Yuba County, California, "Patients Access to Regulated Medical Cannabis Act of 2015" Initiative, Measure B (June 2016)

• Support
• Opposition
• Background
• Path to the ballot
• Recent news
• External links
• More
  • Local ballot measures
  • State ballot measures
  • Local politics

Measure B: Yuba County Patients Access to Regulated Medical Cannabis Act of 2015
The basics
Election date:
June 7, 2016
Status:
d Defeated
Topic:
Local marijuana
Related articles
Local marijuana on the ballot June 7, 2016 ballot measures in California Yuba County, California ballot measures Cultivation initiative
See also
Yuba County, California Andy Vasquez recall

A medical marijuana cultivation ordinance called the "Patients Access to Regulated Medical Cannabis Act of 2015" was on the ballot for voters in Yuba County, California, on June 7, 2016. It was defeated.

A "yes" vote was a vote in favor of enacting the "Patients Access to Regulated Medical Cannabis Act," allowing a certain number of dispensaries based on the county's population. Using the county's 2015 population, the ordinance would have allowed four or five marijuana dispensaries within the city.

A "no" vote was a vote against enacting the "Patients Access to Regulated Medical Cannabis Act."

This initiative would have authorized at least one medical marijuana dispensary per 20,000 residents to operate within the county. The initiative was designed to round the population up to the next highest 20,000 figure. For example, anything above 20,000 would have counted as 40,000, and anything above 40,000 would have counted as sixty thousand. As of 2013, 73,774 residents lived within Yuba County, meaning the initiative would have allowed at least four dispensaries until the population of the county changed.

It initiative would have also established rules and regulations for the operation of the dispensaries and would have allowed the county board of supervisors to increase the number of dispensaries to equal the number of supervisor districts, which was five. Under the initiative, the board would not have been able to reduce the number of allowed dispensaries. The initiative would have also allowed the board of supervisors to impose an additional sales and use tax on medical marijuana of up to 4 percent.

Proponents of this initiative also collected signatures to put an initiative to make the county's marijuana cultivation regulations more lenient.

Election results

Yuba County, Measure B
Result		Votes	Percentage
d No		8,030	55.28%
Yes		6,495	44.72%

Election results from Yuba County Elections Office

Text of measure

Ballot question

The following question appeared on the ballot:

“

Shall the ordinance that authorizes licenses medical marijuana dispensaries that will provide medical marijuana to qualified patients and primary caregivers in a retail setting be adopted?

”

Impartial analysis

The following impartial analysis of Measure B was prepared by the office of the county counsel:

“	Approval of Measure B would allow for qualified patients and primary caregivers to form medical marijuana dispensaries, facilities designed to dispense medical marijuana to its membership in a retail setting. Dispensaries would provide medical marijuana solely to their members who are qualified patients or primary caregivers with a verified physician’s recommendation. If approved, the measure would amend the Yuba County Ordinance Code, Title 6 Business Licenses and Regulation. Upon voter approval, Measure B would authorize one medical marijuana dispensary per 20,000, or fraction thereof, residents of Yuba County. The most recent Federal Census and population estimate of the Department of Finance of the State of California reported less than 74,100 Yuba County residents. Therefore, the measure would allow for four dispensaries in the unincorporated area of Yuba County. If the population of the Yuba County exceeded 80,000 in the future, an additional dispensary would be allowed. Measure B would restrict the number of dispensaries to one per County Supervisorial District, unless there is at least one dispensary operating in every District and the population increases allowing for additional dispensaries. All dispensaries would have to have a fixed location not within 1,000 feet of parks with playgrounds, schools, and youth oriented facilities. Mobile dispensaries would not be allowed. Measure B requires all dispensaries be licensed by the County. Licensing would be administered by the County Treasurer/Tax Collector. In the event there are more applications for dispensary licenses than there are available, the Treasurer would have substantial discretion in determining which applicants would receive licenses based upon a number of factors, including the service capacity of the applicant and the capital investment required to operate a dispensary. A dispensary license would not be issued to an applicant with a record of prior conviction for a violent felony or a felony involving fraud or deceit. Measure B authorizes the County Board of Supervisors to establish a fee for the issuance of a license, based on the actual costs of administration and enforcement of the ordinance. The Board of Supervisors may also impose a supplemental sales and use tax of up to 4% on retail dispensing of medical marijuana. No other taxes on medical marijuana sales or retail activities may be imposed. Measure B was placed on the ballot by an initiative petition signed by the requisite number of registered voters of Yuba County. All residents of Yuba County are voting on Measure B. The measure may be passed by majority of the voters voting in its favor.	”
—Megan Reedy

