Speaker 1: M Hi. I'm Ethan Natalman, and this is Psychoactive, a
Speaker 1: production of my Heart Radio and Protozoa Pictures. Psychoactive is
Speaker 1: the show where we talk about all things drugs. But
Speaker 1: any views expressed here do not represent those of my
Speaker 1: Heart Media, Protozoa Pictures, or their executives and employees. Indeed, heed,
Speaker 1: as an inveterate contrarian, I can tell you they may
Speaker 1: not even represent my own and nothing contained in this
Speaker 1: show should be used as medical advice or encouragement to
Speaker 1: use any type of drouth. Hello Psychoactive listeners. So today
Speaker 1: we're gonna do a deep dive into the issues of
Speaker 1: legally regulating marijuana in California and specifically in Los Angeles,
Speaker 1: and all of the challenges that are involved in that.
Speaker 1: I mean from dealing with state laws and regulators to
Speaker 1: federal stuff, to coalitions, to all the really challenging issues
Speaker 1: around equity and trying to diversify participation in the industry.
Speaker 1: My guest today is Kat Packer, and I just get
Speaker 1: a kick out of this because I first met Cat
Speaker 1: back in sixteen when she came to work for ME
Speaker 1: and Drug Policy Alliance working on the campaign Measure sixty
Speaker 1: four in California to legalize marijuana, which we ultimately won
Speaker 1: and then lo and Behold. A few months later, she
Speaker 1: gets appointed by I think the Mayor and City Council
Speaker 1: of Los Angeles to become the first head of Los
Speaker 1: Angeles Department of Marijuana Regulation. So, Cat, I love it
Speaker 1: that you're in this position, and you've now been for
Speaker 1: many years. But thanks so much for joining me on Psychoactive. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: thank you, Ethan. It's glad to be here with you today. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so listen, I know it's been a hell of a
Speaker 1: ride running this office here. But why don't we first
Speaker 1: get into how you got into this marijuana issue, how
Speaker 1: you landed up in this position, your journey and some
Speaker 1: understanding as it goes back to living in Ohio, going
Speaker 1: to get a law degree in a master's degree in
Speaker 1: public policy at Ohio State University. But just tell us
Speaker 1: that journey of yours. In two thousand and fifty and
Speaker 1: I was in my last year of law school at
Speaker 1: Ohio State and I was taking a marijuana law and
Speaker 1: policy course that's taught by Doug Berman. And it was
Speaker 1: really through this marijuana law and policy course that I
Speaker 1: took and some other classes that I was taking, taking
Speaker 1: Advanced Social Justice, I was taking the race and policy courses,
Speaker 1: and all at the same time, while I'm learning about
Speaker 1: the history of cannabis policy reform in the US and
Speaker 1: some of the cannabis reforms that had started to take
Speaker 1: place around the country. After I graduated from Ohio State
Speaker 1: in twenty fifteen, I went to try and explore how
Speaker 1: I could get involved in cannabis policy reform. And my
Speaker 1: first entry into this space was working for the Responsible
Speaker 1: Ohio campaign right out of law school in Ohio. And
Speaker 1: for that campaign, I served as their assistant director of
Speaker 1: internal Communications, but I did a little bit of everything
Speaker 1: for the campaign. But what that experience taught me was
Speaker 1: one how quickly these conversations were going to be happening
Speaker 1: without all of the appropriate stakeholders at the table, and
Speaker 1: really how money it was going to move this conversation.
Speaker 1: That's what I saw in my experience with that campaign.
Speaker 1: But my passion for cannabis policy reform was really ignited
Speaker 1: by Michelle Alexander's The New Gym Crow, which I had
Speaker 1: an opportunity to read while I was in law school
Speaker 1: and taking the Marijuana Law and Paulice the course and
Speaker 1: in the New Gym Crow, there was a quote that
Speaker 1: really struck me and stuck with me as I pursued
Speaker 1: my interest in cannabis policy reform. The quote is nothing
Speaker 1: has contributed more to the systematic mass incarceration of people
Speaker 1: of color in the United States then the War on drugs,
Speaker 1: and that was such a profound statement to me at
Speaker 1: the time. And while I was taking this Marijuana lawan
Speaker 1: Policy course, I had an opportunity to explore some of
Speaker 1: a c l use work as well, and eventually learned
Speaker 1: that marijuana arrests accounted for half of all drug arrests
Speaker 1: in the United States, and that most marijuana arrests were
Speaker 1: for possession and black and brown folks were disproportionately likely
Speaker 1: to be arrested for marijuana. And the culmination of, you know,
Speaker 1: learning all of this information, particularly while taking this marijuana
Speaker 1: long policy course, led me to write a capstone paper
Speaker 1: for the Marijuana Law in Policy course titled Marijuana Policy
Speaker 1: UH is Race Policy. After law school, after working on
Speaker 1: the Responsible Ohio campaign, as they began to look around
Speaker 1: the country for opportunities to continue to participate UH in
Speaker 1: cannabis policy reform, I learned of a one day strategy
Speaker 1: session that the Drug Policy Alliance was hosting in New
Speaker 1: York ahead of the United Nations gathering to talk about
Speaker 1: drug policy. And the title of this one day strategy
Speaker 1: session was very similar to the title of the Capstone
Speaker 1: paper that I wrote for this Marijuana long Policy of course,
Speaker 1: which was something like marijuana uh policy or drug policy
Speaker 1: is race policy. And that's essentially what led my interest
Speaker 1: in this work and then eventually working within for the
Speaker 1: Drug Policy Alliance. So before we move into your coming
Speaker 1: to DP A Drug Policy Alliance, I remember when that
Speaker 1: Ohio initiative came up in and it was a real
Speaker 1: challenge for me. I mean, the first thing was, I
Speaker 1: see this initiative emerging in Ohio and it seems to
Speaker 1: be back by ten rich guys, and I'm trying to
Speaker 1: look around, you do I need to talk to and
Speaker 1: there's this guy, Doug Berman. I guess you're who happened
Speaker 1: to be your law professor there? And I called Doug
Speaker 1: and the first thing he tells me, which was kind
Speaker 1: of neat, was that he had actually been a student
Speaker 1: of mine at Princeton back in the late eighties and
Speaker 1: early nineties. So we had this funny little connection there,
Speaker 1: and he begins to explain me what's going on, and
Speaker 1: then they get a call from the guy running the
Speaker 1: camp pain and what's clear is that he's already raised
Speaker 1: the money from I think ten major investors, each committing
Speaker 1: to put in two million dollars apiece into this initiative.
Speaker 1: And they have a lot of good stuff in mind
Speaker 1: about democratizing lots of licenses and putting in equity things
Speaker 1: and all this. But the major flaw in the initiative
Speaker 1: was that they had also written into it a provision
Speaker 1: that said that only the ten investors, or technically speaking,
Speaker 1: the properties they owned, could engage in marijuana production in
Speaker 1: the state of Ohio in perpetuity. So basically and it
Speaker 1: constitutionally mandated Ala Gopoli, which was just kind of venal.
Speaker 1: And I said to the guy, the campaign manager, it's
Speaker 1: hard to see how we can ever get behind this.
Speaker 1: He goes, Listen, I'm going forward no matter what. So
Speaker 1: we agreed, we Drug Policy Alliance, that we would help
Speaker 1: him draft the thing to make it as good as
Speaker 1: possible in all other areas, just in case at one,
Speaker 1: but that we could never endorse it because of that
Speaker 1: particular provision. Now, as we both know and our listeners
Speaker 1: may not know. I mean, this is the first major
Speaker 1: ballot initiative that was basically funded entirely by people wanting
Speaker 1: to make money. I mean, until that time, and really
Speaker 1: even through virtually all my fundraising for ballot initiaives, both
Speaker 1: medical and otherwise, had come from philanthropists and very little
Speaker 1: from people are hoping to make money in the industry.
Speaker 1: But here was an opposite example of jumping to the utter,
Speaker 1: the opposite extreme. And I remember, and this is going
Speaker 1: to sort of set up the question for you. Here
Speaker 1: talking with the head of the Ohio State A c.
Speaker 1: L U and us to commiserating, like what are we
Speaker 1: gonna do here? Our major objective is ending the harms
Speaker 1: of prohibition. If this initiative passes, it will cut by
Speaker 1: maybe ten thousand a year the number of people being
Speaker 1: arrested for low level marijuana offenses who are disproportionately people
Speaker 1: of color. But the system they want to set up
Speaker 1: is fundamentally basically fucked up. And so in the end
Speaker 1: we didn't take a position. We laid out the pros
Speaker 1: and cons. But for you, it was already interested in
Speaker 1: racial justice. It was obviously going to present some of
Speaker 1: these benefits. How did you come to grips with this
Speaker 1: initiative campaign that you were going to work with that
Speaker 1: had this highly offensive, kind of greedy provision in it,
Speaker 1: even it was doing a lot of good on the
Speaker 1: other side. Yeah, Ethan, and I just want to say
Speaker 1: that I think that there were even outside of that provision,
Speaker 1: there were many flaws with with the campaign itself and
Speaker 1: with provisions that were included in the campaign. I think
Speaker 1: a lot of things that we've learned in hindsight now
Speaker 1: being able to see the full extent of what some
Speaker 1: later reforms have looked like. But to be frank, when
Speaker 1: the organizers of that campaign first came and presented to
Speaker 1: Doug Berman's class, I took issue with their organizers and
Speaker 1: spent a lot of time pushing back on their framework.
