In this episode, David Spradlin, CEO of Goldenhour Collective, and Amy O'Gorman Jenkins, Executive Director of the California Cannabis Operators Association, discussed California’s scheduled cannabis excise tax increase from 15% to 19%, which is set for July 1, 2025. The conversation focused on protecting consumers and patients, who will ultimately bear the tax increase during challenging economic times. Jenkins explained how the tax increase threatens public health and safety by driving Californians to dangerous products in the unregulated market. Research shows that even a 1% price differential can push consumers away from legal cannabis. Spradlin offered insight from a retailer's perspective, emphasizing how price increases could push consumers to the illicit market. Jenkins explained how the industry has united to prevent this tax hike through Assembly Bill 564 (Haney), which they hope to incorporate into the state budget process before the June 15th deadline.
[00.00.06]
Welcome to another episode of the Goldenhour podcast. Today we've got David Spradlin, CEO of Goldenhour Collective, which has dispensaries in Weed and Point Arena, California. And we've also got Amy O'Gorman Jenkins, who is the executive director of the California Cannabis Operators Association, which is the largest cannabis industry association in California. So let's dive in. So, Amy, so walk us through, you know, for folks who aren't involved with anything legislative going on in Sacramento, you know, paints a picture what's going on this session and what maybe
[00.00.40]
might be different from years past.
[00.00.42]
Well, thank you for that question. I would say, what what is what is very, very unique about this particular legislative year is you see unity amongst the industry. So what we have experienced in prior years, which I think has been a real detriment to the cannabis industry as you have a lot of different factions. And that is certainly to be expected when you're talking about multiple license types. But I think, you know, going into this year, we were all laser focused and continue to be laser focused on assuring that we can avert the tax hike on the excise tax that's scheduled to go into effect July 1st. And so the industry has locked arms and is completely united in our advocacy efforts to prevent that from happening. And walk
[00.01.34]
us through the backstory. I mean, why in the world would they even be considering a tax hike right now?
[00.01.40]
Yeah, that's a very fair question. So as as a lot of your listeners may recall, we passed some tax reform legislation here in the legislature in 2022. And what that reform measure did is it sought to provide relief to the industry. And I think Policymakers at that time, and even segments of the industry thought we had gotten it right. And with that reform did is that it suspended the cultivation tax indefinitely, and it froze the state excise tax at 15%. It also did a lot of other things that established some some equity tax credit provisions. There were a lot of other reforms contemplated. But those were really the two big components. But to appease the beneficiaries of cannabis tax revenue, which a lot of groups actually benefit from our revenue, what was negotiated was a potential tax hike, effective July 1st of 2025. So just a couple of months from now, whereby the cannabis excise tax would increase up to 19%. And the formula for determining the increase was essentially. Or is essentially based on what the state estimates the revenue loss was when the cultivation tax was suspended. So it's supposed to kind of make up for that loss. And the thinking back in 2022 was that the elimination of the cultivation tax, along with some of the other reform measures, would stabilize the legal industry? Um, unfortunately, that is not occurred. We still have a very robust illicit market that makes up more than 60%. We've continued to see very substantial excise tax declines since 2021, to the tune of about 34% in total, and we have failed to really expand retail access. The hope was to in these three years, we would, um, we would have more retailers come online, more jurisdictions would approve retail. And unfortunately, in the last three years that has not happened. We we are essentially still experiencing a decline in sales as consumers, you know, continue to shop in the illicit market, which makes our products exponentially less competitive. So unfortunately, again, this prior bill did not achieve the objectives. But we are, you know, seeing this potential tax hike. And so we're trying to introduce additional reforms and avert that tax hike before July 1st. Wow. Well sorry. It felt like a lot. No, no that's fantastic. I mean, I think before we dive into how in the world are we going to fix this and stop it, right. David,
[00.04.34]
I'd love for you to sort of discuss. Like what? What does this mean to retailers? Right. Like, what is this going to do to your weed dispensary and your point arena dispensary.
