# 2016 California Proposition 64

Elections in California :
Federal governmentU.S. President
1852
1856
1860
1864
1868
1872
1876
1880
1884
1888
1892
1896
1900
1904
1908
1912
1916
1920
1924
1928
1932
1936
1940
1944
1948
1952
1956
1960
1964
1968
1972
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
Dem
Rep
2000
Dem
Rep
2004
Dem
Rep
2008
Dem
Rep
2012
Dem
Rep
2016
Dem
Rep
2020
Dem
Rep
2024
Dem
Rep
U.S. Senate
1849
1850
1852 sp
1856
1857 sp
1860
1860 sp
1868
1872
1873
1873 sp
1878
1880
1885
1886 sp
1887
1891
1891 sp
1893
1895 sp
1897
1900 sp
1903
1905
1909
1911
1914
1916
1920
1922
1926
1928
1932
1934
1938
1940
1944
1946
1946 sp
1950
1952
1954 sp
1956
1958
1962
1964
1968
1970
1974
1976
1980
1982
1986
1988
1992
1992 sp
1994
1998
2000
2004
2006
2010
2012
2016
2018
2022
2022 sp
2024
2024 sp
2028
2030
U.S. House of Representatives
1849
1851
1852
1854
1856
1859
1861
1863
1864
1867
1868
1871
1872
1875
1876
1879
1880
1882
1884
1886
1888
1890
1892
1894
1896
1898
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
12th
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1987
5th sp
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2001
32nd sp
2002
2004
2005
5th sp
48th sp
2006
50th sp
2007
36th sp
2008
12th sp
2009
10th sp
32nd sp
2010
2011
36th sp
2012
2014
2016
2017
34th sp
2018
2020
25th sp
2022
22nd sp
2024
16th
20th sp
30th
45th
47th
2026 :
State governmentExecutive Governor
1849
1851
1853
1855
1857
1859
1861
1863
1867
1871
1875
1879
1882
1886
1890
1894
1898
1902
1906
1910
1914
1918
1922
1926
1930
1934
1938
1942
1946
1950
1954
1958
1962
1966
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2003 (recall)
2006
2010
2014
2018
2021 (recall)
2022
2026
Lieutenant governor
1950
1954
1958
1962
1966
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2026
Attorney general
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2026
Secretary of state
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Treasurer
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2026
Controller
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Insurance commissioner
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Superintendent
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Board of equalization
2018
2022
Legislature Senate
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Special
Assembly
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2021 (79th sp)
2022 (17th sp)
2024
Special
Judiciary Court of appeals
1994
1998
2002
2006
Elections by year
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2005
2006
2008
Feb
Jun
Nov
2009
2010
Jun
Nov
2012
Jun
Nov
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024 :
State propositions1910–1919
1911
4
7
8
1960–1969
1964
14
1970–1979
1978
6
8
13
1980–1989
1982
8
1986
64
65
1988
98
99
1990–1999
1994
187
1996
196
209
215
218
1998
6
10
227
2000–2009
2000
21
22
36
39
2003
53
54
2004
1A
55
56
57
58
59
60
60A
61
62
63
64
65
66
69
71
2005
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
2006
81
82
83
85
87
89
90
2008
91
92
93
94, 95, 96, and 97
98 and 99
1A
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
2009
1A
1B
1C
1D
1E
1F
2010–2019
2010
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2012
29
30
32
34
37
38
39
2014
1
2
41
42
45
46
47
48
2016
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
2018
68
69
70
71
72
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
2020–2029
2020
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2022
1
26
27
28
29
30
31
2024
1
2
3
4
5
6
32
33
34
35
36
Full list :
Los Angeles CountyLos Angeles County Board of supervisors
1980
1996
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Ballot measures
1980
A
2008
R
2012
B
J
2016
M
Elections
2020
2022
2024
Los Angeles Mayor
1896
1898
1900
1902
1904
1906
1909 (sp)
1909
1911
1913
1915
1917
1919
1921
1923
1925
1929
1933
1937
1938
1941
1945
1949
1953
1957
1961
1965
1969
1973
1977
1981
1985
1989
1993
1997
2001
2005
2009
2013
2017
2022
2026
City attorney
2009
Ballot measures
1986
U
2017
S
Elections
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019 (sp)
2020
2022
2023 (sp)
2024
Long Beach Mayor
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022 :
Orange CountyOrange County Board of supervisors
2018
2020
2022
2024
District attorney
2018
Anaheim Mayor
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Irvine Mayor
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Costa Mesa Municipal
1947
1953
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024 :
SacramentoMayor
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024 :
San Diego CountySan Diego County Board of supervisors
2020
San Diego Mayor
1887
1889
1891
1893
1895
1897
1899
1901
1903
1905
1907
1909
1911
1913
1915
1917
1919
1921
1923
1925
1927
1929
1931
1932
1935
1939
1943
1947
1951
1955
1959
1963
1967
1971
1975
1979
1983 (sp)
1984
1986 (sp)
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
2005 (sp)
2008
2012
2013–14 (sp)
2016
2020
2024
2028
City attorney
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
City council
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Special :
San FranciscoMayor
1901
1903
1905
1907
1909
1911
1931
1935
1939
1943
1947
1951
1955
1959
1963
1967
1971
1975
1979
1983 (recall)
1983
1987
1991
1995
1999
2003
2007
2011
2015
2018 (sp)
2019
2024
District attorney
2019
2022 (recall)
2022 (sp)
2024
Board of supervisors
1977
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Board of education
2018
2022 (recall)
Ballot measures
2024
G
Elections
2004
Mar
Nov
2005
2006
Jun
Nov
2007
2008
Feb
Jun
Nov
2009
2010
Jun
Nov
2011
2012
Jun
Nov
2013
2022
Feb :
San JoseMayor
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2024 :
Other localities
Bakersfield
Mayoral elections:
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024
Fresno
Mayoral elections:
1996
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024
Oakland
Mayoral elections:
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2024
2025
Riverside
Mayoral elections:
1997
2001
2005
2009
2012
2016
2020
2024
San Bernardino
Mayoral elections:
2005
2009
2014
2018
2022
Stockton
Mayoral elections:
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024 :
vte :
The Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) (Proposition 64) was a 2016 voter initiative to legalize cannabis in California. The full name is the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act. The initiative passed with 57% voter approval and became law on November 9, 2016, leading to recreational cannabis sales in California by January 2018.

