Last week, state officials released the official tally of tax revenue in sales, excise and cultivation taxes in 2018 – the first year recreational cannabis sales were allowed under Proposition 64. The $345.2 million was about a third of what most outside analysts expected. Quarterly tax revenue gained steadily until the last three months of 2018, when it flattened out.

From a basic economics perspective, this is no surprise. Illegal sellers who are often lightly policed can offer marijuana for at least 20 percent less because they don’t have to pay taxes or regulatory fees or state-mandated packaging costs. Many illegal storefront dispensaries and delivery services don’t have to worry about start-up costs. They belong to long-established networks for buying and selling marijuana that emerged after state voters’ 1996 approval of medicinal marijuana use.

But the state’s Cannabis Advisory Committee is growing impatient with the reasons authorities and others give for the enduring strength of black market sales. In the committee’s first annual report, it decried what it called the “fragmented and uncoordinated” law enforcement response to the marijuana black market. The committee’s other big gripe is the slowness of local governments to allow recreational cannabis sales. Only about one-third of cities and counties have approved such sales, according to the Southern California News Group’s database.

While Gov. Gavin Newsom said recently that he will deploy 150 California National Guard troops to eradicate illegal growing in Northern California, he has otherwise long counselled patience. On the campaign trail in 2016 while running for governor, he said he thought it would take “five to seven years” for the legal recreational marijuana industry to settle in and thrive if Proposition 64 passed. This long view is reflected in his proposed 2019-2010 budget. It anticipates $355 million in cannabis tax revenue – only a 3 percent increase from the 2018 calendar year.

Tribes, cartels could pose threat to regulated CA pot

But the industry could have other headaches on the horizon as well. A recent analysis in the San Diego Union-Tribune noted some large marijuana seizures at the border in Imperial and San Diego counties that suggest Mexican drug cartels still see cannabis as lucrative even though in recent years they have largely focused on more easily imported drugs like opioids and methamphetamine.

“We are continuing to see more marijuana production in Mexico than we might expect with [California’s] legalization,” University of San Diego professor David Shirk told the newspaper.

The Mexican government has taken initial steps toward legalizing cannabis. That could have fallout for the Golden State by encouraging more pot farming in Mexico.

But there’s also one emerging wild card facing California’s recreational industry that state regulators don’t appear to have anticipated: That’s the possibility that Native American tribal lands not subject to state or federal laws could emerge as both cannabis cultivation and sales centers. Tribes could potentially enjoy a price advantage over legal shops that illegal sellers now do.

A recent Southern California News Group story noted that 24 state tribes, mostly in Southern California, had taken steps of varying degrees toward getting into the marijuana business. The Santa Ysabel tribe in northeast San Diego County reportedly already employs about 100 people in its cannabis greenhouses.

California’s first year with legal recreational sales of marijuana is wrapping up with a series of downbeat reports on a new industry struggling to find its footing.

An Associated Press analysis posted Sunday said estimated legal sales of cannabis would total just $2.5 billion in 2018 – in a state of 40 million people in which 13 percent of adults admit to use, significantly higher than in most states. State officials will be lucky if they receive half the $630 million in pot taxes anticipated in the 2018 state budget.

When tax revenue goals went unmet early last year, one assumption was that this was primarily the result of resistance to legal cannabis. An estimated 80 percent of local governments have not authorized recreational sales, as is their right under Proposition 64, the 2016 ballot measure that cleared the way for such sales. And in some of the cities that have issued permits, only a handful have been issued.

But as the year wore on – and costly state regulations kicked in mandating careful testing and child-resistant packaging of marijuana and marijuana products, such as edibles – reporting on the California pot beat increasingly focused on the huge price advantage that illegal sellers have.

Medical marijuana law led to sales networks

A recent Southern California News Group article pointed out that with voters’ approval of medicinal marijuana in 1996, growers and sellers had a 20-year head start in establishing sales and distribution networks that were poised to fill demand when cannabis possession and use became legal on Jan. 1, 2018. These networks are able to sell marijuana that is up to 50 percent cheaper than the marijuana available in licensed stores.

These growers and sellers don’t just balk at going the legal route because of fees, regulations and paperwork. They’re emboldened by the weakening of criminal penalties related to marijuana in recent years, according to the Southern California News Group analysis.