Initiative summary

The following summary of this initiative was prepared by the county:

Show more

“	This initiative proposes a County ordinance that would allow medical marijuana dispensaries in Yuba County. A medical marijuana dispensary, under the terms of the initiative, is a group of qualified medical marijuana patients and primary caregivers who may dispense medical marijuana to its membership in a retail setting. All members must have a valid physician's recommendation. The proposed ordinance would authorize one dispensary per 20,000, or fraction thereof, residents of Yuba County. Further, it would restrict dispensaries to one per County Supervisorial District-the effect of the ordinance would be to allow five dispensaries in Yuba County. All dispensaries would have to have a fixed location; "mobile dispensaries" would not be allowed by this ordinance. The Board of Supervisors, by subsequent ordinance, could increase the number of allowed dispensaries, but could not decrease the number below the amount authorized in the initiative. Under the proposed ordinance a dispensary would have to be licensed by the County, with the licensing process being administered by the County Treasurer/Tax Collector. In the case of multiple applications for a dispensary license, the Treasurer would have substantial discretion in determining who would receive the license based upon a number of factors, including the service capacity of the applicant and the capital investment required to operate a dispensary. A license could not be issued if the proposed location for the dispensary is within 1000 feet of a school, playground, or youth-oriented facility. A dispensary license could not be issued if an applicant has a record of a prior conviction for a violent felony or a felony involving fraud or deceit. The Board of Supervisors may establish fee for the issuance of a license, the amount of which must be based upon the actual costs of administration and enforcement of the ordinance. The proposed ordinance authorizes the Board of Supervisors to impose a supplemental sales and use tax of up to 4% on the retail dispensing of medical marijuana, but no higher. No other sales or excise tax on medical marijuana sales or retail activities would be allowed.	”
—Yuba County officials

Full text

The full text of the initiative is available here.

Support

Supporters

The following individuals signed the official argument in favor of Measure B:

• Mickey Martin, director of CSPARC
• Terry Comer, director of CSPARC

The Yuba Patients Coalition backed both this initiative and the marijuana cultivation initiative.

Arguments in favor

Proponents argued that allowing medical marijuana cultivation facilities and dispensaries to operate more freely would increase the availability of medicine to the sick and help the county's economy.

Official argument

The following official argument was submitted in favor of Measure B:

“	Medical cannabis has been legal in California since 1996, and Yuba County residents who choose to use cannabis as an alternative to dangerous pharmaceuticals are still forced to travel long distances for access. It is unacceptable to treat our neighbors like second class citizens because of their personal choice to use cannabis medicines. Dispensaries are highly-regulated State licensed businesses that provide good-paying jobs and economic benefits. This measure will allow for four dispensaries to operate in Yuba County under strict control of both local and State regulatory requirements. Dispensaries increase public safety by allowing for people to purchase marijuana in clean and safe facilities, rather than from illicit sources. These facilities have better security than banks, and have proven to increase safety and reduce crime in areas where they operate. Medical cannabis dispensaries provide lab tested and quality assured products to patients, creating a safe local source for these medicines. The Measure allows the Board of Supervisors to implement a 4% supplemental sales tax on gross sales of cannabis on top of the normal sales tax rate, creating much needed revenues for the struggling County budget. These four dispensaries will create hundreds of good paying jobs for local residents and even more jobs from auxiliary businesses that serve dispensaries. Neighboring businesses will also benefit by dispensary customers patronizing their businesses while in the area. California has one of the strictest cannabis regulatory programs in the Nation, and it is time for Yuba County to allow for these safe and professional businesses to serve the local community. People should have the personal freedom to improve their quality of life without the interference of out of touch public officials who oppose cannabis for political reasons. It is the right thing to do. Vote Yes on Measure B.	”
—Mickey Martin and Terry Comer

