When Proposition 64 passed in 2016, legalizing the possession, cultivation and use of recreational cannabis for Californians 21 and older, many celebrated what they thought would mean massive tax revenue, decriminalization, easy access to safe, lab-tested cannabis products, and the beginning of the end for the illegal market, the law enforcement of which disproportionately targets African-Americans and Latinos. But six years later, despite certain gains, the uniquely high taxes that the proposition placed on legal cannabis dispensary purchases have made products prohibitively expensive for those most in need, and the illegal market is still thriving as a result.

According to the Calif. Department of Tax and Fee Administration, $100 of legal cannabis purchased in the city of Los Angeles before tax becomes $115 after the 15% excise tax, $126.50 with a local cannabis business tax of 10%, and $138.52 after a 9.5% sales tax. A tax analysis of this data by Leafly determined that depending on where one lives in the state, total taxes vary from 23% to 38%. 

To put this in perspective, an article for The Mercury News reveals that the heaviest of those taxes, the 15% state excise tax, is on average only 0.25% for wine, and 1.5% for beer. 

Jonah Raskin, former chair of the communications and media studies department at SSU, and author of the book “Marijuanaland,” described the flaws of this current paradigm, and stated, “The tax on cannabis has perpetuated the black market. It has threatened the health and well being of people who want and need cannabis to deal with medical issues.” 

Proposition 64 stipulates that this revenue be used to fund services intended to offset the supposed consequences of legalization, including drug addiction treatment centers, youth groups, child care, police departments, and environmental cleanup. But while these are worthy services, most are unrelated to cannabis, and it’s unclear why revenue generated from cannabis alone has to contribute so much more to these services than tax revenue from other products. 

Raskin believes this revenue could be better spent elsewhere. “The taxes on cannabis should go to programs that educate the public about all aspects of cannabis; history, medicine, myths, laws. I don’t think the government has ever had a program to educate the public about cannabis,” he stated

The high tax rates are especially discriminatory towards students 21 and older, who are already struggling financially. And while they can purchase and consume alcohol on the SSU campus, they’re prohibited from even possessing, much less consuming cannabis products for medical or recreational purposes on school grounds, under the Federal Drug-Free Schools Act and University Policy. Now, even if they were allowed to safely consume the products they need and want at school, they’re too expensive for many. 

Raskin experienced these dangerous policies first hand. “When I was teaching at SSU, students who had [medical] recommendations for cannabis had to go off campus to use it. That’s nuts,” he stated. 

For Ana Fingerson, a fourth year communications and media studies major, the inability to access and consume cannabis, due to these high taxes and illogical policies, could’ve been detrimental to her health. “I’ve known a few people in the past, including myself, that have used marijuana to treat anxiety. When I was coming off of antidepressants I felt like I was fighting for my life, and even the smallest amount of cannabis I used daily helped me get through work and school and just be a normal functioning human,” she stated. 

Raskin acknowledged the double standard that exists on SSU’s campus, stating, “Everyone on campus knows that residence halls are named after grapes and wine. This ‘normalizes’ use of wine. The residence halls are not named ‘indica’ and ‘sativa,’ for example, because that would be viewed as encouraging ‘drug use.’

Although these issues are localized, they’re the product of the larger problem of misinformation and dogma surrounding cannabis. One can only vote, and hope that common sense tax rates and institutional policies will be implemented sooner rather than later.