[00.04.44]
I mean, it's going to be tough. I think everybody's aware of that. It's where where it lands the heaviest I think is up for debate. Right. I'm not sure that most cultivators, at least in our world, again, we deal with small mom and pop legacy operators, which is a little bit of a different animal. Uh, the price compression is so heavy now that I'm not sure many can go much lower without folding it up, which is our biggest concern, right? Um, losing legacy operators loses such a breadth of history and and culture in California, Northern California in particular, that we would hate to see go extinct. And it's very much on the cusp. So, you know, I'm not sure that the those growers can take it, you know, much lower, um, especially given the local taxes, which, you know, that's a whole other ball of wax that we, we tend to focus on in Goldenhour more closely than state. But I think this work that you're doing, Amy, is critical, critical, critical. Because, you know, you know, where we do business is mostly in Northern California where there's a glut of black market product. Right. So people that come to us, come to us for a reason, I doubt we'll lose them. But, you know, consumers can only take so much as everybody's aware. So you start picking up those, you know, prices by, you know, five, 10% on a, on a product that's already viewed as being. A little bit high price compared to the competition. And at a certain point you do hit a breaking point. And I think we're getting really close to that.
[00.06.08]
Yeah. And it just when you sort of zoom out, this is not great timing, right. With the price of everything else going up and housing affordability and everything else, it's like this is just one more thing for the consumer to have to deal with. So this
[00.06.20]
yeah, yeah, yeah. And I want I wanted to just ask a question, Amy, because it's something that I think a lot of people in the world that we deal with, you know, with smaller operators that we don't really get the visibility on the bigger picture and what drives legislation and what motivates these changes. You mentioned, you know, the groups of beneficiaries from these, these tax funds. Can you can you kind of name just high level what what groups get paid out on cannabis tax? Well, what our listeners would benefit from that a lot.
[00.06.52]
No, I really appreciate the question, David, because I, I have found that over time, the industry itself doesn't really understand how the revenue is allocated. And so I think it's important to note that a substantial amount of revenue to the tune of about, well, it was much higher before, but now it's about $300 million, uh, goes into a bucket that benefits, uh, youth, uh, youth substance use disorder prevention, child care intervention. Then you have another bucket that's about 100 million. And that goes to environmental mitigation. So the, the, the intent of 64 was to address environmental damage associated with illegal grow operations. And then you have a third bucket about another 100 million that goes to a local law enforcement grant that is designed for local governments to address enforcement and compliance issues within their jurisdictions. Now that that is the purpose and intent Content in prop 64 and how it was crafted. What we have found in this debate this year is that there are a whole lot of groups that kind of fit within these three buckets, but, I mean, you're talking hundreds of nonprofits. They're all coming to Sacramento objecting to a tax free saying, you know, we buy, right, you know, deserve this revenue. And we want to see increased revenue. We've seen declines in the tax. And so we've got some pretty substantial opposition. But it's been really eye opening again to see how many entities are benefiting from tax revenue. And one question that I've been presenting to the legislature is, you know, what are the outcomes? Do we actually are or is all this money actually meeting its intended objectives? And I think there's been. What's interesting is that it has prompted a lot of discussion. Um, certainly don't want to take away. Valuable programming, but there's a whole lot of opposition out there and a whole lot of beneficiaries that I think have been eye opening to all of us.
[00.09.09]
Oh, I'm sure that's that's the first thing that came to mind when you were going through through your list is, yeah. You know, what's the audit mechanism on, on these beneficiaries. Right. You know, $300 million for the youth services and substance abuse. I mean, I don't think youth substance abuse and homelessness and everything that goes with it has ever been higher. Right? Same thing with mitigation. We work with many, like I said earlier, local municipalities, Mendocino, Humboldt and all they do is complain about, you know, the environmental damage in their in their watersheds and wild lands and how they can't get funding. So where's that $100 million going? Right. And they use it as a stick to beat up the farmers locally because they need their tax money, you know, locally because there's nothing available from the state. So that is a little bit confusing as well. And the law enforcement, I mean, just walk down any street in LA and talk to any dispensary operator and ask them how enforcement is enforcement's going, right. So, I mean, you could go on and on not to be like, you know, pointed about it, but it's hard to hear as an operator that the amount of the tax we pay is going to these, these beneficiaries where it I mean, I don't know, it couldn't be more glaring to me that there's an issue there, you know. Yeah.
[00.10.22]
And I think you raise a really good point, David, because, you know, again, I don't want to suggest in any way that that there's anything nefarious going on. But but it is but it is fascinating. And I definitely think that at the very least, it's it's prompted some discussion among policymakers as to, you know, where is this money going and, and what are the benefits? And are we actually achieving the goals that that prop 64 intended? And I think we're going to see if I had a crystal ball, I think we're going to hear and see a lot more discussion around how this money is spent, and is it truly delivering the outcomes that that we all anticipated.