## History

Possession or sale of cannabis in the United States is prohibited by federal law. In 1970, President Richard Nixon signed the Controlled Substances Act, establishing marijuana as a Schedule I drug, the strictest level of prohibition. Voters then rejected California Proposition 19 (1972), which sought to remove the criminalization of marijuana under California law. In 1976, Governor Jerry Brown signed the Moscone Act, which reduced the penalty for possession of marijuana from a felony to a misdemeanor.
Voters passed California Proposition 215 (1996), making California the first state to legalize medical cannabis in the United States. In United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative (2001), the Supreme Court of the United States found that California's medical prescription providers were still subject to criminal prosecution. In Gonzales v. Raich (2005), the U.S. Supreme Court found that Congress's interstate commerce clause power allowed it to prohibit an Oroville, California, woman, who was following California law, from growing and consuming marijuana entirely inside her home.
In September 2010, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation reducing possession of marijuana from a criminal misdemeanor to a civil infraction. In November voters rejected California Proposition 19 (2010), which would have legalized recreational marijuana use, imposed no state taxes, and allowed employers to fire an employee for workplace use of marijuana only after showing it had caused impaired work.
In 2012, voters passed Washington Initiative 502 and Colorado Amendment 64, which legalized recreational marijuana use in those states. Two other states followed later in 2014, when voters passed Oregon Ballot Measure 91 (2014) and Alaska Measure 2 (2014). In July 2015, Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Stanford University faculty released the final report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Marijuana Policy, which recommended regulations for recreational marijuana use in California.
On November 4, 2014, California Proposition 47 was passed. Also known as the Safe Neighborhood and Schools Act, Proposition 47 made the punishment for the possession of controlled substances in the state of California drop down from a felony to misdemeanor. This law's reclassification of possession related felonies as misdemeanors made it possible for those priorly convicted to petition their felony charges which for some means shorter sentences and others less restrictive charges on their record.
On May 4, 2016, the group sponsoring the initiative announced that it had collected over 600,000 signatures for the proposal; enough to get it on the 2016 ballot. On June 28, the measure was certified by the Secretary of State for the November ballot. On July 1, the Secretary of State released a list of propositions with AUMA listed as Proposition 64, then later in the day renumbered it to 63; and, on July 2, released a final list restoring it to Proposition 64.