A San Francisco Chronicle report published last week quoted Steve DeAngelo, a co-founder of Oakland’s huge Harborside marijuana dispensary, as saying “the unrolling of legal adult-use cannabis has reinvigorated the underground market rather than curtailed it.”

“Because we are up against high taxes and the proliferation of illegal shops, it is difficult right now,” pot shop owner Javier Montes told the Los Angeles Times last week. “We expected lines out of our doors, but unfortunately the underground market was already conducting commercial cannabis activity and are continuing to do so.”

Shop owners in the Los Angeles and Bay areas have urged authorities to crack down on illegal storefront and delivery sellers. But while state regulators say that is a priority in 2019, it’s unclear how much of a priority it will be for local law enforcement agencies who are strapped by pension costs and often have difficulty maintaining police staffing because of recruiting woes.

Among those who anticipated that legal California sellers were going to be seriously undercut by illegal sellers is Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom, who led the Proposition 64 push.

Newsom: Addressing black market to take ‘5 to 7 years’

While on the campaign trail in May, Newsom said he thought it would take “five to seven years to substantively address the black market” issue.

As governor, Newsom could order stepped-up efforts to target growers and sellers, as well as seek new funding for such enforcement.

But the legal marijuana industry also wants help on another front. The Chronicle reported there is a huge backlog at the state office processing permits to legally grow marijuana, with no action yet on about 90 percent of applicants.

Under the newly passed resolution, no city department, agency or employee “shall use any city funds or resources to assist in the enforcement of federal drug laws related to cannabis.”

The action comes after Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded multiple Obama-era memos that had adopted a policy of non-interference with pot-friendly state laws, in what essentially allowed legalization efforts to take effect without federal interference.

“In light of threats by Attorney General Sessions regarding a misguided crackdown on our democratic decision to legalize recreational cannabis, we have become what may be the first city in the country to declare ourselves a sanctuary city for cannabis,” Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin tweeted this week.

Sessions called the decision a “return to the rule of law.” And while he didn’t outright direct more prosecutions of marijuana crimes, the move outraged proponents of legalization.

“Increased federal enforcement of marijuana will have serious social and economic consequences,” the Berkeley resolution reads. “Uncertainty about potential enforcement and or enforcement itself may force established medical and adult-use cannabis-related businesses to close or move underground, which could impede the development of the newly regulated market and threaten public safety.”

While several states, including California, have legalized pot, it is still illegal under federal law.

“I believe we can balance public safety and resisting the Trump administration,” Mayor Arreguin reportedly said at Tuesday’s City Council meeting. “We’re keeping with the strong position Berkeley is a sanctuary for people in our community.”

However, the move is largely symbolic as there’s little the city could do to stop federal authorities from cracking down on commercial marijuana operations.

In 2016, under Proposition 64, California voted to legalize the drug and it went into effect at the start of this year. Under the new law, adults 21 and over can use marijuana for recreational use.

For the liberal enclave, it’s just the latest act of defiance, as the city has been outspoken in its opposition to the Trump agenda on issues like immigration and climate change.

And in an even more unorthodox move, the city is exploring creating its own crypto-currency in an attempt to establish more independence from Washington by holding an initial coin offering (ICO).

President Trump called out Berkeley specifically last February following violent protests over a planned speech by provocateur Milo Yiannopoulous.

“If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view – NO FEDERAL FUNDS?” Trump tweeted, highlighting the conflict between the White House and the city.

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ Jan. 4

While none of the four U.S. attorneys’ offices in California have taken high-profile enforcement steps to date, at least two may be inclined to take on legal marijuana in some way – especially given that Sessions has already complained that pot being grown in the state is being trafficked in other states where it remains illegal.

In the California Eastern District based in Sacramento, President Donald Trump nominated McGregor “Greg” Scott to serve as U.S. attorney, returning to a job he held under President George W. Bush. He was sworn in Dec. 29. His large district is mostly inland California, from the Oregon border to the Inland Empire, including Humboldt County, ground zero for the Golden State’s pot culture.

Cannabis advocates worry about Sacramento U.S. attorney

While the Sacramento Bee editorial page hailed Scott’s selection, the Bee’s newsroom reported earlier this month that marijuana advocates are on edge because of Scott’s history of aggressively targeting medical marijuana in his first stint on the job. Scott’s office received national attention in 2008 when it secured 20-year and 21-year sentences for two Modesto men whom Scott said were running a criminal empire – not a clinic.