Speaker 1: I remember leaving that class very agitated because it was
Speaker 1: very obvious to me that they weren't having conversations about
Speaker 1: the impacts that cannabis policy and enforcement prohibition had had
Speaker 1: on black and brown communities, or it seemed like there
Speaker 1: was only going to be an effort to talk about
Speaker 1: it and not actually do anything about it. And it
Speaker 1: was only after several conversations with Berman, and really just
Speaker 1: telling myself that this was an opportunity for me to
Speaker 1: learn as much as I could while I had an
Speaker 1: opportunity to participate on this campaign and then use all
Speaker 1: of the things that I learned in my next iteration
Speaker 1: of the work. And so that's how I approached my
Speaker 1: participation in the campaign, that I was there for a
Speaker 1: learning experience, that I knew that there were going to
Speaker 1: be positions and ideals and people that I would have
Speaker 1: conflict with, but that I could still use that as
Speaker 1: an opportunity to learn and then put those lessons to
Speaker 1: use and the next iteration of whatever I was going
Speaker 1: to do in cannabis policy reform. So you didn't need
Speaker 1: to be in a position of publicly defending the initiative. Really, no,
Speaker 1: all of my work was internal, and so not only
Speaker 1: did did I get an opportunity to see how the
Speaker 1: campaign operated, how it was organized, but really the value
Speaker 1: system of that campaign and working very closely with that
Speaker 1: campaign's leadership. And while I think they're all fine people,
Speaker 1: I don't think that the initiative itself was prepared to
Speaker 1: to accommodate all communities. So then you become aware of
Speaker 1: drug policy Alliance, and I guess you come to New
Speaker 1: York to one of our events. And I knew that
Speaker 1: I wanted to get deeply involved in cannabis policy reform.
Speaker 1: And I remember telling myself, as a young person who
Speaker 1: had just graduated from law school, I need to get
Speaker 1: some more cannabis on my resume. And I knew that
Speaker 1: I probably wouldn't be able to do that as extensively
Speaker 1: as I wanted to in Ohio, and so I began
Speaker 1: to look kind of nationwide to see who was doing
Speaker 1: some of the work that I was most interested in.
Speaker 1: And as I was in pursue of that interest, I
Speaker 1: found online that the Drug Policy Alliance was having this
Speaker 1: one day strategy session called uh something like drug Policy
Speaker 1: is Race Policy. And what stood out to me so
Speaker 1: much about even just the title of that program was
Speaker 1: that it mirrored the title of the kind of capstone
Speaker 1: project that I had did from my marijuana lan policy course,
Speaker 1: where I was looking intentionally at the impact that cannabis
Speaker 1: prohibition and its enforcement had on the black community and
Speaker 1: black families. And so I said, this is where I
Speaker 1: want to be. And I caught a megabus from Ohio
Speaker 1: to New York, and when it opened, I had an
Speaker 1: opportunity to meet Asha I was with the Drug Policy Alliance.
Speaker 1: Actually got a chance to listen to you speak there.
Speaker 1: But I also had an opportunity to meet Lynn Lyman,
Speaker 1: who at the time was the state director for the
Speaker 1: California Office for the Drug Policy Alliance, and she and
Speaker 1: I it off pretty quickly, and she was informing me
Speaker 1: that she was in the process of managing a campaign
Speaker 1: in California and support of California's Proposition sixty four Adult
Speaker 1: Use of Marijuana Act. And it couldn't have been two
Speaker 1: and a half months later, after going to New York
Speaker 1: at the attending the Drug Policy Alliance conference that I
Speaker 1: had interviewed to serve as the campaign coordinator for Californians
Speaker 1: for Responsible Marijuana Reform. Within weeks of that interview, I
Speaker 1: was in Los Angeles. So when you were working on
Speaker 1: the campaign in that I guess late summer and fall.
Speaker 1: I guess that's when you and I first met. What
Speaker 1: was it like for you jumping into this California world
Speaker 1: and here was an initiative which was not being driven
Speaker 1: by the money. We were still relying overwhelmingly on philanthropists,
Speaker 1: and our model was we would not raise money from
Speaker 1: people in the industry until after we had finished drafting
Speaker 1: the initiative. We didn't want to be tainted in that way.
Speaker 1: We would talk with all stakeholders, but we wanted this
Speaker 1: to be as good public policy as possible. But what
Speaker 1: was your role in the campaign at that point and
Speaker 1: what was it like for you? So I served as
Speaker 1: the campaign coordinator, and my primary responsibility was to coordinate
Speaker 1: different elements of the campaign, whether that be messaging, two
Speaker 1: different allies and campaign partners, to out on the groundwork
Speaker 1: around California, but primarily in Los Angeles organizing, and I
Speaker 1: have to tell you that I was proud of that work.
Speaker 1: I'm still proud of that work and the reform that
Speaker 1: was packaged in the form of Proposition six to four,
Speaker 1: because at the time it was the most progressive, most
Speaker 1: criminal justice centered cannabis legalization effort in the country. My
Speaker 1: primary responsibility was to organize with different stakeholders and allies
Speaker 1: of the campaign to get across messaging, to do different fundraising,
Speaker 1: but also spent a lot of time on the ground
Speaker 1: organizing in and around the city of Los Angeles, and
Speaker 1: did a lot of engagement, primarily with underserved communities in
Speaker 1: black and brown communities to try and strategize not only
Speaker 1: around how we could pass this initiative, but how we
Speaker 1: could get this initiative to work in our community's favor
Speaker 1: as it went through uh the implementation stage. And so
Speaker 1: after the initiative passed in I stayed on with the
Speaker 1: Drug Policy Alliance as their policy coordinator in the California Office,
Speaker 1: and at the time my efforts really centered around strategizing
Speaker 1: and organizing the implementation of the Adult Use of Marijuana Act.
Speaker 1: So let me just interject here for our listeners. So
Speaker 1: just here where California marijuana legalization initiative in two thousand
Speaker 1: sixteen was really a monumental undertaking, and Drug Policy Alliance
Speaker 1: essentially took the lead on that. Now me it was
Speaker 1: kind of a kind of coming full circle or coming
Speaker 1: to a culmination and sort of my career of organizing
Speaker 1: advocacy from the medical marijuana issue of California. Then the
Speaker 1: first medical Mariline that should have back in nineties six
Speaker 1: were able to turn a kind of ambitious local activist
Speaker 1: effort in the Bay Area into a really successful statewide
Speaker 1: victory back in really the first time that the nascent
Speaker 1: drug policy reform movement showed that we could play bowl
Speaker 1: in the major leagues of American politics, and it was
Speaker 1: a wild ride thereafter. And there are all sorts of
Speaker 1: things involving in legislation to try to implement the Medical
Speaker 1: Marilan initiative and aborted efforts in that regard. One of
Speaker 1: our first challenges was making sure that only one of
Speaker 1: those succeeded, and that that one that succeeded was the
Speaker 1: one that we thought best reflected public policy, and that
Speaker 1: presumably dp A was taking a lead on. And we
Speaker 1: were ultimately successful at making sure that our initiative was
Speaker 1: the only one in the ballot. But we were also
Speaker 1: not unitary actors when it came to drafting that initiative.
Speaker 1: We had partners involved in this. Sean Parker, the fellow
Speaker 1: who had made a lot of money on Facebook and elsewhere,
Speaker 1: was a major financial supporter, not for for profit reasons,
Speaker 1: for really good policy reasons, and there were other key players,
Speaker 1: and there were unions and environmental groups and county law
Speaker 1: enforcement exactly all sorts of interest that had to be
Speaker 1: taken into account. So there was a lot of internison
Speaker 1: conflict leading up to the finalization of our initiative and
Speaker 1: making sure was the only one in the ballot. There
Speaker 1: were a lot of allies who were put out at
Speaker 1: feeling a little sidelined or not getting their preferred provisions
Speaker 1: into the initiative. So the job that Kat took on
Speaker 1: was really a crucially important one when I when I
Speaker 1: served as campaign coordinator and then policy coordinator thereafter, I
Speaker 1: was boots on the ground for the campaign and had
Speaker 1: an opportunity to meet many different community based organizations and
Speaker 1: just had an opportunity engage with so many different stakeholders
Speaker 1: that you mentioned before. A lot of my day to
Speaker 1: day organizing, particularly as we focused around implementation, was focused
Speaker 1: on local control. So many different statewide legalization efforts and
Speaker 1: most have some level of local control, whether they're allocating
Speaker 1: authority to local jurisdiction cities and counties to decide often
Speaker 1: whether or not to even allow for commercial cannabis activity.
