Marin IJ Readers’ Forum for July 12, 2023

Local control of cannabis industry is still crucial

I am writing in regard to the California Voice commentary published June 29 with the headline, “State’s legal cannabis market could soon implode.” Author Tiffany Devitt, a board member of the California Cannabis Industry Association, calls on citizens to save the industry from potential ruin by relinquishing local control.

Proposition 64 for commercial cannabis in California legalized personal use and cultivation, reduced criminal penalties and reversed prior convictions. It included provisions on regulation, licensing and taxation. It also clearly promised that communities would locally control whether or not they wanted cannabis stores.

Local control is what people voted for. That was important. Now the cannabis industry wants to remove that control.

Devitt writes, “behind the industry’s potential demise are thousands of intimate, personal stories of financial ruin.” This is the downside of free markets. If investors in cannabis retail are hurting because they overestimated the market, that’s their problem. It’s not the consumer’s job to save the industry.

If there are too many unlicensed stores selling cannabis, that’s a regulatory and enforcement problem. If much of the state has rejected cannabis retail stores, that is their right; it’s the will of the people.

The cause of the illegal market depends on who you ask. Law enforcement blames a shortage of budget resources. The cannabis industry blames taxation and lack of legal supply. Researchers point out that illegal markets are present in many industries; it won’t be extinguished, it’s a matter of diminishing it. California’s large illegal cannabis market has long existed; it was always unrealistic to expect it to disappear.

California needs to keep cannabis under local control, just as Prop. 64 promised. Let the people decide what’s right for their own communities and neighborhoods concerning cannabis retail sales, and let the free market operate without a bailout.

— Elizabeth O’Donnell, Mill Valley

People behind Lifestyles section are tremendous

I have been a subscriber to the Marin IJ on and off since the 1980s. I really appreciate the local news aspect, but the most important part of the paper to me is the Lifestyles section. The management of the section is very professional and easy to read.

I think Lifestyles Editor Vicki Larson has her finger on the pulse of Marin. Her commentaries are spot-on. Colleen Bidwill is the master of telling us about the events of Marin. She is exceptional and tireless in informing Marin of all things cultural — a valuable resource indeed. Finally, the in-depth musical profiles of Paul Liberatore are brilliant.

This section is irreplaceable. My hat is off to these important people.

— Daniel Patrick, Mill Valley

Marin County Fair needs to continue improving

For decades, I have enjoyed the Marin County Fair. The limitations of last year following the COVID-19 pandemic were understandable. But that should no longer be an excuse and many adjustments at this year’s fair stuck in my craw.

The wonderful indoor venue with art, crafts and old-fashioned food and garden competitions came back. However, some of the things that make the Marin’s fair special were missing. For example, I was disappointed to hear that there was not enough room for the exhibition of bonsai trees.

The fair may be electrifying, but sticker shock stands out. Tickets were $25 for most. For a family of four, it could have cost as much as $120 for parking and entry.

I was also put off by having to run a gauntlet of security guards to get in. They made airport TSA agents look like pussycats.

The fair may have plenty of music, but its administration is tone deaf. Tickets were only available to purchase online, but internet access is not universal. Cash payment, including parking, was overly difficult or not allowed. For some in our society, the only way to pay is with hard-earned American dollars.

I hope the fair administration and the Marin County supervisors will take another look at these elitist policies.

— Mary Jane Baird, San Anselmo

San Rafael should help fund trade educations

The San Rafael City Schools District is planning a new aquatics center. Officials are seeking comments for the environmental impact report (“San Rafael school district seeks comments for construction projects,” June 2).

My comment is directed at choices the school board made. I had hoped that money from last year’s Measure B would be used for trade education resources. Apparently, that’s not the case. I want San Rafael High School to reopen its old auto shop.

As a former SRCS board member, these decisions leave me to assume I was mistaken in thinking that SRCS was committed to funding education for all students, not just those interested in four-year universities. Marin County needs to do everything it can to encourage future plumbers, carpenters, electricians, auto mechanics and appliance repair people.

The Marin County Office of Education’s Career Technical Education Center is presently supporting an auto-repair class at Terra Linda High School taught by Charlie Goodman. He is part of the faculty. He also teaches an adult education class at night.

Goodman, a collector of antique cars, and former Marin Superintendent Mary Jane Burke realized that trade education was sorely missing in the county. They established what is planned as four-year education in the trades. Facilities are needed to include the tools that make trades work.

That’s an admirable goal for the county, but I am disappointed that SRCS has seemingly decided that swimming is more educational than learning how to repair an air conditioner or repair a pumping system.

After 65 years in San Rafael as a parent of three students, who worked as a volunteer and served as a school board trustee, I can say I will never vote for another SRCS bond measure until I am convinced that our school system cares about educating all students, not just the ones in the fanciest neighborhoods.

— Gladys C. Gilliland, San Rafael

Court set a precedent for right to refuse service

I would like to examine the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling related to same-sex marriages (“The Supreme Court rules for a designer who doesn’t want to make wedding websites for gay couples,” June 30). The court ruled that plaintiff Lorie Smith could legally offer her website services to straight couples seeking a wedding site and deny such services to gay couples based on her religious beliefs about marriage.

This is the first time in history that the court held that there is a constitutional right to refuse services to members of a protected class. The state of Colorado, where the business is based, in a statement supported by the American Bar Association, argued that its antidiscrimination laws — which many states have, including California — targeted conduct (not speech). It asserted that if Smith offered wedding services through a business open to the public, she could not discriminate. However, the Supreme Court held that serving gay couples seeking wedding services was “compelled” speech that violated Smith’s First Amendment rights. But, according to what I read, Colorado never compelled speech.

In 1967, the case Loving v. Virginia argued that a mixed-race couple could marry, despite Virginia’s miscegenation laws. A lower level judge in the commonwealth interpreted the law to mean that God intended the races to be separate and did not intend them to marry. The Supreme Court rejected discrimination then and it should have been rejected here.

— Ruth Dell, Tiburon