Letters: Regulating recreational pot, ranking ugliest cities

Pot monopolies?

Re “A partly baked marijuana regulation” (Editorial, April 20): Everyone cites the “success” of independent distributors for alcohol, but no one ever addresses the fact that mandating a distributor tier never requires distributors to serve every producer.

That same problem will occur in the new marijuana industry. As small wineries and brewers have discovered, marijuana distributors will refuse to carry their products with no consequences.

Brown is right

The governor deserves credit for offering a thoughtful bill to combine the regulation of adult-use and medical marijuana together in a manner that’s flexible, compatible with Proposition 64 and avoids excessive regulation.

Proposition 64 levies a hefty 15 percent excise tax plus a 10 percent cultivation tax on all marijuana as of 2018. Many local governments add more taxes as high as 20 percent. Given the hefty new taxes and regulatory costs that licensed marijuana businesses will face, the danger is high that black market traffickers will undercut the legal market. The governor has wisely chosen to avoid unnecessary and costly regulations not required in other states, such as requiring third-party distributors to serve as market middlemen.

We’re not ugly

Re “Sacramento is No. 2 city for ugliest people” (Page 4A, April 21): As an almost 60-year-old native Sacramentan, I was appalled. Was this story supposed to lift us up in some way, or bring a smile? Since when is name-calling and ranking cities based on looks OK?

I know countless Sacramentans who are beautiful, inside and out.

 

Sign up

Get on The Take. Read the influential voices on California and national politics and issues. Sign up here.

This story was originally published April 24, 2017 at 10:00 AM with the headline "Letters: Regulating recreational pot, ranking ugliest cities."