Speaker 1: And then beyond that, when jurisdictions do decide to allow
Speaker 1: for commercial cannabis activity, the type of regulatory program or
Speaker 1: controls around time, place, and manner of where these businesses
Speaker 1: and how these businesses can conduct themselves. And so after
Speaker 1: the initiative passed in California, many local jurisdictions were put
Speaker 1: in a position where because adult use sales were to
Speaker 1: begin on January one, as soon as the initiative passed,
Speaker 1: there was so much work to be done at both
Speaker 1: the state and local level to make decisions whether or
Speaker 1: not folks were going to participate in this life and
Speaker 1: sing and regulatory effort. And more importantly, as I was
Speaker 1: doing advocacy in the City of Los Angeles and and
Speaker 1: really trying to hold the city accountable to what I
Speaker 1: felt it were principles and values that we have to
Speaker 1: lead with when we're talking about cannabis policy reform. I
Speaker 1: was tapped by the mayor to take on the challenge
Speaker 1: of advising the city and administering its commercial cannabis program
Speaker 1: in August. I have to tell you now, Ethan, that
Speaker 1: I said yes, but I had no idea what I
Speaker 1: was getting myself into. I can imagine that the challenges
Speaker 1: describing it's not just California, but basically every state where
Speaker 1: municipalities or counties have a large role to play right
Speaker 1: both in determining whether or not there will be outlets, dispensaries,
Speaker 1: and how they be regulating all of that. So that's
Speaker 1: a generic challenge around the country. Yes, it's a challenge
Speaker 1: that every single state goes through as they go along
Speaker 1: their process. I think there are lots of different circumstances
Speaker 1: and factors that made the challenge that is the City
Speaker 1: of Los Angeles particularly unique one. The city of Los
Speaker 1: Angeles and California in general, had this long history of
Speaker 1: aborted efforts to really address this systematically, and what that
Speaker 1: meant was that there was a proliferation of cannabis operations
Speaker 1: in the City of Los Angeles prior to legalization, and
Speaker 1: a very gray framework, will say, in terms of what
Speaker 1: was considered legal and what was considered illegal. There's also
Speaker 1: super high demand to participate in the cannabis industry, and
Speaker 1: the city of Los Angeles has a population of four million,
Speaker 1: which is just as large as half of the the
Speaker 1: states in our country. So we are dealing with a
Speaker 1: massive effort, and city of Los Angeles is often regarded
Speaker 1: as the world's largest cannabis market. M We can also
Speaker 1: provide some context here if you think about it. California
Speaker 1: was the first state to legalize medical marijuana back in
Speaker 1: nineties six. Its initiative was far more open ended and
Speaker 1: far few regulatory provisions than any of the other medical
Speaker 1: merilin initiatives that succeeded it, both the ones that we
Speaker 1: had Drug Policy Alliance drafted with local allies of area
Speaker 1: states as well as that other organizations did, and then
Speaker 1: that essentially did no statewide regulation of medical marijuana until
Speaker 1: until basically the year before we did the California Broader
Speaker 1: adult use legalization initiative. So it essentially had a semi
Speaker 1: almost statewide unregulated market for twenty years. It had a
Speaker 1: booming black market, a booming gray market. And only in
Speaker 1: fifteen does Governor Jerry Brown, who had always been sort
Speaker 1: of hostile to marijuana reform, does he push forward a
Speaker 1: final statewide medical marijuana regulatory system a year before initiative,
Speaker 1: and he does it in a way that creates all
Speaker 1: of these sort of burdens on us when we're drafting
Speaker 1: the full legalization initiative to incorporate some of the bullshit
Speaker 1: that he had insisted be in the medical marijuana regulation one.
Speaker 1: When you're having all sorts of statewide agencies have a
Speaker 1: hand on this really creating a really messy, difficult system.
Speaker 1: So when comes along an initiative gets one, you're dealing
Speaker 1: not just with this new medical marijuana system that kind
Speaker 1: of had some carryovers into the legalization initiative, and that
Speaker 1: tied our hands. But meanwhile, California was far and away
Speaker 1: the biggest producer, not just market because it's the biggest state,
Speaker 1: but producing for basically a huge part of the rest
Speaker 1: of the country illegally as well. Right, And so you
Speaker 1: have a huge black market, a huge gray market. Some
Speaker 1: cities are regulating their medical mariwana fairly responsibly, like maybe
Speaker 1: San Francisco or Oakland or West Holly would in southern California,
Speaker 1: but a huge amount of unregulated stuff, incredibly dynamic, booming,
Speaker 1: illicit market industry, which is unlike the situation in most
Speaker 1: of the rest United States, certainly in New York doesn't
Speaker 1: have that. New Jersey doesn't have anything resembling the magnitude.
Speaker 1: And within all of that, Los Angeles was required as
Speaker 1: sort of the wild West of the wild West, the
Speaker 1: place where hundreds of unregulated, barely regulated medical marijuana di
Speaker 1: sturencers had popped up and where the city could seemed
Speaker 1: to get it together, and where they were competing local
Speaker 1: ballot initiatives to figure out how to do this thing right.
Speaker 1: And into this steps you cat packer in the summer
Speaker 1: of seventeen trying to get a hand on all of this.
Speaker 1: I just can't imagine what it must have been like
Speaker 1: to step into that. I mean, you're still in your
Speaker 1: mid twenties, You're coming out of being an organizer and
Speaker 1: an advocated drug policy alliance, and all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: you're have tasked with a job of setting up a
Speaker 1: brand new office and regulating an industry that was really regulated.
Speaker 1: Tell me about some of the shocks or the realizations
Speaker 1: they hate you in late eighteen is you tried to
Speaker 1: get a handle on what what was you needed to do?
Speaker 1: So even first, what I want to do is use
Speaker 1: this as an opportunity to point in some language. I've
Speaker 1: been making an intentional effort since I've started in this role,
Speaker 1: and since I kind of learned about this problematic language,
Speaker 1: to not use the term black market. I think moving forward,
Speaker 1: folks are using terms like unregulated market or unlicensed market.
Speaker 1: But myself and other folks have made an intentional effort
Speaker 1: not to use this term black market because there are
Speaker 1: lots of words in our vocabulary. We're talking about something
Speaker 1: that's black or brown, and there's a negative connotation like
Speaker 1: black market, black male, all of these negative connotations that
Speaker 1: I think we internalize and normalize over time. And so
Speaker 1: I've been asking folks not to use the term black market.
Speaker 1: But if they mean unlicensed, and we can say unlicensed.
Speaker 1: If we mean unregulated, we could say unregulated. What people
Speaker 1: in California like to call it is the legacy market. Well,
Speaker 1: I noticed, can't remember. At d p A we made
Speaker 1: that part of our communications policy to avoid the use
Speaker 1: of the phrase black market as much as possible. I
Speaker 1: was using the phrase illicit market. Is that also one
Speaker 1: that's regarded as sort of not so good? I think
Speaker 1: that there's a spectrum. I don't necessarily have an issue
Speaker 1: with that language, but anytime I hear the word black
Speaker 1: market and I have an opportunity to provide an alternative,
Speaker 1: but that doesn't have a negative, negative racial connotations. Particularly
Speaker 1: in this drug policy reform space, I think we just
Speaker 1: have to be open to considering changing our vocabulary. So,
Speaker 1: but meanwhile, here you are having to deal with this,
Speaker 1: let's shall we say legacy markets. What does it look
Speaker 1: like when you begin to get a lay of the land.
Speaker 1: Sitting there not as an advocate for d p A,
Speaker 1: but now charged by the city of Los Angeles with
Speaker 1: getting a handle on all of this and trying to
Speaker 1: set up a legal regulatory system. When I was appointed
Speaker 1: by the by mayor air Car City and in augusten,
Speaker 1: we were less than five months away from when adult
Speaker 1: use sales were going to begin in the State of
Speaker 1: California and in the City of Los Angeles. And because
Speaker 1: of the framework that the State of California created in
Speaker 1: order to operate on January one, on the first day
Speaker 1: that those sales were going to begin, businesses need to
Speaker 1: have both a state license and a local license. It
Speaker 1: was my department, my agency that was supposed to be
Speaker 1: responsible for issuing these licenses. At the time, I was
Speaker 1: the only staffer. We did not even have a licensing
Speaker 1: or regulatory framework. As you had mentioned, there was still
Speaker 1: a lot of reconciliation that was happening between the medical
Speaker 1: provisions through the adult use provisions, and the State of
Speaker 1: California really spent the summer in fall winter of working
Speaker 1: through these emergency regulations and local jurisdictions. Laws have to
Speaker 1: of course be consistent with the state laws and the
Speaker 1: state regulations, and so I remember at the time only
Speaker 1: having two other staff members. When we got the last
Speaker 1: iteration of the California Emergency Regulations, and then we essentially
Speaker 1: had to wait for that to happen in December seventeen
Speaker 1: for us to finalize our licensing and regulatory framework. So
Speaker 1: it wasn't until and I still now only have about
Speaker 1: three staff at the time, so it wasn't until December
Speaker 1: of that we had the actual laws and policies regulations
Speaker 1: that my department was going to be responsible for. There
Speaker 1: were dozens of pages that were passed overnight that had
Speaker 1: requirements and restrictions that we were to administer related to
Speaker 1: where these businesses could locate, who could own businesses, the
Speaker 1: types of operations that we're going to be allowed, and
Speaker 1: we're almost given this impossible task of trying to implement
Speaker 1: this program overnight with little to no resources, and that
Speaker 1: led for a kind of a chaotic and tumultuous start
Speaker 1: to our program. And what I've learned over time is
Speaker 1: that every several months there would be comprehensive changes not
Speaker 1: to those particular laws and regulations, and so the challenge
Speaker 1: as a local regulator has been trying to continue to
Speaker 1: administer our municipal code, which of course involves many different agencies.
Speaker 1: Fire Department departments, building and safety, issue, building permits, etcetera.
Speaker 1: Coordinating with all of these local agencies state agencies that
Speaker 1: are participating in this permitting process, all the while trying
Speaker 1: to advise our fifteen council members who are elected and
Speaker 1: the mayor secure budget and program resources to expand. And
Speaker 1: that was just the beginning. And meanwhile you're dealing with
Speaker 1: the city council members, the mayor's office, all these other
Speaker 1: varied regulatory agencies in l A that has some roll.
