Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Over-Regulation Strangles CA’s Retail Marijuana Sector; SCOTUS Ruling on First Step Act
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Over-Regulation Strangles CA’s Retail Marijuana Sector; SCOTUS Ruling on First Step Act
Over-Regulation Strangles CA’s Retail Marijuana Sector
In this episode, Vec discusses the subsidy of California’s legal pot market because of over-regulation.
The California Legislature recently approved a $100-million plan to bolster the state’s legal marijuana industry, which continues to struggle to compete with the large illicit pot market nearly five years after voters approved sales for recreational use.
California’s legal recreational marijuana industry is so heavily taxed and regulated that the black market still dominates. Many cannabis growers, retailers, and manufacturers have struggled to make the transition from a provisional, temporary license to a permanent one renewed on an annual basis—a process that requires a costly, complicated, and time-consuming review of the negative environmental effects involved in a business and a plan for reducing those harms.
SCOTUS Ruling on First Step Act
Later in the episode, Vec talks about Terry v. United States and the Supreme Court’s textualist, unanimous ruling on the First Step Act.
In Terry v. United States, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that people convicted of certain low-level crack cocaine offenses are not eligible for sentencing reductions under the First Step Act, a 2018 law that made some criminal-justice reforms retroactive.
Tarahrick Terry pleaded guilty in 2008 to possession with intent to distribute approximately 4 grams of crack cocaine. He was sentenced to nearly 16 years in prison. In 2010, Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act, which reduced the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine. In 2018, Congress passed the First Step Act, which made certain provisions of the Fair Sentencing Act retroactive and allowed some people convicted under the old regime to seek reduced sentences.
Terry argued that he was entitled under the First Step Act to seek a sentencing reduction. The Court found that since Terry’s initial crack cocaine conviction did not trigger a mandatory minimum, it was not modified by the Fair Sentencing Act.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
View all episodes
By Administrative Static
5
1313 ratings
Over-Regulation Strangles CA’s Retail Marijuana Sector
In this episode, Vec discusses the subsidy of California’s legal pot market because of over-regulation.
The California Legislature recently approved a $100-million plan to bolster the state’s legal marijuana industry, which continues to struggle to compete with the large illicit pot market nearly five years after voters approved sales for recreational use.
California’s legal recreational marijuana industry is so heavily taxed and regulated that the black market still dominates. Many cannabis growers, retailers, and manufacturers have struggled to make the transition from a provisional, temporary license to a permanent one renewed on an annual basis—a process that requires a costly, complicated, and time-consuming review of the negative environmental effects involved in a business and a plan for reducing those harms.
SCOTUS Ruling on First Step Act
Later in the episode, Vec talks about Terry v. United States and the Supreme Court’s textualist, unanimous ruling on the First Step Act.
In Terry v. United States, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that people convicted of certain low-level crack cocaine offenses are not eligible for sentencing reductions under the First Step Act, a 2018 law that made some criminal-justice reforms retroactive.
Tarahrick Terry pleaded guilty in 2008 to possession with intent to distribute approximately 4 grams of crack cocaine. He was sentenced to nearly 16 years in prison. In 2010, Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act, which reduced the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine. In 2018, Congress passed the First Step Act, which made certain provisions of the Fair Sentencing Act retroactive and allowed some people convicted under the old regime to seek reduced sentences.
Terry argued that he was entitled under the First Step Act to seek a sentencing reduction. The Court found that since Terry’s initial crack cocaine conviction did not trigger a mandatory minimum, it was not modified by the Fair Sentencing Act.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.