Opposition

Opponents

The following individuals signed the official argument in opposition to Measure B:

• Patrick J. McGrath, Yuba County District Attorney
• Steven L. Durfor, Yuba County Sheriff
• Joseph Cassady DO, Yuba County Health Officer - retired
• Virginia Black, Yuba County Sheriff - retired
• James L Arnold, Yuba County Chief Probation Officer

Supervisor Andy Vasquez, who supported the county's cannabis laws that would be overturned by these ordinances and was targeted by a recall effort backed by the Yuba Patients Coalition, said that signing either the initiative petitions or the petition for his recall amounted to "supporting large marijuana growers."

A group called Yuba County Families Against Cannabis Trafficking (FACT) supported the county's more restrictive marijuana ordinance. The group favored Vasquez's efforts to restrict the marijuana industry and opposed the recall campaign against him and the initiatives backed by the Yuba Patients Coalition.

Arguments against

Official argument

The following official argument was submitted in opposition to Measure B:

“	As Community Leaders we urge you to Vote No on Measure B. Measure B is so poorly written that it does not provide even the minimum protections needed to protect marijuana patients or to ensure that dispensaries aren't a front for commercial marijuana profiteers. Here are some examples: Measure B does not require a license applicant or a dispensary worker to undergo any type of criminal background check. Worse still, it is so permissive that it allows exconvicts convicted of drug sales - even to a child - or manufacturing methamphetamine to open and work in storefront stores. It also allows gang members, home burglars, and even those convicted of a 'Three Strikes" crime to be in the business. Measure B itself will contribute nothing to the County budget - any dispensary sales tax must first be approved by the voters in a separate election, and then artificially limits that amount to 4%. Measure B makes those who have flouted Yuba County ordinances in the past eligible for a dispensary license. Measure B does not provide for any quality assurance or inspection to protect customers from buying tainted or inferior marijuana products. Measure B does not provide for any independent audits or financial reviews to ensure that dispensaries are not making and hiding profits - profits which are still illegal under Proposition 215. Measure B restricts competition among those trying to obtain a dispensary license; the first successful applicants can automatically renew their licenses every two years without fearing any outside competition. Measure B wrongly places regulatory responsibilities on an understaffed Treasurer's office with no prior regulatory experience, and promotes lawsuits against the County by unsuccessful license applicants because of the Measure's vague language. Measure B is seriously flawed and terribly written. Please Vote No on Measure B.	”
—Patrick J. McGrath, Steven L. Durfor, Joseph Cassady DO, Virginia Black and James L Arnold

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in California

Petitioners needed signatures from registered voters equal to 20 percent of the county voters who cast ballots in the preceding gubernatorial election. This requirement amounted to 2,483 necessary signatures. Proponents of this initiative submitted 3,612 signatures, and 2,525 of them were determined to be valid, qualifying the measure for the ballot. This gave county supervisors the option of enacting the initiative themselves or putting it before voters.

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Yuba County medical marijuana initiative. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Yuba County, California, "Patients Access to Regulated Medical Cannabis Act of 2015" Initiative, Measure B (June 2016) - Google News

See also

Local measures

• Local measures in 2016
• Local marijuana on the ballot

• Yuba County measures

California

• June 7, 2016 measures in California
• Local ballot measures, California
• Yuba County, California