Speaker 1: And at the same time you're dealing with the folks
Speaker 1: in the statewide regulatory shop where regulations keep changing. So
Speaker 1: it's a kind of multidimensional challenge in every evolving universe
Speaker 1: that you have to keep bouncing around and leaping forward
Speaker 1: to try to set stuff up. Well, if we fast
Speaker 1: forward now, it's been over four years that you've been
Speaker 1: in the office, and it's you know, really a testament
Speaker 1: to you to stay in a position as demanding as
Speaker 1: that for so long. But how have things evolved in
Speaker 1: terms of what's going on in the ground, in terms
Speaker 1: of the respective roles of the state regulatory agency and
Speaker 1: the city council, In terms of the political support you
Speaker 1: get within the city of Los Angeles. How would you
Speaker 1: describe that evolution over the last four years. At times
Speaker 1: it feels like there are a thousand things happening at once.
Speaker 1: As an organizer who stepped into this regulatory role, I
Speaker 1: kind of lived my life on the legislative cycle in
Speaker 1: different reforms that we try to pass year to gear.
Speaker 1: But we've made a lot of progress over the course
Speaker 1: of the last four and a half years. But that
Speaker 1: progress has still been challenged by what I'd say is
Speaker 1: a lack of adequate resources. We're all similarly struggling people
Speaker 1: who are actively in these government positions, regulators, local state regulators,
Speaker 1: trying to manage these programs. Many of us well intended
Speaker 1: or are trying our best to manage these efforts with
Speaker 1: very few resources and also not necessarily having the benefit
Speaker 1: of all of the information that is being gathered within
Speaker 1: each of our programs. I think that there's a real
Speaker 1: need for a strategic coordination amongst all of the different,
Speaker 1: diverse stakeholders that are involved in this process. But I
Speaker 1: think that's what's needed moving forward. Right now, I have
Speaker 1: a team of thirty staff hoping to be able to
Speaker 1: bring on twenty one additional positions in the next fiscal year.
Speaker 1: We've been making a real intentional effort to expand business
Speaker 1: development programming aimed at communities that have been most impacted
Speaker 1: by the War on drugs in cannabis prohibition. And while
Speaker 1: there have been against successes in those efforts, I think
Speaker 1: that those even though successes, have come slowly and the pace,
Speaker 1: I think has come at a real cost to to
Speaker 1: our our efforts overall. So let's get into that, because
Speaker 1: I remember when we drafted Prop. Sixty four, we were
Speaker 1: very proud of some of the racial and social equity
Speaker 1: provisions we guide in there. It made sense that those
Speaker 1: communities and individuals that have been most harmed by the
Speaker 1: war marijuana and the War on drugs should get a
Speaker 1: sort of special dispensation or special effort to allow them possibilities. Now,
Speaker 1: when you look back over the laws that have passed
Speaker 1: since that time in New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, New Jersey,
Speaker 1: I think what we did in California seems less impressive
Speaker 1: in retrospect. It's also true that what one could do
Speaker 1: in terms of equity issues was probably much more substantial.
Speaker 1: When a legalization law passes through a state legislature where
Speaker 1: you have my powerful minority legislative coalitions wishing this, then
Speaker 1: one can do in a ballot initiative where you have
Speaker 1: a broader population, generally mostly white, who's at best mildly
Speaker 1: sympathetic and oftentimes indifferent too, are hostile to this. But
Speaker 1: a lot of what I've seen is this continuing challenges
Speaker 1: over as I think you just said it. On the
Speaker 1: one hand, trying to get the best possible system set
Speaker 1: up so that you can get the licenses out effectively regulated,
Speaker 1: get out as many as possible, start, do a good job,
Speaker 1: promote public safety and public health, maximized tax revenue. But
Speaker 1: on the other hand, a very conscientious effort to try
Speaker 1: to build in these equity provisions and to give a
Speaker 1: foot up to people who lack the capital or the training,
Speaker 1: or or I have other handicaps in terms of getting
Speaker 1: into this industry. And so what I wonder is, as
Speaker 1: you look at it now, do you see models? I mean,
Speaker 1: are when you look around and obviously you network with
Speaker 1: other municipal marijuana director you're running the biggest city, second
Speaker 1: biggest city in a merry at the first biggest in California,
Speaker 1: do you see places that offer some models about how
Speaker 1: to do this? Better. Do you look at the New
Speaker 1: York law and say, Wow, I wish we had some
Speaker 1: of that stuff here. Yeah, I think there's a lot
Speaker 1: of me looking around and wishing that we had stuff here.
Speaker 1: But I also recognized that I'd like to say that
Speaker 1: California set the floor, and other jurisdictions that have come
Speaker 1: after us have had the benefit of being able to,
Speaker 1: you know, learn from our mistakes, but also learn from
Speaker 1: some of our successes. Uh As as I talked to
Speaker 1: other regulators, I think that there are there are obviously
Speaker 1: models that exist, but whether or not they're models that
Speaker 1: should be replicated, I think remains to be seen. And
Speaker 1: I think part of the challenge is that we're not
Speaker 1: having the benefit ethan of being able to learn from
Speaker 1: all of the models because things are moving so quickly.
Speaker 1: I am regularly in communication with jurisdictions that are getting
Speaker 1: ready to or thinking about launching their programs, and we
Speaker 1: have our long conversations. But there's only so much that
Speaker 1: can be gathered and shared in this piece mill way,
Speaker 1: and it kind of gets replicated over and over again.
Speaker 1: But we really need efforts dedicated at think tanking all
Speaker 1: of these different pieces and gathering information from all regulators
Speaker 1: to figure out what specific strategies and inputs are going
Speaker 1: to produce different outcomes, because within each of our jurisdictions
Speaker 1: there are, you know, factors and circumstances that make our
Speaker 1: case study unique. And so I don't know that we're
Speaker 1: going to be able to establish something that that people
Speaker 1: can copy and pace. But my frustration thus far is
Speaker 1: that I think that there's, in an effort to respond
Speaker 1: to criticisms of doing nothing in terms of equity, many
Speaker 1: jurisdictions can just take a copy and pace model without
Speaker 1: really thinking through how do we establish strategies that reduce
Speaker 1: barriers to injury? How do we systematically identify by an
Speaker 1: address disparities that exist across the board. And that's the
Speaker 1: work that needs to be done in order for the
Speaker 1: City of Los Angeles to have the type of outcomes
Speaker 1: that we want to have, the State of New York
Speaker 1: to have the outcomes that they want to have. I
Speaker 1: think that in many ways where we're not working as
Speaker 1: hard as we need to, and in some areas we're
Speaker 1: obviously working more harder than we need to because we're
Speaker 1: not collaborating and strategizing and trying to push for joint
Speaker 1: efforts at the federal level. Who's the way there. When
Speaker 1: you say we're not collaborating, I want to say all
Speaker 1: of the different stakeholders that are involved in this process.
Speaker 1: It's it's regulators, law enforcement, it's industry, it's it's public
Speaker 1: health officials. I mean, I think you and I have
Speaker 1: had the benefit of being able to be at the
Speaker 1: center of this network. That's part of why we call
Speaker 1: it a movement as because we all collectively have to
Speaker 1: be trying to move in the same direction. But it
Speaker 1: just seems like in the in the grand scheme of
Speaker 1: day to day management of some of these different program elements,
Speaker 1: it's difficult to coordinate and collaborate in the ways that
Speaker 1: we need to because we've got our hands full with
Speaker 1: the one thousand policy decisions that need to be made
Speaker 1: at the state and local level. As I was prepping
Speaker 1: for my conversation with you, I was going through some
Speaker 1: of the media last few years, and I could see
Speaker 1: when you first get appointed, there's all this huge enthusiasm,
Speaker 1: is oftimes the case, but especially you're being a young
Speaker 1: black woman coming from an advocacy background, appointed to this position,
Speaker 1: having obviously equity concerns, fund and Center and then a
Speaker 1: few years later, I see people coming from the minority
Speaker 1: business community others who want to go getting so angry
Speaker 1: at you and attacking you and stuff like that, And
Speaker 1: I know how incredibly difficult to mean, people have unreals expectations.
Speaker 1: Not everybody's going to get a license. There's a whole complicated,
Speaker 1: bureaucratic mess. But I mean, how was that for you,
Speaker 1: and how is that for you? Dealing with that sort
Speaker 1: of stuff. It's it's difficult, it's exhaust thing, but I
Speaker 1: think it's worthwhile. I think the reality is that you
Speaker 1: have to show up and do the work, even when
Speaker 1: people are unhappy. You have to show up and do
Speaker 1: the work. I think that there's a lot of work
Speaker 1: that has to get done internally within organizations, within agency,
Speaker 1: within government institution before the outcomes, before the consequences of
Speaker 1: that initial effort is recognized. And I'm comfortable doing the
Speaker 1: work even before those outcomes are available. And that's what
Speaker 1: I think a lot of us who step into these
Speaker 1: roles for the first time, leading leading these agencies from
Speaker 1: the ground up or dealing with But I do think
Speaker 1: that it was particularly difficult as someone who organized alongside
Speaker 1: some of these individuals and organizations. I think it was
Speaker 1: difficult both for UH them and for me for that
Speaker 1: relationship to change almost overnight, and I had to communicate
Speaker 1: of folks that because of this new role, my relationship
Speaker 1: is going to change with you, And I think that
Speaker 1: that was difficult, in particular for some of the stakeholders
Speaker 1: that I engage most regularly with. But I all think
Speaker 1: that it kind of ebbs and flows. Some of the
Speaker 1: same folks who have been most critical of the Department
Speaker 1: of Me personally, I work with on a daily basis
Speaker 1: because at the end of the day, there's work to
Speaker 1: be done, and so I don't have to agree with
Speaker 1: folks on everything. But where there is agreement, let's do
Speaker 1: the work. We'll be talking more after we hear this.