## Content

According to California Legislative Analyst's Office, the measure changes California law to legalize the possession, cultivation, and sale of marijuana. Individuals over age 21 are allowed to possess, cultivate, and sell marijuana; the state regulates commercial activities related to commerce for recreational use; a 15% excise tax and an additional $9.25 per ounce of flower or $2.75 per ounce of leaf will be collected; and possession and cultivation of certain amounts for personal use is legalized statewide.
The Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) (Proposition 64) provides an array of opportunities ranging from economic stimulation of several markets and industries to financial relief of the criminal justice system, which are over-burdened with backlogged and pending cases for non-violent cannabis offenders. Revenue paid into the new California Marijuana Tax Fund will allocate 60% of outflows to youth programs, 20% to environmental damage clean-up, and 20% to public safety.
Under Prop 64, new state regulation laws will require stringent product development systems to establish distributional industry standards regarding testing, packaging, and labeling.
Prop 64's new state regulations provide a platform for a fully transparent, highly efficient seed-to-sale tracking system through the newly created State Regulatory Agency—the Bureau of Marijuana Control—formerly known as the Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation.
Additionally, the Medical Marijuana Industry will be regulated by several other state agencies: the California Department of Food and Agriculture (to license and regulate marijuana cultivation); the California Department of Public Health (to license and monitor manufacturing of marijuana edibles); the California State Water Resources Control Board (to "regulate the environmental impacts of marijuana growing on water quality"); the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (to regulate cultivation-related impacts on local environments); and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (to regulate nutrients and pesticides utilized for marijuana cultivation).
AUMA allows adults to possess up to an ounce of marijuana. Adults are also allowed to cultivate up to six marijuana plants inside their homes. Marijuana packaging is now required to provide the net weight, origin, age, and type of the product, as well as the milligram amount per serving of tetrahydrocannabinol, cannabidiol, and other cannabinoids, and if any pesticides were used during cultivation.
Smoking marijuana in public is subject to a $100 fine. Driving under the influence of marijuana remains illegal, although some California Highway Patrol officers are concerned that they will be unable to identify intoxicated drivers. The penalty for unlicensed sale of marijuana is now reduced from four years in state prison to six months in county jail.
Businesses selling marijuana require a license from the state-level Bureau of Marijuana Control, and local governments decide permits for businesses to allow on-site consumption. Marijuana shops are prohibited from the sale or consumption of alcohol or tobacco. Local governments are allowed to completely ban marijuana-related businesses.

## Reactions and analysis

State financial analysts estimated Proposition 64 could increase tax revenue by hundreds of millions to one billion dollars. Independent analysts estimated the measure would reduce state and local government expenditures by tens of millions of dollars.
NORML endorsed the initiative as of March 2016, saying "as well as one of the world's largest economies, California is arguably the most important state to consider marijuana legalization this year." California has the biggest legal cannabis market in the United States due to high population density and high cultivation rates. California NORML called the proposition's vote "crucial" and said, "Although Prop 64 has drawbacks and isn’t all it should be from a consumer perspective, on balance it offers significant improvements over California’s current laws and would be a powerful boost for cannabis reform nationwide."
Ballotpedia called the measure "a clear leader and the most likely to reach the ballot in November 2016".
The Los Angeles Times stated in February, 2016 that the measure was one of 20 legalization initiatives for the 2016 ballot and was the "clear favorite to make the November ballot" due to support from individual donors and well-funded advocacy groups. Billionaire Sean Parker donated $1 million to the effort to get the measure on the ballot, and Weedmaps donated $500,000.
Newsweek stated the success of the initiative would be influential given California's national importance as a "regulatory laboratory", and Reason magazine stated it was poised to approximately triple the number of U.S. residents living in states with legalization. Deseret News (Salt Lake City) expressed concern over a "potential problem when it comes to minorities and recreational marijuana" if the measure passed. Deseret News cited an NPR report from Colorado to conclude that in California, white youth arrests could fall faster than those of minorities, or minority arrests could even increase due to lack of minority access to legal sales and nonwhite ownership of cannabis businesses, worsening the effect of "systemic racism" in pursuing drug crime.
   The emerging legal marijuana industry is overwhelmingly white-owned and white-dominated and provides good access to white customers," he says. "So one possibility is that that leaves the illegal market disproportionately composed of people of color, both the buyers and the sellers.
California Proposition 64 helps to remedy marijuana related incarceration rates considerably. However, some argue that the passing of the MORE Act is a necessary next step down the path of decriminalization of the substance, as it would remove cannabis from the controlled substances list and declassify marijuana as a schedule 1 drug.
The MORE Act could potentially help to remedy some of the racial disparities within America's criminal justice system that proposition 64 does not address. According to Forbes roughly 40000 remain behind bars due to cannabis related charges as of 2020. With the racial gap widening over the past 20 years after the War On Drugs campaign took off, a jump from 3:1 to 5:1 between Black and White incarceration rates occurred. In 2014, black people made up roughly 14% of the 127,000 drug charges in California.
While Proposition 64 decriminalizes the possession of up to 1 ounce of marijuana, the effects are not immediately felt by those with charges made prior to the passing of this law. Those with prior convictions must still petition for shorter sentences, release, or a change from felony to misdemeanor on their records.
The MORE Act calls for a more transparent system in regards to cannabis companies employer/employee demographics which might help to mitigate issues of monopolization within California's cannabis industry that arouse after proposition 64 was passed in 2016.

