in conservative North Dakota.

Strong public support and successive waves of state-level legalization in election years has led many policy analysts to argue that marijuana has reached a tipping point in the United States.

Two-thirds of all U.S. states will likely have some kind of legal marijuana by the end of this year. After that, the argument goes, its nationwide expansion is inevitable.

As marijuana policy researchers, we question that narrative.

Our research indicates that medical marijuana progress may well stall after this latest round of ballot initiatives. Recreational marijuana may continue to expand into states with legal medical marijuana but will ultimately hit a wall, too.

The reason for our caution has to do with the particular way marijuana legalization has occurred in the United States: at the ballot box.

Ballot initiatives have power

So far, every recreational marijuana law passed has occurred via ballot initiative, not through the state legislative process. Seven of the first eight medical marijuana laws – those in California, Alaska, Oregon, Washington, Maine and Nevada – were also adopted via ballot initiative.

Such direct initiatives – where citizens can put a policy on the ballot for approval – are a powerful, if nontraditional, form of policymaking in the United States.

Rather than relying on lawmakers to write and pass legislation on certain issues – often, controversial ones – ballot initiatives harness public opinion. They have been used to legalize or restrict same-sex marriage, place limitations on taxing and spending, raise the minimum wage and much more. Some are funded by wealthy individuals with specific business interests.

Even in states where ballot initiatives have little hope of passing, they can be an important force for policy change.

In Ohio, marijuana advocates in 2015 spent over US$20 million in an effort to legalize both medical and recreational marijuana in the same ballot initiative. Ohio voters overwhelmingly said no – but the campaign revealed broad support for a medical marijuana policy.

The Marijuana Policy Project, an advocacy organization, said it would put medical marijuana on Ohio’s ballot in 2016. In response, Ohio’s legislature moved quickly to craft and pass its own medical marijuana legislation.

Something similar may happen in Utah this fall. Gov. Gary Herbert opposes the expansive medical marijuana ballot initiative up for vote in his state but would support a more restrictive medical marijuana program.

Herbert says he will call a special session of the legislature to work on medical marijuana regardless of whether it succeeds at the ballot. Lawmakers are already working on compromise legislation that would be acceptable to conservative state legislators and the influential Mormon Church.

The limits of direct initiative

So the ballot initiative is powerful. But our analysis suggests its potential for liberalizing marijuana access in the U.S. is nearly tapped out.

Of the 19 U.S. states that have no form of legal marijuana, only six – Idaho, Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska, Utah and Missouri – allow for direct initiatives.

The remaining 13 states without legal marijuana are mostly conservative places like South Carolina and Alabama, where legislatures have indicatedreluctance to loosen restrictions. If voters there wanted medical or recreational marijuana, they would not have the option of bypassing policymakers to get the issue on the ballot.

Marijuana legalization won’t end with the 2018 midterms. There is still room for recreational marijuana to expand into the 22 states that currently have legal medicinal marijuana.

History shows that once people grow comfortable with medical marijuana – seeing its impacts on patients and tax revenues – full legalization often follows.

In our analysis, the remaining 13 states are very unlikely to liberalize access to marijuana without a significant push by the federal government.

That’s unlikely, but not impossible, under the Trump administration.

Federal law still considers marijuana an illegal Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act, meaning that, as far as the U.S. government is concerned, the plant has no medical value.

The Obama administration took a hands-off approach to states’ legalization, allowing them to experiment. But Attorney General Jeff Sessions has directed Justice Department attorneys to fully enforce federal law in legal-marijuana states.

Quietly, however, the Trump administration has also sought public comments on reclassifying marijuana. And the president himself has at times signaled support for leaving marijuana up to the states.

If Sessions leaves the Trump administration, as rumor has long suggested, the DOJ’s position on marijuana enforcement could change.

Democrats have indicated that if they win back one or both houses of Congress on Nov. 6, they could push to remove marijuana as a Schedule I drug as soon as next year.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here: http://theconversation.com/marijuana-is-on-the-ballot-in-four-states-but-legalization-may-soon-stall-researchers-say-105342.  (The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.)