The Cal NORML marijuana advocacy group blasted Scott for urging local prosecutors to refer medical marijuana cases to his office, calling it “particularly notorious for harsh sentences against medical marijuana defendants.”

“He used to be a hardcore, anti-cannabis drug warrior,” Sebastopol criminal defense attorney Omar Figueroa told the Bee. “I hope he has evolved.”

Scott offered no overview of his intentions beyond issuing a statement saying he would review marijuana cases “in accordance with our district’s federal law enforcement priorities and resources.”

Cartel prosecutor takes reins in San Diego with tough statement

The other California U.S. attorney who might be inclined to take a hard line on pot is Adam Braverman in the San Diego-based Southern district. Braverman was sworn in Nov. 16 after years as a hard-charging prosecutor in the San Diego office targeting drug cartels which operate on both sides of the U.S-Mexico border. His statement echoed Sessions’ remarks that individual states should have no expectations that federal drug laws would go unenforced just because their voters or legislators had approved legal use of pot.

“The Department of Justice is committed to reducing violent crime and enforcing the laws as enacted by Congress. The cultivation, distribution and possession of marijuana has long been and remains a violation of federal law,” Braverman’s statement said. “We will continue to utilize long-established prosecutorial priorities to carry out our mission to combat violent crime, disrupt and dismantle transnational criminal organizations, and stem the rising tide of the drug crisis.”

Earlier this month, former prosecutor and criminal defense lawyer Nicola Hanna was named interim U.S. attorney for the Central District, based in Los Angeles. Hanna, who is expected to get the job on a permanent basis, has kept quiet on Sessions’ announcement. His office refers questions to Justice Department headquarters in Washington.

Any crackdown on cannabis might be difficult just from a resources perspective for Hanna. His office serves an area with 18 million residents in Los Angeles and Orange counties and five adjacent counties – by far the most heavily populated of any office. It is often responsible for complex cases involving not just drugs and white-collar crime but also national security.

Views of acting U.S. attorney in San Francisco unclear

In the Northern District based in San Francisco, U.S. Attorney Brian Stretch resigned within days after Sessions’ policy change, though he said the decision was unrelated.

Alex G. Tse is serving as the acting U.S. attorney after being Stretch’s second-in-command. Tse has kept a low profile to date on Sessions’ policy reversal.

However, his office was known for its aggressive targeting of Oakland’s Harborside Health Center, which the Feedly marijuana news website says is “perhaps the state’s best-known dispensary.”

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, threw out prosecutors’ case against Harborside in 2016, saying they had ignored Congress’ direction that medical-marijuana dispensaries operating within state laws should be left alone.

Under current law, the possession of small amounts of marijuana (less than one ounce) is punishable only by a fine, whereas those who grow or sell marijuana can face stiff criminal penalties, according to an analysis from the California Secretary of State. In 1996, California voters approved Proposition 215, which legalized medical uses of marijuana for people of all ages who receive a doctor’s recommendation.

Beginning in 2003, the state legalized nonprofit groups known as collectives that are allowed to grow and sell marijuana to their members. Under recently passed laws, those collectives will be phased out and replaced with state-licensed medical-marijuana businesses. Meanwhile, local governments often strictly regulate or ban medical-marijuana businesses. And the federal government still considers marijuana a “Section I” drug, which means that federal enforcement agencies still claim the right to crack down on any sales. Indeed, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has reportedly been eyeing a crackdown on states that allow recreational sales.

Against that backdrop, California’s Prop. 64 legalizes the use of marijuana, for any reason, for adults only, creates a complex state system for regulating nonmedical marijuana businesses, imposes a wide array of taxes on marijuana and changes the penalties for marijuana crimes, notes that Secretary of State analysis. Specifically, adults may possess around an ounce of pot, smoke it in their own home or private business, give some of it away and may grow up to six plants in their own residence.

Six state agencies – including a relatively new Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation – will regulate different aspects of the marijuana pipeline (sales, testing, transportation, growing). The industry will be required to pay a state tax on growing marijuana and a state retail excise tax plus any local sales taxes. Localities are free to tax, regulate and even ban recreational marijuana sales. Because of federal restrictions, marijuana businesses may not have bank accounts – an unresolved issue as the state steps up its tax-collection requirements.