Speaker 1: Add Just at the end of there were a whole
Speaker 1: bunch of articles, a wave of articles, not just in
Speaker 1: the California media, but the national media, seeing that California
Speaker 1: marijuana disaster. Nobody's making money in the industry. People are
Speaker 1: tell talking about going out of business that basically the
Speaker 1: legacy markets, the unregulated markets on tax paying markets are
Speaker 1: two to three times people think the size of the
Speaker 1: legal market, the taxation structure is onerous and punitive. It's
Speaker 1: a goddamn mess, and what are we gonna do about it? Now?
Speaker 1: We're talking now in mid January, and I just saw
Speaker 1: that Governor Newsom, who was one of our key allies
Speaker 1: on the marijuana legalization initiative. In fact, I think that
Speaker 1: one of the first statewide leaders in America to step
Speaker 1: out boldly in supporting marijuana legalization. But he's saying, I
Speaker 1: get it. I recognized we gotta change the tax structure,
Speaker 1: we gotta change the regulatory context. But there's certain things
Speaker 1: that we're counting on to come from the tax revenue,
Speaker 1: so we just can't eliminate the taxes. So what's your
Speaker 1: perspective when you look at all this hand ringing? And
Speaker 1: I saw somebody like Michael Steinmitz, one of the guys
Speaker 1: running Flocana, one of the marijuana he's up north in California, saying,
Speaker 1: we're just going to refuse to pay our taxes. This
Speaker 1: is becoming so onerous now, you know, going a tax strike.
Speaker 1: What's your sense about this statewide situation? And is California
Speaker 1: going to begin to get a handle on it this year?
Speaker 1: Is there going to be effective statewide regulation? Do you
Speaker 1: and other municipal directors have input into this process. What
Speaker 1: can you tell us? So, what I can tell you
Speaker 1: is that I have a very close relationship with a
Speaker 1: coal who leads the efforts of the cannabis department at
Speaker 1: the state, and I have confidence in her leadership and
Speaker 1: the team that she's assembled. Really over the course of
Speaker 1: the last year, as the California cannabis licensing agencies have consolidated.
Speaker 1: That being said, there's still a lot of work to
Speaker 1: do in order to move this industry forward in a
Speaker 1: way that is more responsible. I think that for many
Speaker 1: folks it is still messy, it is still chaotic. I
Speaker 1: think that for many entrepreneurs oarporticularly folks who have been
Speaker 1: in it, who started this several years ago, this has
Speaker 1: been a painful process, and I think it's it's important
Speaker 1: to acknowledge that because I think that we can find
Speaker 1: ways over time to provide relief. I have confidence that
Speaker 1: it's something that can be done. I think the challenge
Speaker 1: is going to be whether or not folks are willing
Speaker 1: to compromise about what we're asking for and clear in
Speaker 1: what our objectives are. And it has to be a
Speaker 1: collective effort. I mean, for as much as can be
Speaker 1: said about what the California cannabis regulatory program has gotten wrong.
Speaker 1: There are so many jurisdictions, local jurisdictions, other states that
Speaker 1: aren't participating at all, and so I think we have
Speaker 1: to be in a position where we can constantly make improvements.
Speaker 1: But I think we're in a position both here in California,
Speaker 1: uh and in other jurisdictions where we we need a
Speaker 1: We can't do this in a piece mill way. We
Speaker 1: have to be able to make bold and comprehensive reforms
Speaker 1: now because the slow pace comes at a cost across
Speaker 1: the border. Yeah, I mean, can I'll say, I mean
Speaker 1: when I step back big picture, people would always ask
Speaker 1: me what I envisioned about the consequences and legalization, and
Speaker 1: my answer would be essentially that, look, I'm not fighting
Speaker 1: for the moral orderization or budweiserization of marijuana markets. I
Speaker 1: much prefer to see the smallest, beautiful model. But I
Speaker 1: know that we live in the most dynamic capitalist society
Speaker 1: in the world, if not in history. And then if
Speaker 1: you look at other things, the transition from alcohol prohibition,
Speaker 1: I mean, after we got rebuilt nineteen thirty three, there
Speaker 1: was a huge black market for many years before things
Speaker 1: finally shook out, and eventually the the illicit market kind
Speaker 1: of really faded into really playing a minor role. Or
Speaker 1: I even think about the fact that I almost make
Speaker 1: the analogy. You look at something like what happened with
Speaker 1: coffee when Starbrooks comes in and it sort of takes
Speaker 1: over the world. Living in New York City, I see
Speaker 1: all the small car fee shops shutting down. But now
Speaker 1: I look around and I see that there's more small
Speaker 1: coffee shops than ever before, and that Starbucks is still
Speaker 1: out there, but they no longer dominate the way they did.
Speaker 1: And so I sometimes wonder whether there's just this almost
Speaker 1: inevitability to the sort of capitalist forces at work, that's
Speaker 1: the nature of the world we live in. There's in
Speaker 1: the end those stopping it. That we have a moral
Speaker 1: obligation to try to do what we can do in
Speaker 1: terms of advance as small as beautiful or a racial
Speaker 1: equity model in all this. But over time we'll be
Speaker 1: able to get this thing right. And I think in
Speaker 1: the California context, which is unique in terms of the
Speaker 1: magnitude and size of the illicit market here in the
Speaker 1: market not just selling to Californians, but exporting to the
Speaker 1: rest of the country, that there has to be a
Speaker 1: priority on trying to reduce the magnitude of of this
Speaker 1: illicit market and move as much as possible will into
Speaker 1: a legally regulated market, which may mean things like reducing
Speaker 1: some of the regulatory barriers, reducing some of the taxation.
Speaker 1: What's your thoughts about that. I think that we have
Speaker 1: to make it way easier for folks to do what
Speaker 1: we're asking them to do. That's for businesses, for consumers.
Speaker 1: We've got to make it easier for folks to do
Speaker 1: what we say is a good public health, public safety strategy.
Speaker 1: And so I think lowering taxes, making regulations less complex,
Speaker 1: making licensing more accessible is absolutely things that should be
Speaker 1: on the top of our to do list. But I
Speaker 1: think that we we have to think about how we
Speaker 1: balance that with with an enforcement strategy, because the reality
Speaker 1: is that we're not going to have a successful licensed
Speaker 1: and regulated market if there isn't an enforcement strategy. But
Speaker 1: I think we have to be careful not to replicate
Speaker 1: the drug war by allowing criminal infor sent to take
Speaker 1: the lead. And so I think that there are ways
Speaker 1: that we can combine providing access to licensure, access to resources,
Speaker 1: to help folks get through the process, tax breaks, the
Speaker 1: lower ring of tax rate, all of those things combined,
Speaker 1: but also looking at how we can have an alternative
Speaker 1: to what our historic and existing enforcement strategy has been.
Speaker 1: One of the ways we've been trying to do that
Speaker 1: here in the in the City of Los Angeles is
Speaker 1: by doing things like utilizing utility disconnection or padlocking buildings,
Speaker 1: using our Building and Safety Department or Department of Water
Speaker 1: and Power again to disconnect utilities as agencies that can
Speaker 1: lead in these efforts that aren't police or criminal enforcement
Speaker 1: taking the lead. Well, let me ask you this. I mean,
Speaker 1: I sometimes reflect back on the initiative of d p
Speaker 1: A where we play such a big role. We were
Speaker 1: talking to folks in the environmental activism area, We're talking
Speaker 1: to labor unions, we were talking to people a whole
Speaker 1: host of areas, and so we put in stuff requiring
Speaker 1: environmental protection stuff, and water quality protection stuff, and and
Speaker 1: some labor type stuff. And I sometimes wonder if we
Speaker 1: went too far in that regard, essentially holding the cannabis
Speaker 1: industry to a higher standard, not just on on racial
Speaker 1: equity issues, on issues that people have been subject to
Speaker 1: have been harmed by the War on drugs, but even
Speaker 1: more broadly, And I also sometimes wonder where we too,
Speaker 1: because we went out of our way to minimize the
Speaker 1: severity of the penalties for people operating outside the legal market.
Speaker 1: But if you look back about what we might have
Speaker 1: done differently with this initiative, are there things that really
Speaker 1: stand out to you that could have made it work
Speaker 1: a lot better. Yeah, I definitely think that the environmental
Speaker 1: requirements as I engage with stakeholders across the state, them
Speaker 1: being held to a higher standard is coming as a
Speaker 1: real cost. So I think that that's one of the
Speaker 1: areas that probably went too far. I think that there's
Speaker 1: a delicate balance between the pros and cons of local control,
Speaker 1: and I say that as a local regular there. But
Speaker 1: part of the challenges is that there are so many
Speaker 1: jurisdictions in the state of California that aren't participating. I
Speaker 1: think that part of that is because there hasn't been
Speaker 1: the infrastructure to help them figure out what it is
Speaker 1: that they need to do. I think that that's going
Speaker 1: to take a while for folks to be able to
Speaker 1: revisit that, and the kind of allocation of the tax structure.
