A glaring omission in the language of Prop 64, California\u2019s 2016 cannabis legalization initiative, was any provision whatsoever for the state\u2019s indigenous inhabitants. The Golden State\u2019s native nations are sovereign entities under federal law, and this unique status leaves them with no legally defined role in the adult-use market.<\/p>\n
Now, the\u00a0Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel<\/a>\u00a0in the rural northeast of San Diego County has\u00a0opened a dispensary<\/a>\u00a0in the former site of a casino that closed in 2014. The\u00a0Mountain Source Dispensary<\/a>\u00a0offers both bud and edibles, with an adjacent cultivation site operating as the\u00a0Santa Ysabel Botanical Facility<\/a>. The complex employs some 100 workers, and a Santa Ysabel Tribal Cannabis Regulatory Agency has been established to oversee the new local industry.<\/p>\n The problem is that none of this has any legal recognition by the state of California. The state won\u2019t interfere with on-reservation sales, but there is no space under California law for Mountain Source to move its product beyond the borders of Santa Ysabel. The tribe and its supporters say this has to change.<\/p>\n This lack of inclusion on the state\u2019s part also contrasts sharply with its planned implementation of an\u00a0equity program<\/a>, passed in 2018, that allots $10 million in funds for the purpose of repairing some of the damage caused by the War on Drugs. It\u2019s effectively impossible to argue that America\u2019s indigenous peoples don\u2019t deserve more than what they\u2019ve been given on a state and federal level, which makes this denial by the\u00a0California Bureau of Cannabis Control<\/a>\u00a0all the more insulting.\u00a0<\/p>\n Sacramento\u2019s cannabis bureaucracy acknowledges that as sovereign nations, tribes can do whatever they want with cannabis on their reservations. \u201cBut they cannot operate in the licensed California market,\u201d Alex Traverso, a representative of the California Bureau of Cannabis Control, told the San Diego Union-Tribune<\/a>. That means no off-reservation sales, shipments or locations.<\/p>\n David Vialpando, head of Santa Ysabel\u2019s Tribal Cannabis Regulatory Agency, said that this matter needs to be resolved. \u201cAs predicted, there will be additional dispensaries opening up on\u00a0tribal lands<\/a>\u00a0throughout California,\u201d he told the Union-Tribune.\u00a0<\/p>\n Vialpando said that for the past two years, 23 of California\u2019s 109 federally recognized Native American nations have been working on legislation in Sacramento that would allow tribes to enter the state\u2019s general cannabis market. They\u2019ve met with lawmakers and hired lobbyists to press their case\u2014including former lieutenant governor Cruz Bustamante.\u00a0<\/p>\n Vialpando also serves as executive director of the California Native American Cannabis Association (C-NACA<\/a>), which includes five of San Diego County\u2019s 18 federally recognized tribes: the\u00a0Campo<\/a>,\u00a0Los Coyotes<\/a>,\u00a0Sycuan<\/a>\u00a0and Manzanita as well as the Iipay of Santa Ysabel. (All these are members of the\u00a0Kumeyaay<\/a>\u00a0indigenous people of Southern California.)\u00a0<\/p>\n But the Iipay Nation\u2019s attempts to get their facility licensed by state authorities have been rebuffed. As reporter Brooke Staggs explains in the\u00a0Orange County Register<\/a>: \u201cCalifornia law requires local jurisdictions to approve cannabis businesses before the state will issue its approval, and cities and counties near tribal lands insist \u2014 correctly \u2014 that they have no authority over tribal land. To date, none of the three agencies that license cannabis businesses in California have issued permits for projects in Indian Country, though they said they\u2019re reviewing applications.\u201d<\/p>\n Those\u00a0three agencies<\/a>\u00a0are the Department of Consumer Affairs\u2019 Bureau of Cannabis Control, the Department of Public Health\u2019s\u00a0Manufactured Cannabis Safety Branch<\/a>, and the Department of Food and Agriculture\u2019s\u00a0CalCannabis Cultivation Licensing Division<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s a long pattern in this state,\u201d Vialpando told Staggs. \u201cThere\u2019s a history of marginalizing tribes. There\u2019s a history of not wanting to engage with tribes.\u201d<\/p>\n That failure to engage was unfortunately also seen in Prop 64\u2019s enabling legislation, the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulatory Safety Act (MAUCRSA), which took effect at the start of 2018 \u2014 again, with no provision for Native Americans. <\/p>\n The new rules\u00a0promulgated<\/a>\u00a0by those three relevant state agencies in November 2017 in preparation for the adult-use market taking effect did attempt to close this gap in the law. But the way the\u00a0Bureau of Cannabis Control regulations<\/a>\u00a0tried to address the issue was to demand that tribes applying for a license submit to a \u201cLimited Waiver of Sovereign Immunity.\u201d<\/p>\n Ariel Clark, a partner in the Los Angeles-based\u00a0Clark Neubert<\/a>\u00a0law firm, specializing in the cannabis industry, was contacted by Cannabis Now for perspective on this attempted compromise measure. It is something of a personal issue for her, as the Michigan-born Clark is part Native American \u2014 her father was a member of the\u00a0Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa \u00a0& Chippewa<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThe state of California does not have jurisdiction over businesses on tribal land,\u201d Clark says.\u00a0\u201cProposition 64 completely left out tribal land. The new Bureau of Cannabis Control regulations demand that tribes waive tribal authority to participate in the legal market. For the 109 federally recognized tribes in California, casinos and other avenues for economic development are few and far between. About 80 percent of California\u2019s Native Americans are at or below the poverty level, and a lot of tribes are in rural areas that could really benefit from cannabis. But waiving their sovereignty is a non-starter for them, because that is their nation identity.