The arguments over the measure’s plusses and minuses are largely over, but it will take a while before everyone is clear on what’s allowed and what isn’t in any particular jurisdiction. There’s broad agreement on some basics: No smoking marijuana in public, adults only, and it’s OK to possess small amounts of weed. But it will take some time for Californians serving prison sentences for marijuana-related offenses to petition the court to have those convictions tossed out.

And it will take some time for cities and the state cannabis agency to approve the first round of stores that sell recreational products. Chalk it up to bureaucratic morass, perhaps. “Los Angeles and San Francisco are among many municipalities that won’t have their licenses ready by the time marijuana sales become legal on New Year’s Day,” according to Fortune. The magazine notes that the state has issued 69 licenses for medical marijuana clinics, which must receive new state approvals under the new law. But it only has issued 44 licenses for nonmedical stores. Per the article, Sacramento, San Diego and Berkeley have approved licenses for stores in their cities, but consumers in San Francisco and Los Angeles and other cities will have no place to legally shop for weed as of the new year.

And National Public Radio reports that the local pot scene will vary greatly. The League of California Cities told the news service that “communities are all over the map when it comes to dealing with recreational marijuana. Some allow cultivation but not retail. Others will allow delivery but no storefronts.” It will take time for all of that to play out.

There’s still a debate over the process of legally growing marijuana for recreational users. Small growers for the medical-marijuana market are worried that Proposition 64 will allow big, corporate farms to take over the emerging recreational market. In fact, many pro-pot activists had actually opposed the legalization initiative out of concern over what it would mean for small businesses and fears that the new regulatory system would be too heavy-handed.

There are other gray areas. A CNBC article explores what it will mean for Californians who attempt to catch a flight across the state. “That is a conundrum for the state’s airports, which are locally owned and operated but are subject to federal law, under which marijuana is an illegal substance. Areas beyond security checkpoints are under federal control,” it reported. A Los Angeles airline security official is quoted saying that this will be a gray area.

Furthermore, the state still is trying to figure out how to combat driving under the influence. As the “Pathways Report” from the state’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Marijuana Policy acknowledged, marijuana stays in a user’s system for several weeks. That’s long after the high has gone away. Police agencies need to determine if someone is driving stoned without slapping fines on a driver who may have smoked a joint a week ago. Of course, that’s an issue whether or not marijuana is legalized.

Of course, marijuana use has long been a gray area in California. Even many supporters of Prop. 215, the medical-marijuana law, admit that the ensuing medical marketplace has been fraught with gray areas and enforcement questions. It took nearly two decades after its passage before the Legislature passed a thorough set of medical-marijuana regulations. And they did so largely because of the coming recreational market. Officials viewed the new medical marijuana rules as the foundation for regulating recreational-marijuana sales.

Many observers fear that if state and local governments don’t quickly get pot shops licensed that the black market will continue to flourish, which would defeat the main reason for legalizing the drug in the first place. Supporters of the legalization initiative had argued that in the current black market there’s no one regulating the product’s safety, or overseeing environmental aspects of large-scale marijuana grows or assuring that weed isn’t sold to minors.

The bottom line is pot smokers shouldn’t expect marijuana to be available at many legal stores on January 1 – and it will take many months before the state government, police agencies and localities are working from the same page. The voters may have spoken clearly, but it’s not as easy for government bureaucracies to get their act together.

Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.

As Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration turns toward tidying up California’s complex and still-unsettled marijuana laws, the massive market for money made from the plant’s products has begun to attract attention from financial services companies that want to take advantage without taking on too much risk. 

“Though federally prohibited, marijuana is now legal in some form in 28 states and Washington, D.C. But most banks remain loath to accept pot business accounts out of fear of federal money laundering laws that can consider such deposits as illegal transactions,” the Sacramento Bee reported. “Efforts in 2014 by the United States Treasury Department to ease rules for financial institutions wanting to service state-licensed marijuana businesses largely failed to diminish the uncertainty.”

From meetings to markets

“Now California officials, led by state Treasurer John Chiang, are hosting an ongoing series of ‘Cannabis Banking Working Group’ meetings that look to identify policies under which ‘the cannabis industry may fully avail itself of banking services … that every other business in California enjoys,’ Chiang said,” according to the paper. “California’s marijuana industry, valued at more than $6 billion, is expected to produce as much as $1 billion in state taxes after 2018, when recreational pot dispensaries open to the general public. But a lack of accessible financial services – including the ability to deposit funds or handle credit card transactions – continue to be the norm for marijuana businesses.”