News and analysis

• State and local preemption conflicts
• Measures advancing national agendas

Related measures

1. Yuba County, California, "Medical Marijuana Cultivation Act of 2015" Initiative, Measure A (June 2016) d
2. City of Riverside Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Initiative, Measure A (June 2015) 
3. City of Upland Medical Marijuana Dispensary Initiative (2016) 
4. City of Vallejo Initiatives to Allow Medical Marijuana Dispensaries (2016) 
5. City of Vallejo Veto Referendum Targeting City Council Medical Marijuana Ordinance (2015) 
6. Coalinga, California, Authorize, Regulate, and Tax a Single Marijuana Dispensary, Measure G (November 2016) a
7. Colfax, California, Marijuana Dispensaries Regulation and Marijuana Tax, Measure H (November 2016) d
8. Costa Mesa, California, Eight Medical Marijuana Businesses, Measure V (November 2016) d
9. Costa Mesa, California, Four Medical Marijuana Businesses, Measure W (November 2016) d
10. Costa Mesa, California, Medical Marijuana Development in Industrial Zones, Measure X (November 2016) a
11. Dunsmuir, California, Medical Marijuana Cultivation, Measure Y (November 2016) d
12. Inyo County, California, Commercial Medical Marijuana Advisory Question, Measure G (November 2016) a
13. Inyo County, California, Commercial Recreational Marijuana Advisory Question, Measure H (November 2016) a
14. La Mesa, California, Repeal Ban on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Initiative, Measure U (November 2016) a
15. Laguna Beach, California, Medical Marijuana Dispensaries, Measure KK (November 2016) d
16. Lemon Grove, California, Repeal Ban on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries, Measure V (November 2016) a
17. Long Beach, California, Regulation of Medical Marijuana Businesses, Measure MM (November 2016) a
18. Mendocino County, California, Medical Cannabis Regulation, Measure AF (November 2016) d
19. Nevada County, California, Voter-Approved Outdoor Marijuana Cultivation Ban, Measure W (June 2016) d
20. Perris, California, Medical Marijuana Authorization and Regulation, Measure K (November 2016) a
21. Rio Dell, California, Commercial Cannabis Activity, Measure T (November 2016) a
22. San Bernardino, California, Commercial Cannabis Regulation, Measure P (November 2016) d
23. San Bernardino, California, Marijuana Regulation, Measure O (November 2016) a
24. San Bernardino, California, Medical Cannabis Restrictions and Limitations, Measure N (November 2016) a
25. San Jose, California, Medical Marijuana Collectives Initiative, Measure C (June 2016) d
26. Santa Cruz County, California, Marijuana Tax Amendment, Measure E (November 2016) a
27. Santa Cruz, California, Marijuana Tax Amendment, Measure I (November 2016) a
28. Sierra County, California, Commercial Marijuana Advisory Question, Measure A (June 2016) d
29. Sierra County, California, Restrictions on Cultivation of Medical Marijuana, Measure B (November 2016) d
30. Siskiyou County, California, Medical Marijuana Cultivation Enforcement Reform Referendum, Measure T (June 2016) a
31. Siskiyou County, California, Medical Marijuana Cultivation Ordinance Referendum, Measure U (June 2016) a
32. Stockton, California, Overturn Ban on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries, Measure P (November 2016) a
33. Town of Yucca Valley Medical Marijuana Dispensary Authorization and Regulation Act, Measure X (June 2015) 
34. Upland, California, Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Ordinance, Measure U (November 2016) d
35. Yuba County, California, Medical Cannabis Cultivation and Commerce, Measure E (November 2016) d
36. Santa Cruz County Veto Referendum on Commercial Marijuana Cultivation Ban (June 2016) 
37. Butte County, California, Restrictions on Cultivation of Medical Marijuana Referendum, Measure H (June 2016) a
38. Butte County, California, Medical Cannabis and Commerce, Measure L (November 2016) d
39. Calaveras County, California, Marijuana Cultivation Regulation, Measure D (November 2016) d
40. Avalon, California, Medical Marijuana Cultivation and Sales, Measure X (November 2016) d
41. Butte County, California, Marijuana Exclusion from Right-to-Farm Ordinance Referendum, Measure G (June 2016) a
42. Mendocino County “Mendocino Cannabis Commission” Initiative (November 2015) 

External links

Suggest a link

• Yuba County Elections Office website