Speaker 1: I know that Proposition sixty four was one of the
Speaker 1: first efforts that allowed for expungement of cannabis records. But
Speaker 1: I think part of what we've learned in hindsight is
Speaker 1: that in order for those types of reforms to be
Speaker 1: as effective and impactful, they need to be free and
Speaker 1: automatic to folks. So I think that there are lots
Speaker 1: of lessons that we can learn in hindsight. But I
Speaker 1: also think that there are several actions that can be
Speaker 1: taken today, both at the state level and at the
Speaker 1: local level, to to try uh and address this. And again,
Speaker 1: you may not see the results of decisions that are
Speaker 1: made today until two, three, five years from now, but
Speaker 1: if that's the work that needs to to be done,
Speaker 1: at least needs to be started. So let's go back
Speaker 1: to these issues around equity again. It's just recently a
Speaker 1: big rally in the state capital, Sacramento around the equity issues,
Speaker 1: and I think there's a plans to have a local
Speaker 1: initiative on the ballot in Los Angeles, the Los Angeles
Speaker 1: Equity Fund Initiative, in which our former colleague Glenn Lineman
Speaker 1: is playing a role. What do you think about these efforts?
Speaker 1: This local initiative Effort and some of these other ones. Well,
Speaker 1: I'm glad to see communities organizing in support of themselves
Speaker 1: because I think that what happens a lot of times
Speaker 1: is that there is a lot of deference that is
Speaker 1: given to some elected officials, even regulators, and folks think
Speaker 1: that they don't need to participate. The reality is that
Speaker 1: in order to see the types of reforms that are
Speaker 1: going to allow us to do this more responsible, responsibly,
Speaker 1: and more equitably, we have to have collective participation across
Speaker 1: the board. And so I'm happy to seem unities organizing
Speaker 1: across the state and support of making sure that folks
Speaker 1: have access to participate in the industry and have resources
Speaker 1: they need to be sustainable in the industry. I think
Speaker 1: part of what you're referencing Ethan in terms of some
Speaker 1: initiatives that may be happening in Los Angeles is really
Speaker 1: centered around transparency of where cannabis tax revenue is going.
Speaker 1: And I think that this is one of the biggest
Speaker 1: pieces that often gets missed in some of these conversations
Speaker 1: around equity and reform. Generally, we always got to follow
Speaker 1: the money in terms of the cannabis tax revenue. I
Speaker 1: think there's of course resources that go into and are
Speaker 1: necessary to administer these programs, but where is the rest
Speaker 1: of the money going. And communities here in the city
Speaker 1: of Los Angeles, in California and across the United States
Speaker 1: that want to see that community that revenue go back
Speaker 1: to communities that have been impacted by cannabis prohibition because
Speaker 1: cannabis prohibition and its enforcement led to the vestment of communities,
Speaker 1: and there are opportunities for us to use those resources
Speaker 1: to build back these communities stronger. And so I think
Speaker 1: that's part of what's happening in the City of Los
Speaker 1: Angeles and what we've seen, and if I think folks
Speaker 1: in Los Angeles or or leading that effort because elected
Speaker 1: officials haven't, but in other jurisdictions we've seen, particularly when
Speaker 1: legislators are leading these efforts. We've seen jurisdictions like Illinois,
Speaker 1: New York, Virginia, New Jersey dedicating significant percentages of their
Speaker 1: tax revenue to communities who have been most impacted. UH
Speaker 1: And in the grand scheme of things, that may have
Speaker 1: a greater impact on equity reform efforts overall. They can
Speaker 1: then fund different elements of equity efforts than some of
Speaker 1: the work that's being done to allocate a few licenses
Speaker 1: here and there, the reality is that everybody who wants
Speaker 1: a license isn't gonna get one. People who everybody who
Speaker 1: gets a license isn't going to keep their their license.
Speaker 1: And so as we think about disparities that exist and
Speaker 1: how we can strategize to address those disparities, we have
Speaker 1: to think about what the impact of some of these
Speaker 1: programs are going to have. And I've been happy to
Speaker 1: see over time that this concept of equity has rightfully
Speaker 1: expanded beyond equity and licensing to include assessments of things
Speaker 1: like equity and health and the distribution of cannabis tax
Speaker 1: revenue and enforcement. Moving forward, all of these different data
Speaker 1: points need to be tracked, I think, in order for
Speaker 1: us to sit here and assess whether any individual program
Speaker 1: or strategy is working without that information is ill informed.
Speaker 1: Well let me ask you this. One of the issues
Speaker 1: that comes up in the equity thing is about access
Speaker 1: to capital, and that by and large, folks of the money,
Speaker 1: typically white people, have better access that are experiencing getting
Speaker 1: it all this sort of stuff. And now, in terms
Speaker 1: of federal legislation, and there's this debate whether or not
Speaker 1: to pass the Safe Banking Act, which would presumably ease
Speaker 1: access to capital for you know, poor people, including people
Speaker 1: of color, or basically to say we're not going to
Speaker 1: allow that to pass until we've addressed broader issues around equity.
Speaker 1: And this has played out where the House of Representatives
Speaker 1: has passed both the More Act, which integrates the whole thing.
Speaker 1: It's kind of a comprehensive good bill that includes all
Speaker 1: the equity issues as well as Safe Banking Act and
Speaker 1: a whole range of other things. But in the Senate
Speaker 1: there doesn't look to be any real support to go
Speaker 1: for a broader thing anytime soon, and the Democrats have
Speaker 1: a very good chance of losing control of the Senate
Speaker 1: at the end of this year. So from where you sit,
Speaker 1: what's your feeling about this issue. Would you like to
Speaker 1: see this Safe Banking Act at the federal level just
Speaker 1: go through because it actually would help your efforts around
Speaker 1: equity locally, or do you think it's better to say
Speaker 1: hold off, hold off, even if it takes years until
Speaker 1: we get a more comprehensive package through. So I have
Speaker 1: to tell you first, access to capital is a real barrier,
Speaker 1: a marked barrier to industry, to participation in the cannabis
Speaker 1: industry here in the city of Los Angeles and California
Speaker 1: across the nation. It's difficult for us to administer our
Speaker 1: equity program and to see the benefits associated with our
Speaker 1: equity program. Our our efforts are thwarted because our applicants,
Speaker 1: because this industry has historically and continues to lack access
Speaker 1: to capital and banking services. However, you're asking me what
Speaker 1: what my opinion is today. I don't want to see
Speaker 1: banking reform prioritized above the multitude of other issues that
Speaker 1: need to be addressed at the federal level. I think
Speaker 1: we're signaling our priorities always in our decision making, and
Speaker 1: it's just kind of crazy to me that we are
Speaker 1: priority using businesses and their concerns, albeit black and brown
Speaker 1: businesses have these concerns too, but above individuals and communities
Speaker 1: that have been impacted. So as much as I see
Speaker 1: day to day and deal with the challenges of an
Speaker 1: industry's lack of access to banking, I also see many
Speaker 1: other impacts that federal prohibition continues to have on our
Speaker 1: community in the industry at large. Yeah, I have to
Speaker 1: say I've really been torn about it because I keep
Speaker 1: very close to my successors the Drug Policy Alliance on
Speaker 1: these policy issues, and I really admire the way they
Speaker 1: put together a coalition New Yorpe to pull together a
Speaker 1: comprehensive bill, and the moment was right with very strong
Speaker 1: Democratic majorities and COMO being not really all that keen
Speaker 1: and marijuana reform being hostile, and so I think they
Speaker 1: played it right on the federal thing, where what I
Speaker 1: see is essentially a lot of people saying, look, when
Speaker 1: it comes to access to capital, A lot of the
Speaker 1: biggest marijuana businesses, which are you know, generally white owned,
Speaker 1: that they already have access capital, they have other ways
Speaker 1: of getting it. This is an issue for them. It's
Speaker 1: a much bigger issue for the smaller guys. And meanwhile,
Speaker 1: when you look at the politics, there aren't even fifty
Speaker 1: Democrats to support a broader kind of more social justice
Speaker 1: oriented marijuana legalization model right now, never mind the fact
Speaker 1: that there are no Republicans to do it, and a
Speaker 1: very good chance that the Democrats may lose their powers.