When Montebello Mayor Vanessa Delgado resigned in August to become a state senator, it looked like the council was going to be deadlocked over bringing marijuana businesses to town.

There’s no question now that’s the case. The council voted 2-2 on Councilman Bill Molinari’s proposal to delay any further decisions on the issue until after the March special election to fill her seat.

Molinari asked the council Wednesday to wait until Delgado’s replacement is selected.

“We should hold this matter over,” Molinari said. “Obviously, nothing is going to happen. The community should be allowed to have a discussion over this.”

Molinari and Councilwoman Vivian Romero supported waiting until March; Councilmen Art Barajas and Jack Hadjinian voted against it.

The council make-up could change in the Nov. 6 election when Barajas, Molinari and Romero’s seats will be on the ballot. The three are among 10 candidates.

The City Council voted 3-2 in February to allow commercial indoor cultivation, manufacturing and testing of marijuana. In May, by the same vote, council members agreed to allow home delivery businesses in the city.

Since then, the process of reviewing the 38 original applicants — the number is now down to 34 — apparently has bogged down. The City Council hired Diamond Bar-based HdL Companies in June to do that job of reviewing the applicants.

Then, acting City Manager Andrew Pasmant hired Los Angeles-based Tierra West Advisors to finish the first round of review when he felt the work wasn’t getting done.

There could be more disagreement ahead when Pasmant had Tierra West do more work for the second round.

In a discussion over the issue Wednesday, Romero questioned why Pasmant was using Tierra West, instead of HdL when the council had never approved a contract with the company.

Pasmant responded that HdL wasn’t getting the job done fast enough.

“The bottom line is that we needed to get these things reviewed,” he said, referring to the applications. “Staff had been chastised about we hadn’t completed the review.”

But Romero asked why city staff is “rushing” to finish the process..

“What is the urgency about bringing marijuana into the city that you had to bypass direction from the council?” she asked. “Why are we railroading this thing into the city?”

City Attorney Arnold Glassman objected to the term, “rushing,” saying if that was the case, licenses already would be approved.

In a telephone interview Thursday, Pasmant said he now expects HdL to finish the review by November, with a report going to the council in December.

Officials from HdL didn’t return a call for comment Thursday.

However, Romero said Matt Eaton, HdL’s cannabis compliance manager, had told her that his company was given only six days in July to review the applications – and that wasn’t enough time.

Pasmant said that HdL had months to review the applications and wasn’t getting the job done.

Hadjinian objected to Romero’s complaints, saying she was doing it because “it’s an election year.”

“You’re grandstanding,” he said.

Two years after Californians voted to legalize recreational cannabis, voters in half a dozen Riverside cities will decide Nov. 6 the details of what that means in their areas.

Prop. 64, which legalized recreational marijuana statewide, also gave cities and counties the power to regulate commercial cannabis within their borders.

So far, only about a third of California cities and counties permit any sort of marijuana business to set up shop, according to a database of local policies compiled by the Southern California News Group.

Elected officials in each jurisdiction can change that — as the Riverside County Board of Supervisors did Oct. 23, when it allowed dispensaries and other marijuana-related businesses in unincorporated parts of the county.

But voter approval is required if a city or county wants to tax marijuana businesses on top of the state tax of 15 percent and regular sales tax that averages 8 percent.

And citizens unsatisfied with their representatives’ actions can gather enough signatures to force an election on measures that, if passed, will become law regardless of city council members’ opinions.

Each of them needs a majority to pass. In cities with competing proposals, if both receive more than 50 percent, whichever measure receives more “yes” votes will become law Jan. 1.

In Palm Desert, where marijuana businesses are already allowed, Measure Q would allow annual taxes of up to $20 per square foot for cannabis cultivation, up to 3 percent of gross receipts for cannabis manufacturing and up to 15 percent of gross receipts for cannabis retail and delivery.

