Article by Caleb McMillan, Cannabis Life Network
California legalized cannabis in one of the best ways possible. A ballot initiative, a quick turn-around, with the ability for local governments to ban anything they don’t like within their borders.
It’s this last part that rustles some jimmies. Consider it a helpful guide to distinguishing between the different political temperaments in the cannabis movement.
Does 85% of California have a right to ban cannabis within their local city and county borders? It would seem now that cannabis is legal state-wide, the battle should shift locally, to changing the minds of local governments.
The other method is to go back to the state legislature and effectively force all communities within the state to accommodate the legal cannabis industry.
I believe there is a third option. One that can incorporate the first method of changing the hearts and minds of people on the local level, but also incorporates changing things at the state legislature, but without forcing cannabis on everyone.
But it means recognizing that state licensing is inappropriate and unnecessary. State licensing is precisely why 85% of California has banned cannabis.
One can imagine if BC took a similar route. No doubt, there are many communities in California like Nelson, BC. Places where the underground cannabis economy is pivotal to the interlocking structure of the local economy, but chastised and micturated upon by the local politicians.
Legalization isn’t about welcoming cannabis into the fold of our post-modernist, materialistic, crony-capitalist mercantilist system.