Speaker 1: And I worry in fact that either this thing is
Speaker 1: just gonna not get taken care of for many years
Speaker 1: to come, thereby disadvantaging all the poorer people black, white, brown,
Speaker 1: you name it, who want to try to get going
Speaker 1: in this industry because they can't get the capital, or
Speaker 1: more alternatively, the Republicans take over and they either block
Speaker 1: it or maybe just allow a very narrow version of
Speaker 1: this thing to suite their own interests while getting a
Speaker 1: political credit. I don't know. I mean, I read the
Speaker 1: capital thing, and I don't know if the states themselves,
Speaker 1: whether the state of California other can help address this
Speaker 1: on their own. Maybe there's there's action, you know, happening
Speaker 1: on that front, but what do you think. I think
Speaker 1: that the reality is that black businesses have always and today,
Speaker 1: even outside of a cannabis concept, have struggled getting access
Speaker 1: to financial services. And so I don't see unless they're
Speaker 1: specific provisions on on how and why access to banking
Speaker 1: is going to provide specific benefit to minorities, folks who
Speaker 1: participate in equity programs, etcetera. I don't have any expectation
Speaker 1: that allowing everyone to have access to banking services is
Speaker 1: actually going to result in black and brown communities being
Speaker 1: lifted up in the ways that are being kind of
Speaker 1: campaigned on today. I recognize that many of these entrepreneurs
Speaker 1: would like to have access to banking services, but I
Speaker 1: don't know that this legislation gets them what they actually
Speaker 1: should be entitled. Tom I'm curious. I saw the basketball
Speaker 1: player Al Harrington, who's very involved in the marijuana industry,
Speaker 1: now being interviewed on a podcast hosted by another basketball player,
Speaker 1: Steve Jackson, who is actually a guest on Psychoactive. He
Speaker 1: raised this issue and he goes, I'm taking this into
Speaker 1: my own hands. I am basically now getting ten licensees,
Speaker 1: m providing them of the capitol. I think he said,
Speaker 1: they're all black, and this is my way of really
Speaker 1: moving this thing forward. And I wonder about, especially being
Speaker 1: in a Los Angeles where you know, there's a lot
Speaker 1: of entertainment money, a lot of wealthy black entertainment money,
Speaker 1: many of them getting involved in the industry from sports
Speaker 1: or other types of entertainment. Are you seeing more of
Speaker 1: an effort coming out of that part of the wealthy
Speaker 1: black community in this area. Are they just kind of
Speaker 1: doing their own thing, making their own investments and staying
Speaker 1: on the sidelines from these broader issues of equity when
Speaker 1: it comes to what the industry. I am saying, over time,
Speaker 1: I have seen more black and brown folks involved in
Speaker 1: direct investment and the cannabis industry and folks trying to
Speaker 1: set up a structure similar to al Harrington's and going
Speaker 1: after multiple licenses and trying to fund them. I think
Speaker 1: that for some those those models could work. For for
Speaker 1: others they may not work. What I can say as
Speaker 1: a point of caution is that for for businesses who
Speaker 1: are involved in investment, is just critically important to make
Speaker 1: sure that you all have attorneys at the table, because
Speaker 1: we want to make sure that even when black and
Speaker 1: brown folks are the ones who are investing into these businesses,
Speaker 1: that they're not doing so in a predatory way. Remember
Speaker 1: some of the criticisms around min already set asides and
Speaker 1: government contracts years back. And I never really study this deeply,
Speaker 1: so I don't know how accurate this is, but there
Speaker 1: was ofttimes the perception that you'd have people with money,
Speaker 1: typically white people, white business and they see the opportunity
Speaker 1: and what they would do is they would get a
Speaker 1: person who is black and they say, okay, you get
Speaker 1: a ten percent stake, you're the face, you get the title,
Speaker 1: but effectively the fact that you'll work for us, And
Speaker 1: I wonder is that happening again? In this area, or
Speaker 1: there's safeguards against that sort of thing, and how would
Speaker 1: those safeguards work. So it's definitely happening in this area,
Speaker 1: there has to be an intentional effort to build safeguards
Speaker 1: to prevent against it, and when it occurs, to address it.
Speaker 1: That's just part of the reality. I can tell you
Speaker 1: that some programs put more infrastructure and in building those
Speaker 1: safeguards in place, and some programs don't have many safeguards
Speaker 1: in place at all. But what we've done here in
Speaker 1: the City of l A is that we require lots
Speaker 1: of disclosure from our applicants and owners and investors, and require,
Speaker 1: particularly when we're talking about folks who participate in our
Speaker 1: equity program, to demonstrate how the equity applicant owns UH centator, profits,
Speaker 1: voting control, ole, et cetera. Part of what we've done
Speaker 1: over the last two years is to create pro bono
Speaker 1: legal assistance program with the Los Angeles County Bar Association
Speaker 1: to try and provide support to folks as they're going
Speaker 1: through their business formation process and as they're signing all
Speaker 1: of these contracts. But I can tell you that without safeguards,
Speaker 1: without resources to help folks prevent against predatory practices in
Speaker 1: the Canada space. It is absolutely happening all over the place,
Speaker 1: and the resources need to come from the city or
Speaker 1: the state or both. And is there more of an effort.
Speaker 1: I remember one these were very proud of in Top
Speaker 1: sixty four was that we wrote in there a provision
Speaker 1: where a certain percentage of the tax revenue needed to
Speaker 1: go to support those communities that have been most victimized
Speaker 1: by the War on drugs. I can't remember what the
Speaker 1: percent was, but I think it's it's set up some
Speaker 1: sort of grants program. Has that played out fairly well?
Speaker 1: And is it continuing? And is any of that money
Speaker 1: going to help advance equity challenges in the marijuana industry.
Speaker 1: So the money that was set aside, specifically in Prop
Speaker 1: six before, it hasn't primarily gone to equity applicants seeking
Speaker 1: to participate in the cannabis industry. It went to other
Speaker 1: elements of community reinvestment, workforce development, but and it it
Speaker 1: went to things like substance abuse treatment in those communities,
Speaker 1: of building up community organizations in those communities. But the
Speaker 1: money that's gone to these equity programs has come from
Speaker 1: one or two places, either local and up until this point,
Speaker 1: local jurisdictions have led equity programs in the state of California.
Speaker 1: The State of California just recently, in their last year,
Speaker 1: created a position Deputy Director of Equity, which is led
Speaker 1: by Eugene Hillsman, and I know that he and his
Speaker 1: office and Nicole and her operations are leading that work.
Speaker 1: But at the local level where these programs are led,
Speaker 1: money is either coming from the local jurisdictions budget their
Speaker 1: general fund, or local jurisdictions are getting this money competitively
Speaker 1: through grants that have been administered at the state. Now,
Speaker 1: these grants that have come from the state are not
Speaker 1: a result of Proposition sixty four, but are the results
Speaker 1: of the California Cannabis Equity Act, which Senator Bradford Stephen
Speaker 1: Bradford lad in support with our office and other regulators,
Speaker 1: equity applicants across the state. Back in so since there
Speaker 1: has been a bucket of money that local jurisdictions could
Speaker 1: apply for, but that those resources are simply not enough.
Speaker 1: We're talking about the entire state distributing thirty million dollars
Speaker 1: forty million dollars a city of Los Angeles, the largest market,
Speaker 1: walking away with one year eight million dollars, the next
Speaker 1: year two million dollars. And so that's the challenges that
Speaker 1: because there's not a dedicated source of funding, it's difficult
Speaker 1: to do this strategic planning and management of our programs
Speaker 1: because we're fighting for resources year to year as opposed
Speaker 1: to knowing what our economic outlook looks like at least
Speaker 1: two three years from now. We've been successful, that's far
Speaker 1: at securing resources and getting them out the door. My
Speaker 1: department has distributed six million dollars over two hundred and
Speaker 1: five equity applicants just this past year. But all the
Speaker 1: money that we've got is already distributed, and so in
Speaker 1: order for us to do more, we need more. Let's
Speaker 1: take a break here and go to an ad. There's
Speaker 1: obviously what hundreds of people sitting in jobs like yours
Speaker 1: around the country now essentially in charge of the city
Speaker 1: or counties regulation of marijuana around around in the eighteen
Speaker 1: states that have legalized marijuana, and more than double that
Speaker 1: number who have legalized it for medical purposes. I'm sure
Speaker 1: you're in touch with some of them. I saw that
Speaker 1: you're part of a group called Canada's Regulators of Color Coalition,
Speaker 1: but obviously involved in the broader ones as well. And
Speaker 1: I'm thinking at this point you've been in the position
Speaker 1: for coming on four and a half years, you must
Speaker 1: be one of the senior members in the entire country
Speaker 1: now in terms of longevity in this position, And so
Speaker 1: I'm curious, what are those networks like, what are those
Speaker 1: relationships like, who you're learning a lot from? How much
Speaker 1: are people looking up to you at this point that
Speaker 1: you've been in this position so long? What is that
Speaker 1: world like? I've grown to appreciate civil servants and public
Speaker 1: servants public administrators in this space because they're doing a
Speaker 1: lot and getting hit with criticism from all sides. It's true, Ethan,
Speaker 1: most of my colleagues have come and gone at this
Speaker 1: point and transitioned into other roles, and I'm very excited
Speaker 1: for all of them and the work that they're doing next.
Speaker 1: But it has become a very kind of close knit
Speaker 1: community of regulators just because we fail, as though there
Speaker 1: are only so many people who know exactly all of
Speaker 1: the challenges and headaches, similar litigation, personnel issues. We're sharing
Speaker 1: or charts and budgets and how did you train your
Speaker 1: staff to do X, Y and z, And inevitably we're
Speaker 1: interacting and engaging with each other at industry conferences and
Speaker 1: and regulator specific conferences, and so there is a network
Speaker 1: of folks who are working collaboratively, trying to learn from
Speaker 1: one another, trying to improve our our local programs. I'm
Speaker 1: curious because I was delighted when you got this position.
Speaker 1: And then more recently, one of our other colleagues that
Speaker 1: Drug Policy Alliance, Chris Alexander, a young black man working
Speaker 1: in our New York office, got appointed by the new
Speaker 1: governor to head up New York States offers the cannabis regulation.