Banning

The Banning City Council put two different measures on the ballot that would allow cannabis in the Industrial Zoning District and tax it.

Measure N would authorize the city to enact an annual tax of between $15 and $25 per square foot for marijuana cultivation businesses and up to 10 percent of yearly receipts for manufacturing and testing businesses. The city estimates it will generate up to $1.2 million per year for the city.

Measure O would add a 10 percent yearly tax on the gross receipts of cannabis retail businesses in the city, which the council could raise as high as 15 percent in the future. The city estimates it will generate up to $1.5 million annually.

The money raised would be put in the general fund, where it can be used for most purposes, including fire, paramedic and police protection; road repairs; youth programs; and parks and recreation.

“Whether you agree with the legalization of cannabis or not,” council members Don M. Peterson and Arthur L. Welch write in the official ballot argument, “the city is now faced with a choice of either keeping retail sales of cannabis in Banning illegal, underground and tax free, or allowing some state and city-regulated stores to operate in the city generating needed tax revenue for the city.”

No one submitted a ballot argument against the measures.

Jurupa Valley

Six months after voters shot down their proposal to allow marijuana businesses in parts of Jurupa Valley, the same advocates have another measure on the ballot. This time, there’s one key difference: It would mean tax money the city could spend on other city services.

The amount it could raise is disputed, with advocates saying it could be up to seven figures a year and opponents — including the entire City Council — saying they think the financial benefit would be far less.

Annual taxes would be set at $25 per square foot of space used for retail marijuana sales and $3 per square foot on other commercial cannabis activity.

The measure would allow one dispensary for every 15,000 people in the city. Given the current population, that would be up to seven dispensaries.

The ballot argument against the measure, signed by all five City Council members, says legalizing dispensaries would likely require the city to spend an extra $345,000 per year on staff and law enforcement.

Attorney Jason Ryan Thompson of Thompson Advocacy, which is pushing for passage of the cannabis measures in Jurupa Valley and Hemet, said allowing a few dispensaries would help the city shut down its existing dispensaries in two ways. The money from the measure could be used for staff and court fights, and authorized dispensaries could be allies, using their financial resources to shut down illegal competitors, he said.

The city has struggled to keep dispensaries closed, with eight active as recently as August. But a new legal procedure accelerated the city’s efforts, whittling it down to two active dispensaries as of Oct. 23, according to city spokeswoman Terri Rollings.

Moreno Valley

The City Council voted in March to allow dispensaries and other marijuana businesses.

And it decided Oct. 16 to keep the limit on marijuana dispensaries at eight — on top of eight cultivation centers, five manufacturing plants, two testing facilities, two distribution centers and two microbusinesses.

If Measure M passes Nov. 6, those sales could be taxed up to 8 percent per year, along with a maximum of $15 a year per square foot of growing space for commercial growers.

When the council placed the measure on the ballot, however, Chief Financial Officer Marshall Eyerman recommended that the tax be set well below the maximum — at 5 percent on sales and $7 per square feet for cultivators — to help new marijuana businesses get established.

Perris

The City Council voted in January to allow cannabis operations in two industrial zones: one in north Perris, and one in the southern part of the city, deciding at the same time to ask voters’ approval of an annual tax of up to 10 percent on cannabis distribution and manufacturing businesses.

No ballot arguments were filed for or against Measure G.

Hemet

Voters will face two competing measures, either allowing marijuana almost immediately or not until 2020 at the earliest.

Thompson Advocacy, which also is handling the marijuana measure in Jurupa Valley, placed Measure Y on the ballot. The measure would allow an unlimited number of non-retail cannabis businesses in manufacturing zones as long as they’re not in residential zones, within 600 feet of schools or within 1,000 feet of three or more cannabis businesses. They would be taxed $10 per square foot.

To counter that measure, the City Council put Measure Z on the ballot, which bans marijuana businesses for at least two years.