Businesses and bankers have been leery of the gap between state and federal marijuana law. “Federal crimes often conjure images of ‘interstate’ activity, but with regard to marijuana, the Supreme Court has clearly spoken that even purely intrastate marijuana is subject to federal criminal regulation,” as California Lawyer recalled. “In Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court held that because of its ‘aggregate’ effect on the interstate market, even purely intrastate activity is subject to regulation under the commerce clause of the Constitution.” At the same time, the White House and Attorney General’s office have continued to suggest that enforcement of federal marijuana law could be strengthened from where the Obama administration left it. 

Reconciling rules

The proposed changes would streamline environmental policies, standardize the more liberal of the state’s licensing regimes, formalize background check and disclosure requirements for cannabis-based business owners, and eliminate a provision that would have required continuous California residency for those affected by the rules since the first day of 2015.

Accrediting workers

At the same time, the cannabis industry has seen its workers brought into the state’s regulatory mainstream. So-called budtenders at the River City Phoenix dispensary in North Sacramento have become among the state’s first state-certified cannabis pharmacy technicians, a certificate program “spearheaded by the United Food and Commercial Workers union, which represents 1.3 million members and began reaching out to dispensary workers about four years ago,” according to the Los Angeles Times. “The apprenticeship program is yet another measure of how cannabis is professionalizing at a breakneck pace. Another sign: the unionization of the cannabis workforce. The UFCW, which represents workers at River City Phoenix, has organized thousands of them in eight states.”

Proposition 64’s

State Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, won headlines last week for her pointed questions about whether the state will be able to meet its requirement of issuing marijuana sales permits and establishing a system to implement the 15 percent state tax on pot sales by Jan. 1, 2018, as it is supposed to under Proposition 64.

The primary immediate problem is uncertainty about what the Trump administration will do, if anything, to push back on the eight states that have legalized marijuana. The Obama administration for the most part stayed out of the way of states that liberalized pot rules.

If President Trump – who made controversial warnings about worsening crime a hallmark of his campaign – wanted to crack down, he has potent options. Federal law still considers marijuana possession a crime and still bans banks and credit unions from taking deposits made from marijuana sales. In Colorado –  home to what is so far the biggest state experiment in pot legalization – some banks appear to be looking the other way or having a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy about pot dispensary deposits. Others permit marijuana companies to use their accounts to pay state taxes or employees but not to have the full range of banking services.

If Trump’s Treasury Department ordered stricter enforcement targeting all drug money in the financial system, that could make it far more difficult for California to meet its Jan. 1 target under Proposition 64.

Various uncertainties about possible “government actions” led the Legislative Analyst’s Office to release a short report last week saying marijuana tax revenue shouldn’t be included in the 2017-18 state budget.

Some cities still oppose ‘normalizing pot’

The LAO was not just talking about the federal government. At the local government level, some cities and counties are implementing rules to block what they call the “normalization” of pot use.

There’s now a new front in their war on Proposition 64 that goes beyond using zoning regulations to make it difficult or impossible for pot shops to open: private cultivation.

Proposition 64 allows residents older than 21 to grow up to six marijuana plants at a time. It allows local government to pass rules on pot cultivation so long as they don’t create such obstacles that they create a “de facto ban,” according to Sacramento attorney Richard Miadich, who helped write the proposition. 

But several cities around California – including Elk Grove, Galt, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Ana and Poway – have already adopted temporary bans on indoor cultivation.

Other cities are putting up obstacles by requiring costly permits and setting conditions on growing. The list includes three cities in the Coachella Valley – Indian Wells, Rancho Mirage and Palm Desert.

Indian Wells has the strictest rules. The city requires home growers to pay a $141 annual fee and to pay for a government background check to prove they have not been convicted of a drug felony in the previous five years. It also requires permit holders to allow city inspectors access to their homes and mandates that pot can only be grown in locked rooms with adequate ventilation.

Lawsuits likely over local permit fees, conditions

UC Irvine Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinksy told the Desert Sun newspaper that he thinks Indian Wells’ law wouldn’t stand up to a lawsuit.

If that’s so, many local laws could be at risk. Fontana will charge $411 for an individual permit. Leaders in Fillmore, a town in Ventura County, discussed having individual permits cost as much as $737.