Speaker 1: If you two been in touch, yes, and he's got
Speaker 1: a task on his hand, Chris, I'm I'm here to
Speaker 1: support you in any way that I can. Obviously, this
Speaker 1: is about regulating locally and helping people get licenses and
Speaker 1: set up a system that meets the state guidelines in
Speaker 1: that city guidelines. But on other issues, like on clearing
Speaker 1: people's criminal convictions for marijuana. I talked earlier today with
Speaker 1: Dale Garinger, who is a long time has been is
Speaker 1: still the long time ahead of California Normal the marijuana
Speaker 1: legalization group, and played a role in these initiatives. And
Speaker 1: I asked him and he says, he's focusing on now,
Speaker 1: is that you still have people all around California being
Speaker 1: drug tested for cannabis in order to get or keep
Speaker 1: their job, which even conclude nurses in the face of
Speaker 1: a nursing search shortage around COVID, where you have pain patients,
Speaker 1: people getting legitimately prescribed opioids who will be forced to
Speaker 1: get off the opioids if they use marijuana, even though
Speaker 1: there's evidence that those two drugs actually have a positive
Speaker 1: interaction in terms of pain management. So how much you
Speaker 1: getting involved in those other sorts of issues which are
Speaker 1: not about the business and licensing but more about broader
Speaker 1: mari juanna policy. So I I am always available and
Speaker 1: ready to stand with communities when there are these types
Speaker 1: of issues that are occurring, and so Dale, if you're listening,
Speaker 1: I'm down to connect and we can figure out how
Speaker 1: to organize together on this. The reality is that even
Speaker 1: though the code that I administered that I'm primarily responsible for,
Speaker 1: does relate to the business and licensing of the cannabis industry,
Speaker 1: my role is and I see my role and responsibility
Speaker 1: is much larger than that. My part of my responsibility
Speaker 1: is to advise the City of Los Angeles on their
Speaker 1: cannabis laws and programs and the impacts that cannabis laws
Speaker 1: and programs have on our residents and visitors. And this
Speaker 1: is a reality that folks are continuing to be impacted
Speaker 1: by pre impost employment drug testing, and it seems crazy
Speaker 1: that this is still the case here in California. I
Speaker 1: know other jurisdictions still have these provisions as well, but
Speaker 1: I feel as though you had made a comment earlier,
Speaker 1: Ethan about how the consequence of California being the first
Speaker 1: to have medical cannabis back in nine and then taking
Speaker 1: twenty years to kind of catch up with its regulatory program.
Speaker 1: My concern, and this is what we actively a fight against,
Speaker 1: is that even with our legalization effort, we will be
Speaker 1: the first, but then slow to catch up after the fact.
Speaker 1: That's part of the reason why I think that there
Speaker 1: there has to be the work done now to map
Speaker 1: out all of these different lingering issues and effects of
Speaker 1: the War on Drugs, of cannabis prohibition, and some of
Speaker 1: the negative consequences of our regulatory efforts to date. Because
Speaker 1: there are so many decisions, Because there are so many pieces,
Speaker 1: I think it's difficult or it's easy sometimes to not
Speaker 1: be able to prioritize all of them. But the reality
Speaker 1: is that the consequence of these lingering consequences and for
Speaker 1: visions are are ridiculous. And listen, if the Feds somehow
Speaker 1: land up legalizing cannabis at the federal level, does that
Speaker 1: fundamentally change the nature and challenges of your job? For
Speaker 1: the change is bigger at the state level. I think
Speaker 1: that it will definitely change what things look like in
Speaker 1: the city of Los Angeles, just because we are such
Speaker 1: a large market. But our job is to help this
Speaker 1: industry navigate through the challenges of the day and the
Speaker 1: reality and that's part of what our equity program seems
Speaker 1: to do as well. And the reality is that when
Speaker 1: federal legalization happens, there will be a whole host of
Speaker 1: new challenges that states and local jurisdictions will need to
Speaker 1: figure out. How do we continue to protect our markets
Speaker 1: many businesses, and I think markets are going to collapse
Speaker 1: after federal legalization if there isn't intentional provisions put in
Speaker 1: place to protect them. And so I think that it
Speaker 1: will be a new iteration of different challenges that we
Speaker 1: hope navigate folks through. I'm hoping what this means is
Speaker 1: that our equity efforts become a little bit easier and
Speaker 1: that we can rely on existing federal, state, local infrastructure
Speaker 1: to provide business programming. That's the reality with our our
Speaker 1: equity programs right now, even is that we're starting from scratch,
Speaker 1: reinventing the whale with business programming for the cannabis industry
Speaker 1: because the cannabis industry, for legal reasons, can't have access
Speaker 1: to the already existing infrastructure that provides every other industry
Speaker 1: business support in this country. So once we're able to
Speaker 1: connect our industry to these existing resources, I think that
Speaker 1: will free up some of our capacity to work on
Speaker 1: more challenging issues. Okay, so the last quick questions here. First,
Speaker 1: when you look back over these last foreign off years
Speaker 1: in a job, what would you rate as your biggest
Speaker 1: disappointment in these foreign half years and what would you
Speaker 1: write as your biggest success. So I think my biggest
Speaker 1: disappointment would be just the disparities that exist today. I
Speaker 1: think I I assume that this would happen much sooner,
Speaker 1: that some of these reforms, some of these efforts would
Speaker 1: happen much much sooner. I didn't learning how long it
Speaker 1: took to go through a budget process to secure resources,
Speaker 1: to get council members lined up to take a vote
Speaker 1: to actually implement these pieces. It's taken so much longer,
Speaker 1: and again that time has been money for applicants, and
Speaker 1: that that's that's been a pain point for many of
Speaker 1: our operators. I'd say another disappointment, which is because I'm
Speaker 1: thinking about another one, is just the disappointed with some
Speaker 1: of our elected officials who have kept cannabis at an
Speaker 1: arms length and that local city council or elsewhere. I'm
Speaker 1: specifically talking about the local city council, but elsewhere. Also,
Speaker 1: I'll use this as an opportunity to call out all
Speaker 1: of the other elected officials everywhere else who keep cannabis
Speaker 1: at an arm's length because they don't see it as
Speaker 1: their issue or affecting their constituents, or amongst a host
Speaker 1: of other priorities. It just doesn't rise to the level
Speaker 1: of prioritization. Cannabi's policy is one of those hult policy
Speaker 1: areas that has long been in need of reform and attention,
Speaker 1: and I feel as though, at least at the local level,
Speaker 1: it's often felt as though when when folks first legalized
Speaker 1: in first passed their first ordinance, they wanted to pat
Speaker 1: themselves on the back and say we did it, and
Speaker 1: in reality, there were and there are so many decisions
Speaker 1: that still need to be made and issues that need
Speaker 1: to be work through. I think what I will count
Speaker 1: as the success is the movement that we've generated that
Speaker 1: I've been able to contribute to around the country that
Speaker 1: has led to an environment where it's difficult to try
Speaker 1: and move cannabis policy orform without the inclusion of equity.
Speaker 1: It is the I'll count as my success the rally
Speaker 1: that's happening at the state Capitol, that just recently happened
Speaker 1: at the state Capitol, just because there it's a lot
Speaker 1: of infrastructure and organizing that went into just making sure
Speaker 1: that there was a platform and something for folks to
Speaker 1: react to in this space. But we have so much
Speaker 1: more work to do, and we've got to think more
Speaker 1: strategically about how we help each other in the work. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's kind of a semi requisite question on psychoactive and
Speaker 1: giving that you're in a public position, you can only
Speaker 1: say so much. But on this one, so do you
Speaker 1: enjoy cannabis? Is it part of your life? Cannabis? It
Speaker 1: is a part of my life. It has been for
Speaker 1: several years. I'm a cannabis consumer of been open about
Speaker 1: that since so I started this position. I've also told
Speaker 1: folks that it's uh, none of their business how much
Speaker 1: I consumer or what I'm consuming. But I think it's
Speaker 1: important for folks to be comfortable talking about their cannabis use,
Speaker 1: and so I've made an intentional effort to be strategic
Speaker 1: about that communication, but also unashamed and unapologetic about it
Speaker 1: as well. So Ken, I'm so gratefully you're taking the
Speaker 1: time to do this. I'm so incredibly proud of you
Speaker 1: for not just the job you did when you were
Speaker 1: working with me at d p A, but these foreign
Speaker 1: half years you've spent trying to make, you know, some
Speaker 1: real sense in order and responsibility in the way that
Speaker 1: Los Angeles deals with marijuana marijuana regulations. So more power
Speaker 1: to you, and I wish you all the best, Ethan.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I look forward to continuing to coordinate and
Speaker 1: support your efforts as well. We've love to hear from
Speaker 1: our listeners. If you'd like to share your own stories,
Speaker 1: comments and ideas, then leave us a message at one
Speaker 1: eight three three seven seven nine sixty. That's eight three
Speaker 1: three Psycho zero or you can email us at Psychoactive
Speaker 1: at protozoa dot com or find me on Twitter at
Speaker 1: Ethan Naedalman. You can also find contact information in our
Speaker 1: show notes. Psychoactive is a production of I Heart Radio
Speaker 1: and Protozoa Pictures. It's hosted by me Ethan Nadelman. It's
Speaker 1: produced by noa'm osband and Josh Stain. The executive producers
Speaker 1: are Dylan Golden, Ari Handel, Elizabeth Geesus and Darren Aronovsky
Speaker 1: from Protozoa Pictures, Alex Williams and Matt Frederick from My
Speaker 1: Heart Radio and me Ethan Nadelman. Our music is by
Speaker 1: Ari Blucien and a special thanks to a Brio s
Speaker 1: f Bianca Grimshaw and Robert bb. Next week I'll be
Speaker 1: talking with Paul Stamit's one of the world's leading my colleges,
Speaker 1: who explains my mushrooms can be magical, whether they're psychedelic
Speaker 1: or not. When you look at the scalability of the
Speaker 1: fermentation in future technology, the ability of you being able
Speaker 1: to generate enough mysilium to replace leather, to replace meat,
Speaker 1: to be able to help ecosystems breakdown toxins, to be
Speaker 1: able to grow enough sulcybin mushrooms to expand consciousness and
Speaker 1: I think saul cybin it will lead to humans becoming
Speaker 1: a new species. We are not the Homo sapiens of
Speaker 1: the past several hundred thousand years. Subscribe to Psychoactive now
Speaker 1: see it, don't miss it.