\u201d<\/p>\n In addition to the proposed state legislation, Clark says native nations are exploring options for \u201cinter-tribal commerce\u201d in cannabis, to get around current state law.<\/p>\n To an extent, this is a replay of the controversy over gambling on tribal lands, which took off in the 1980s. It was a California tribe, the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians in Riverside County, that launched a critical test case concerning tribal sovereignty in this regard. The 1987 US\u00a0Supreme Court\u00a0ruling<\/a>\u00a0in\u00a0California vs. Cabazon Band<\/a><\/em>\u00a0held that states had no authority to regulate gaming on reservations unless specifically granted that authority by Congress. The ruling led to the following year\u2019s passage of the\u00a0Indian Gaming Regulatory Act<\/a>, providing a mechanism for states to enter into \u201ccompacts\u201d with tribes to oversee reservation casinos. Reservation gaming is now a $7 billion industry in California.<\/p>\n As the casino economy\u00a0began to falter<\/a>\u00a0in the Great Recession, many tribes started looking to cannabis. In 2014, the US\u00a0Justice Department issued the\u00a0Wilkinson Memo<\/a>, instructing federal prosecutors not to interfere with cannabis sales or cultivation on tribal lands. Several California tribes subsequently legalized medical marijuana on their reservations. But\u00a0high hopes were tempered<\/a>\u00a0by state interference: In summer 2015, federal agents\u00a0raided cannabis operations<\/a>\u00a0run by the\u00a0Pit River<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Alturas<\/a>\u00a0tribes in Modoc County, seizing more than 10,000 plants. That fall, Mendocino County deputies\u00a0raided a cannabis grow<\/a>\u00a0run by the\u00a0Pinoleville Pomo Nation<\/a>.<\/p>\n The first attempt to remedy the situation in Sacramento was\u00a0Assembly Bill 924<\/a>, which died in committee last year, on its third try at passage. Its sponsor, Assemblyman Rob Bonta (D-Oakland), told the\u00a0Orange County Register<\/a>, \u201cWe should have solved this by now. Our tribes absolutely deserve a right to participate in the same legal cannabis market as other stakeholders.\u201d<\/p>\n In the case of the Iipay Nation, the situation is further complicated by a 2017 San Diego County ordinance that bans cannabis cultivation in the unincorporated parts of the county. San Diego Board of Supervisors chair Dianne Jacob has equivocated on whether this applies to reservations. \u00a0\u201cI\u2019m really concerned mainly because the County of San Diego has a ban on dispensaries,\u201d she said Union-Tribune<\/a>. \u201cOur preliminary review of this is that they do need a license. We\u2019re going to find out from our counsel and pursue it from there.\u201d<\/p>\n A big help in straightening all this out would be some clarity from the federal government, as was ultimately provided on the casino question. Reached for comment by Cannabis Now, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI<\/a>) pointed hopefully to the Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States Act (STATES Act<\/a>).\u00a0Introduced<\/a>\u00a0last year, this would bar federal cannabis enforcement in states that have legalized \u2014 and on the lands of Native American nations that have done so. It was recently re-introduced by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Cory Gardner (R-CO).<\/p>\n \u201cThe NCAI strongly advocates for the recognition of tribal sovereignty and inclusion of tribal governments in national legislation,\u201d said the organization\u2019s president, Jefferson Keel. \u201cWe appreciate the re-introduction of the STATES Act, which would bring certainty in federal law for tribal nations as separate jurisdictions. Tribal nations, as sovereign governments, and in the spirit of self-determination, must be able to make independent decisions about their own economic, cultural, and social futures at the local, tribal level.\u201d<\/p>\n An effort specifically crafted to address the Native American question is the\u00a0Tribal Marijuana Sovereignty Act<\/a>,\u00a0introduced<\/a>\u00a0this year by Rep. Don Young, an Arkansas Republican.\u00a0Returning to the state level, Clark is encouraged that the C-NACA \u201chas reached out to the politicians and is trying to have that conversation.\u201d But despite California\u2019s\u00a0overtures towards equity, awareness of the indigenous dimension is only just taking hold. \u201cTribes are not considered in the discussion of social equity and justice,\u201d she says.<\/p>\n TELL US<\/strong>, where else do you see the promise of equity in cannabis falling short?<\/p>\n The post Amid Equity Rhetoric, California Blocks Tribal Participation in Cannabis Industry<\/a> appeared first on Cannabis Now<\/a>.<\/p>\n
A glaring omission in the language of Prop 64, California\u2019s 2016 cannabis legalization initiative, was any provision whatsoever for the state\u2019s indigenous inhabitants. The Golden State\u2019s native nations are sovereign entities under federal law, and this unique status leaves them with no legally defined role in the adult-use market. Now,Continue Reading<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":190,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"false","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[148,3416,9606,50,9607,90,687,9608,97],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34297"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/190"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=34297"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34297\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":34298,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34297\/revisions\/34298"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=34297"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=34297"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=34297"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Left Behind By the Law<\/h4>\n
Cannabis Versus Tribal Sovereignty?<\/h4>\n
A Federal Solution?<\/h4>\n
\n
\nRead More: Amid Equity Rhetoric, California Blocks Tribal Participation in Cannabis Industry<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"