By Samuel Strait, Reporter at Large – June 15, 2021

It would appear since the voters of California, in their collective
wisdom, authorized the use, growth, manufacture and distribution of
Cannabis through out the Golden State in 2016 all is not well in the
industry.  Looks like regulation has reared its ugly head in full force
to make the legal part of the cannabis business unaffordable for those
engaged.  While the simple solution would be to reduce regulation as
well as its accompanying costs, maybe reduce the fees and taxes, no such
simple solution has been offered by California’s leadership.  In fact
State regulation with particular attention to environmental issues,
increased taxing, as well as significant limits by localities on “pot”
shops themselves have restored the go to source for cannabis back in the
hands of the illegal.

Coupled with State and local government’s lack if insight as to what
will improve the situation for the industry, the legislature’s
inevitable solution is throw money at the problem. While that does not
dispel the notion that State sponsored drug dealing isn’t a likely
positive outcome, spending $100,000,000 of taxpayer money to support the
industry is probably the worse possible idea that the legislature could
have come up with.  It appears that Los Angeles, which will receive a
$22,000,000 slice of the pie, intends on hiring more bureaucrats to
assist the “unfortunate” in the industry in an effort to make things
“easier” for them to compete with the illegal activity.

What complete folly is this.  Our State and local bureaucrats who
constructed and had the voters approve Proposition 64 had little
understanding of what  a “legal and well regulated cannabis market”
would even look like.  It is hardly surprising that an unfettered “black
” market that can supply a market at reduced cost would quickly siphon
much of the market potential away from the “legal and well regulated’
part of the industry.   The crowning blow to the legal part of this new
industry is that our illustrious leadership is more concerned with their
loss of revenue from the industry and the possibility of being forced to
reduce regulation in order to reap the income benefit.

It can only happen in the “Golden State”, spending millions of dollars
to support drug dealing and its related enterprises with taxpayer money
in order to retain their grip on the income from what was once an
illicit activity, still considered illegal by the Federal Government.  
Has the citizenry in California had enough of the buffoons in the
legislative and executive branch to make changes?  One can only hope.