Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.
San Diego, California, Non-medical Marijuana Tax, Measure N (November 2016)
| Measure N: San Diego Non-medical Marijuana Tax |
|---|
|
| The basics |
| Election date: |
| November 8, 2016 |
| Status: |
 Approved
|
| Topic: |
| Local marijuana tax |
| Related articles |
| Local marijuana tax on the ballot November 8, 2016 ballot measures in California San Diego County, California ballot measures City tax on the ballot |
| See also |
| San Diego, California |
A tax on non-medical marijuana was on the ballot for San Diego voters in San Diego County, California, on November 8, 2016. It was approved.
| A yes vote was a vote in favor of imposing a tax, ranging from 5 to 15 percent, on the gross receipts of non-medical marijuana businesses in the city of San Diego. |
| A no vote was a vote against imposing a tax on the gross receipts of non-medical marijuana businesses. |
Election results
| Measure N | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 351,088 | 68.68% | ||
| No | 160,109 | 31.32% | ||
- Election results from San Diego County Elections Office
Text of measure
Ballot question
The following question appeared on the ballot:[1]
| “ |
NON-MEDICAL CANNABIS BUSINESS TAX. If California voters approve Proposition 64 legalizing marijuana in the state, shall the City adopt an ordinance imposing a gross receipts tax, for general revenue purposes, on non-medical cannabis (also known as marijuana) businesses operating in the City, initially set at 5% and increasing to 8% on July 1, 2019, having a maximum rate of 15%, generating an undetermined amount of revenue and continuing indefinitely? [2] |
” |
Impartial analysis
The following impartial analysis of the measure was prepared by the office of the San Diego City Attorney:
| “ |
This measure seeks voter approval to allow the City of San Diego to impose a new Cannabis Business Tax of up to 15% on the gross receipts of non-medical (recreational) cannabis businesses operating in the City. Cannabis is also known as marijuana. This tax would be imposed only if such businesses become legal in the State of California, if California voters also approve Proposition 64, the Marijuana Legalization Initiative Statute, on the November 8, 2016 statewide ballot. Existing state law does not authorize the sale of non-medical cannabis. This measure does not permit businesses to engage in activities that are otherwise illegal. The City also does not currently permit non-medical cannabis businesses to locate or operate in the City.
Cannabis businesses are defined in the ordinance as businesses involved in the distribution, delivery, dispensing, exchanging, bartering or sale of cannabis. This includes transporting, manufacturing, cultivating, compounding, converting, processing, preparing, storing, packaging, and wholesale or retail sales of cannabis and cannabis products. Medical marijuana consumer cooperatives licensed by the City would be exempt from the cannabis business tax, as would certain transactions involving patients and primary caregivers under the Compassionate Use Act. Gross receipts is generally defined as the total revenue or compensation received by a cannabis business without any deduction for the cost of operating the business. The maximum tax rate permitted by the measure would be 15%. Upon the effective date of the ordinance, the tax rate would be set at 5%, increasing to 8% on July 1, 2019. The City Council may, by ordinance, decrease or increase the tax rate at any time thereafter. The ordinance includes provisions specifying how the tax administrator, the City Treasurer, would issue cannabis business tax certificates and collect the tax, which would be remitted by cannabis businesses to the City on a monthly basis. The measure also includes provisions for handling delinquencies, penalties, appeals and for the enforcement of the taxing provisions. If approved by voters, the ordinance could be amended by the City Council so long as amendments do not raise the maximum tax rate in excess of 15% of gross receipts and do not tax businesses or activities that were previously not subject to the tax. It is not possible to calculate the amount of revenue that could be generated by the tax as it is unknown how many businesses will be allowed to operate in the City, nor is it possible to estimate their gross receipts. If imposed, the tax would continue indefinitely unless it is repealed by the City Council or the voters. The City Council proposed this measure and approved its placement on the ballot. If approved by voters, the measure would become effective after the City Council adopts a resolution certifying the results of the November election. [2] |
” |
| —San Diego City Attorney[3] | ||
Full text
The full text of the measure is available here.