“If (Measure Y) passed right now, the city doesn’t have the staffing to process applications and do all the work it entails,” said Mayor Michael Perciful. “We’d have to divert all our staffing efforts to do that.”

Thompson calls that disingenuous, saying the city would have time to beef up its staffing while businesses went through the state and local permitting process required under Measure Y.

Marijuana proposals at a glance

Banning

Measure N: Tax of between $15 and $25 per square foot for marijuana cultivation businesses and up to 10 percent on marijuana businesses.

Measure O: Tax of 10 to 15 percent on cannabis retail businesses in the city.

Jurupa Valley

Measure L: Allow up to 7 dispensaries and tax them $25 per square foot of space used for retail marijuana sales and $3 per square foot on other commercial cannabis activity.

Moreno Valley

Measure M: Tax dispensaries up to 8 percent, along with a maximum of $15 per square foot of growing space for cannabis cultivation operators.

Palm Desert

Measure Q: Allow annual taxes of up to $20 per square foot for cannabis cultivation, up to 3 percent of gross receipts for cannabis manufacturing and up to 15 percent of gross receipts for cannabis retail and delivery.

Perris

Measure G: Allow tax of up to 10 percent on cannabis distribution and manufacturing businesses.

Hemet

Measure Y: Allow non-retail marijuana businesses and tax $10 per square foot.

Measure Z: Continue to ban marijuana businesses for at least two years.

Voters will face a confusing ballot in November, especially when it comes to the three marijuana measures.

To help make sense of the confusion, and to bring new details on the two marijuana measures that will impact the unincorporated county, Planning and Natural Resources Department Director Lorelei Oviatt presented a new report to the supervisors that delved into the details of each measure.

Some of the details revealed how the county would be effected by the legalization of dispensaries in unincorporated county areas, which are currently banned, although possession and use have not been banned.

Oviatt recommended that a Cannabis Activity Enforcement Task Force comprised of employees from Kern County law enforcement and legal departments would need to be created to deal with the impacts of the dispensaries should either of the ballot measures pass.

The task force would cost $1.2 to $2.7 million, Oviatt said, although money from the state could be acquired to fully or partially fund the new county positions.

A team of 18 county employees from the Kern County Sheriff’s Office, District Attorney, County Counsel and support staff would make up the task force.

“No identified staffing has been noted,” Oviatt said at the meeting. “So this would be new staffing.”

During the meeting, county officials also delved into which voters within Kern County would be allowed to vote on which measures.

Measure J would legalize only medical marijuana dispensaries and create a 7.5 percent tax on adjusted gross income revenue.

Measure K would legalize both recreational and medical marijuana dispensaries and create a 5 percent tax on gross receipts from retail operations. The number of dispensaries would be capped at 35. Two zones would be created along Interstate 5 north and south of Bakersfield that would contain cultivation, processing and distribution facilities for marijuana operations.

Despite the fact that both measures would allow dispensaries to be set up in unincorporated county zones, all voters in the county – including those in cities – will be able to cast votes for the measures.

Bakersfield voters will also see a third marijuana measure on the ballot, Measure O, which is similar to Measure J, but would only impact the city of Bakersfield.

So effectively, someone in Bakersfield could vote against legalizing medical marijuana dispensaries within the city, but vote in favor of legalizing those same dispensaries in the unincorporated county.

Those living in cities without their own marijuana ballot measures will still be able to vote on Measures J and K, giving incorporated city voters a voice in matters of the unincorporated county.

© 2018 The Bakersfield Californian (Bakersfield, Calif.). Visit The Bakersfield Californian at www.bakersfield.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Depending on where you live, you may see two marijuana measures on your ballot or just one.

Three initiatives by two citizens groups have qualified for the November Kern County ballot through signature drives that collected more signatures than 10 percent of the city and county’s voting population.

Although it is legal to possess and use marijuana products in California, a ban exists in both unincorporated county areas and within the city of Bakersfield on marijuana dispensaries.