### Supporters

The California Medical Association endorsed the measure in February 2016. United States Representative Dana Rohrabacher, a Republican, endorsed AUMA in late April 2016. Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders indicated his support for AUMA while campaigning in California in May 2016. The California Democratic Party endorsed AUMA in June 2016. On July 21, 2016, The Sacramento Bee reported that Gov. Gary Johnson, Libertarian candidate for President, endorsed California's initiative to legalize marijuana. Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi endorsed it a few days before the election, becoming "one of the highest ranking politicians ... openly supporting legalization".
Proponents spent $24.7 million fighting for the measure, with the top contribution being $8.8 million from Sean Parker and affiliates. The measure was supported by the editorial boards of the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle.

### Opponents

A number of organizations like the California Association of Highway Patrolmen, the California Hospitals Association, and the Automobile Club of Southern California expressed opposition to the initiative. The California Teamsters Union switched their position to neutral after contributing a relatively large amount to the opposition campaign. According to Capital Public Radio, a Sacramento Superior Court judge ordered the ballot's official arguments to be rewritten, after U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein's claim that Proposition 64 would allow marijuana advertising on primetime television was debunked as "mostly false" by PolitiFact.com.
Opponents spent $1.6 million fighting the measure. The measure was opposed by the editorial board of The Sacramento Bee.

### Public opinion

Public opinion on the legalization of recreational marijuana in California :
| Poll source | Date(s) administered | Sample size | Margin of error | % support | % opposition | % Undecided/Don't Know |
| Insights West | November 4–6, 2016 | 401 LV | ± 4.9% | 55% | 39% | 5% |
| SurveyUSA | October 28–31, 2016 | 747 LV and EV | ± 3.6% | 54% | 39% | 6% |
| Field/YouGov | October 25–31, 2016 | 998 LV | N/A | 57% | 40% | 3% |
| Public Policy Institute of California | October 14–23, 2016 | 1024 LV | ± 4.3% | 55% | 38% | 6% |
| SurveyUSA | October 13–15, 2016 | 725 LV and EV | ± 3.6% | 51% | 40% | 8% |
| CalSpeaks Sacramento State | October 7–13, 2016 | 622 LV | ± 7% | 60% | 30% | 10% |
| Hoover Institution/YouGov | October 4–14, 2016 | 1247 LV | ± 3.28% | 56% | 34% | 10% |
| SurveyUSA | September 27–28, 2016 | 751 LV | ± 3.6% | 52% | 41% | 6% |
| Insights West | September 12–14, 2016 | 515 LV | ± 4.3% | 64% | 30% | 6% |
| Public Policy Institute of California | September 9–18, 2016 | 1055 LV | ± 4.5% | 60% | 36% | 4% |
| SurveyUSA | September 8–11, 2016 | 712 LV | ± 3.7% | 52% | 40% | 8% |
| Field/YouGov | September 7–13, 2016 | 942 LV | N/A | 60% | 31% | 9% |
| Smith Johnson Research | August 17–19, 2016 | 500 LV | ± 4.4% | 56% | 40% | 5% |
| Probolsky Research | August 5–8, 2016 | 1020 LV | ± 3.1% | 61.8% | 34.9% | 3.3% |
| Institute of Governmental Studies | June 29–July 18, 2016 | 3020 RV | N/A | 63.8% | 36.2% | 0% |
| Public Policy Institute of California | May 13–22, 2016 | 996 LV | ± 4.3% | 60% | 37% | 3% |
| Public Policy Institute of California | May 13–22, 2016 | 1704 AV | ± 3.3% | 55% | 43% | 3% |
| Probolsky Research | February 11–14, 2016 | 1000 LV | ± 3.1% | 59.9% | 36.7% | 3.4% |
| Public Policy Institute of California | May 17–27, 2015 | 1048 LV | ± 4.6% | 56% | 41% | 3% |
| Public Policy Institute of California | May 17–27, 2015 | 1706 AV | ± 3.6% | 54% | 44% | 2% |

## Removal of past cannabis infractions

On January 31, 2018, San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón announced his department would begin to retroactively apply Proposition 64 to misdemeanor and felony marijuana convictions dating back to 1975, recalling and re-sentencing up to 4,940 felony marijuana convictions and dismissing and sealing 3,038 misdemeanors. Los Angeles and San Joaquin counties announced in April plans to automatically clear about 54,000 marijuana-related convictions. The national non-profit Code for America developed the technology and process to automate the dismissing and sealing of these records, which they first piloted with the San Francisco District Attorney's office, and subsequently extended to Los Angeles, San Joaquin, and Sacramento counties. In 2019, Code for America released an open source playbook and software that made every California county able to dismiss and seal records eligible for expungement under Prop 64 automatically, in bulk.