In Orange County, Aliso Viejo and San Juan Capistrano have adopted ordinances requiring permits for indoor cultivation. But they have not yet set how much the permits will cost.

These concerns about local crackdowns on marijuana and a potential federal crackdown have created uncertainty about what Proposition 64 will look live in five to 10 years, after lawsuits are settled and private cultivation becomes more common.

There are striking differences in the expectations of two state agencies. The Department of Consumer Affairs predicts 6,000 pot shops will eventually open while the Board of Equalization only expects 1,700.

Amid a patchwork landscape of laws and enforcement, California legislators eyed a new bill that would ban getting high behind the wheel.

Joined by Assemblyman Evan Low, D-Campbell, state Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, introduced Senate Bill 65 to address an obvious gray area left untouched by Proposition 64, the marijuana-legalizing initiative passed by voters last November. 

“It’s currently illegal to have an ‘open container’ of weed in a vehicle. It’s also illegal to drive while high. But there’s a technical loophole in these existing laws, because they don’t specify cannabis usage while driving,” the San Jose Mercury News explained. “Nor do they define whether a pipe, joint or edible are considered ‘open containers.’ That’s akin to saying you can’t have an open can of Bud in the car, and you certainly can’t be drunk, but it’s OK to take sips while behind the wheel.”

Questions of overreach

Already, however, critics and analysts have raised pointed questions about how the putative law would be enforced. Instead of merely prohibiting THC use on the road, “Senate Bill 65 would also encompass a ban on CBD consumption while driving, an ingredient in marijuana that does not contain THC (the chemical that gets users high),” as the San Francisco Examiner noted. “CBD is often used by those suffering from chronic pain or cancer to alleviate suffering and anxiety.”

“Another complication of Senate Bill 65 is the potential testing of how high a driver is. If a driver is caught driving erratically after smoking weed, any testing that would take place would not offer as clear results as an alcohol breathalyzer. THC does not show up immediately in the blood stream after consumption, and it can stay in the body’s system for up to a week after smoking, making a quick assessment of one’s recent drug intake complicated. In addition, no threshold has been established on the amount of THC one can have in their system while driving.”

Some Californians have already faced rude awakenings at the borders of California’s laws, some of which haven’t budged. National Park Service rangers, for instance, have continued “to bust people caught with marijuana in Yosemite, Redwood, Death Valley and other federal lands across the state,” the Sacramento Bee reported. “The federal government says it’s not backing off on citing people who are caught with marijuana in California’s national parks, monuments, recreational areas and other federal lands regardless of the landslide vote that legalized recreational marijuana in the state.”

Enforcement pushback

Legislators in Sacramento try to include citizens in lawmaking

Good morning. TGIT. Although legislators won’t really be back until next year, new bills are coming. In fact, two state lawmakers are looking to include constituents in the policy-making process in similar, and yet very different, ways.

While Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia, D-Bell Gardens, is holding a contest for constituents to pitch their best ideas for a “There Ought to be a Law” contest, Sen. John Moorlach, R-Costa Mesa, aims to do the exact opposite. 

Moorlach, partnering with four other Republican senators, is pushing a “There Ought NOT Be A Law” program. Unlike Garcia’s program, the Republican contest is not to write a new law, but to instead simplify and streamline existing state law. 

CalWatchdog has more. 

In other news:

• “Tempting fate — and mobilized outrage from consumers and their Silicon Valley allies — municipalities around California have zeroed in on a new source of revenue: Online film and television streaming services, and the people who use them,” writes CalWatchdog. 

• “Led by members of the California delegation, dozens of House Democrats are again pleading with President Obama to pardon hundreds of thousands of immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally as children to whom he granted temporary deportation deferrals.” The Los Angeles Times has more. 

• “A day after the city emerged from its 53-month bankruptcy, city officials marked the ‘watershed moment’ with a detailed statement on what they’ve done since filing for bankruptcy and their plans for the future.” The San Bernardino County Sun has more. 

• “With recreational cannabis legal in California, state leaders are taking another stab at letting law enforcement test the saliva of people suspected of driving under the influence of marijuana,” reports The San Jose Mercury News/The Orange County Register. 

Legislature:

• Gone till January. 

Gov. Brown:

• No public events scheduled.

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New follower: @CALmatters