Support
Supporters
The following individuals signed the official argument in favor of the measure:[3]
- Mark Kersey, Councilmember
- Sherri Lightner, Council President
Arguments in favor
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in favor of the measure:[3]
| “ |
Measure N will impose a gross-receipts tax on recreational marijuana businesses operating within the City of San Diego only if voters statewide choose to legalize marijuana by passing Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act. The purpose of Measure N is to ensure that the city has the resources to properly regulate the marijuana industry without hurting our investment in core city services, such as neighborhood infrastructure and public safety. Most large California cities either already have or are considering a similar measure in anticipation of the likely passage of Proposition 64. By passing Measure N, San Diego will be aligned with the best practices of other California cities preparing for the inherent strain on the city's budget caused by marijuana legalization. For example, San Jose, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Santa Cruz all impose a similar tax on marijuana to deal with the impacts to their cities' budgets for first responders and code compliance. Measure N is fiscally responsible, timely, and prudent. In recent years, the City of San Diego has been able to increase investment in core city services by anticipating new costs, efficiently managing new revenues, and making cost-cutting reforms. Measure N is consistent with this philosophy. By proactively imposing a gross-receipts tax on recreational marijuana, the city’s budget will be protected from any new costs associated with marijuana legalization, and protect resources for investment in streets, sidewalks, parks, police and firefighters. Measure N is the right policy at the right time for San Diego, which is why it received bipartisan support from the San Diego City Council. We respectfully request a Yes vote on Measure N.[2] |
” |
Opposition
Opponents
The following individuals signed the official argument against the measure:[3]
- Scott Chipman, San Diegans for Safe Neighborhoods
- Shirley Forbing, San Diego State University Professor Emeritus
- James Benjamin Harrison, Pastor, Visions of God Ministries
- Cathie Jolley, President of Pacific Beach Town Council
- Jon Fellers, Ph.D., M.D.
Arguments against
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in opposition to the measure:[3]
| “ |
The marijuana tax percentages recommended in this ballot measure will NOT compensate in any way for the increased teen marijuana use, drug addiction, marijuana impaired driving, poisonings from marijuana concentrates and edibles, and mental health problems, that will come from increased recreational use of marijuana. City government's first priority is the public health and safety of its citizens and neighborhoods, not facilitating drug use. The tax money will be dropping into the general fund (the black hole, as described recently by a city councilman) and NOT going to support code and law enforcement actions or DUI prevention, treatment programs, or student prevention education. As Colorado's Governor Hickenlooper learned too late regarding that state’s big hopes for marijuana taxes: "We are not making any extra revenue from this.” The City does not have now nor will have in the future via marijuana taxes, the resources to track down marijuana dealers to collect unpaid taxes from mainly cash transaction, This has been demonstrated by the continuing operations of 40 plus unpermitted and illegal marijuana storefronts. A proposed tax on recreational marijuana infers that the City Council will support the sale, manufacture, and neighborhood cultivation of recreational marijuana in our City. The City Council should first engage the public in a conversation regarding such a dramatic and far reaching public policy. This is a significant change from their public stance that they support marijuana as medicine but not the general sale, cultivation and advertising of recreational pot. San Diego should not legitimize the sale, manufacture, unregulated neighborhood cultivation of pot, and marijuana advertising on billboards, TV, radio and social media, all in a cynical scheme to profit from the recreational use of marijuana. Vote No on Measure N. [2] |
” |
Path to the ballot
This measure was put on the ballot through a vote of the city council of San Diego, California.
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms San Diego Local marijuana. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ San Diego Registrar of Voters, "Local Measures for November 8, 2016," accessed September 29, 2016
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 San Diego Registrar of Voters, "Measure N," accessed September 29, 2016
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