Two of the measures would overturn the ban on medical marijuana dispensaries in the county and city respectively, while leaving in place the ban on recreational dispensaries.

The third measure would largely leave the bans in place, while allowing both recreational and medical dispensaries to operate in two designated locations along Interstate 5 located just north and south of Bakersfield.

Voters in unincorporated Kern County will see two measures on their ballots, while voters in Bakersfield will see just one.

A ballot measure must earn 50 percent plus 1 of the vote to become law.

If both county measures earn more than 50 percent of the vote, then whichever measure receives the most votes will become law.

MEASURE J

Brought forward by medical marijuana activists Jeff Jarvis and Heather Epps with the Kern Citizens for Patient Rights, the measure would largely overturn the ban on medical marijuana dispensaries, while leaving the ban in place for recreational dispensaries in unincorporated Kern County.

All medical marijuana dispensaries would be required to be licensed through the state, and land use permits would need to be required in order to operate.

The measure calls for a 7.5 percent business tax be placed on the income of all dispensaries that operate within the county, with the money going into the county general fund.

The dispensaries must be more than a thousand feet from schools, parks or youth centers and the county could adopt density requirements.

MEASURE K

Riverside Attorney Ben Eilenberg, with the group Committee for Safer Neighborhoods and Schools, led the effort to qualify a measure that would restrict marijuana dispensaries to two locations along Interstate 5.

One of the areas would be northwest of Bakersfield, encompassed by Brandt and Sullivan roads, along with Interstate 5.

The second area would be southeast of Bakersfield, encompassed by Old River and Copus roads along with New Rim Ditch.

Both recreational and medical dispensaries would be allowed, although the ordinance would cap the total amount of dispensaries at 35.

A 5 percent tax on gross receipts would be contributed to the county’s general fund.

MEASURE O

This measure is similar to Measure J. Jarvis and Epps with the Kern Citizens for Patient Rights brought the measure forward.

Like Measure J, Measure O would replace the current ban on medical marijuana dispensaries while leaving the ban on recreational marijuana dispensaries in place.

A state license will be required to operate, and dispensaries will not be allowed to be placed within 1,000 feet of schools, parks or youth centers.

A 7.5 percent business tax would be placed on all dispensaries that operate within the city.

© 2018 The Bakersfield Californian (Bakersfield, Calif.). Visit The Bakersfield Californian at www.bakersfield.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

A Florida politician who has run a pro-medical marijuana campaign said Wells Fargo & Co. closed her account over her ties to the industry, adding that the incident was an example of the challenges legal cannabis businesses face from the U.S. financial system.

Nikki Fried, a Democrat running for state agricultural commissioner, said the bank notified her Aug. 3 that it was ending their relationship because of her advocacy for medical marijuana and contributions accepted from industry lobbyists. Her account was initially flagged because of her political platform, according to remarks she posted Monday on Facebook.

Fried said that when Wells Fargo contacted her, she initially thought it was a joke. She said her campaign is moving its accounts to BB&T Corp., which hasn’t yet raised any concerns about the marijuana issue. San Francisco-based Wells Fargo didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Fried seized on the development to blast businesses and officials who she said were discriminating against a legal industry. While medical marijuana is now allowed in Florida and other states, it remains illegal under federal law. Among other challenges, she said medical marijuana workers can be targeted for armed robbery because financial institutions refuse to work with them, forcing them to run cash businesses.

“At a time when 30 states including Washington, D.C., have legalized medical marijuana and licensed businesses to practice and distribute marijuana to patients and caregivers, access to basic financial stability is virtually impossible for these legal businesses,” Fried said. “Outdated federal laws allow for this sort of discrimination.”

–With assistance from Hannah Levitt .

To contact the reporter on this story: Jonathan Levin in Miami at jlevin20@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Michael J. Moore at mmoore55@bloomberg.net, Dan Reichl, Steven Crabill

©2018 Bloomberg L.P.