[00.11.01]
Sure. Yeah. I think that's super fair. Because this is a tough one.
[00.11.06]
Is it oversimplistic to wonder out loud? Like why? Because I've listened to a lot of their testimony, and it's like, don't they understand that if this tax increase goes through and we lose more cannabis businesses and jobs than like, there's not going to be any revenue,
[00.11.21]
is that is that true? And
[00.11.24]
if so, why do you think there's such a disconnect? If anything, you'd think they'd be arm and arm with you to save the industry versus this like one small tax increase win in air quotes.
[00.11.35]
Well and I appreciate that and I, I agree with you. I mean, this isn't this isn't just about this. To your point, Laura, this isn't just about cannabis. It's about jobs. It's about public health. It's about vital tax revenue, sustainable, viable tax revenue. So, you know, if the legal industry collapses, we lose hundreds of millions of dollars in education, public safety, you know, public safety. Funding, environmental mitigation funding, all tied to these taxes, so I do. I do agree with you. It's been astounding that the disconnect and and some of the the rhetoric. I mean, I you know, you indicated you listened to some of the testimony. What's been very frustrating for me is having to sit across from the opponents who are accusing the industry of just pocketing this money. This is not about corporate profits, as they have said this. This is this is money that is paid by consumers, shopping and legal stores. And so, you know, we've done some math and there was one statistic. So we we talked a little bit earlier about price sensitivity. There's a lot of analysis out there that, you know, a 1% differential in price will drive consumers away. And so if you're talking about going from a 15% tax to a 19% tax, that's a 25% increase. And so if you look at that and I don't want to throw too many numbers out there, but let's just assume you get a 10% drop off in consumer spending in a legal store. We have calculated that to to equate to a $13 million loss in revenue just to the state alone. And I think a 10% decline in consumer spending and legal stores, if we experience such a big tax jump, is probably a pretty conservative number. Wow.
[00.13.28]
That's incredible. Well, so let's let's switch gears slightly and talk about, you know, what's the current legislative fix. Uh, AB 564 for Matt Haney. What is that bill all about and what's it intended to do?
[00.13.41]
Yeah. So really excited to be part of the, you know, group of the very large group of organizations that are rallying behind this bill. It's like I said, we're united as an industry. We're all co-sponsoring. So what this bill does is it halts the scheduled increase. Effective July 1st. So we would basically freeze the tax rate at its current level of 15%. So it would just it would it would prevent that tax hike that we're all fearful of that again from 15 to 19%. And and I think it's really it's critically important. And what's, what's been really encouraging is that the legislature really appears to understand what is happening to the industry. So we have we have successfully made our point that the industry is in crisis and we can't sustain that tax hike. And so the bill is moving through the legislature. It has received no opposition from from actual policy makers thus far. We've had a few legislators lay off the bill or abstained from voting, but we do not have a single no vote on this bill. And so I have to commend the industry again for for uniting. Behind this this issue. I think with this unity comes a lot of support from from the legislature. And while we still have a lot of work to do, the bill continues to move and we continue to receive very positive feedback. David,
[00.15.16]
go for it. I see your oh yeah.
[00.15.19]
Yeah, I yeah, I was just going to say can you can you not to. No no pull anybody's covers but can you, can you give some visibility on who else is supporting the this bill outside of the industry. Are there any are there any, you know, labor groups etc., that are, you know, industry adjacent that, that are supporting this, this
[00.15.40]
push? No, I appreciate the question. Yes. The bill is actually supported by local government associations. So we have support from the League of California cities, the rural county, uh, representatives of California, the California State Association of Counties. We also have the United Food and Commercial Workers, which represents a lot of unionized employees and cannabis retail shops. So we have union and local government support and really locking arms with industry, and they've been actively lobbying with us and coalition, which I think sends a really compelling message to legislators, because it's not it's not every day that the industry and local governments are lobbying together.
[00.16.27]
Sure. Yeah. I mean, it's incredibly rare. To your earlier point, when we first started talking. I think that's the biggest hurdle in in advocacy in cannabis is getting the right voices to, you know, a line in the room. It's so hard, even in small groups, let alone, you know, statewide initiatives. Incredibly difficult and frustrating. So kudos to you for having the the steel to hang with it. I really appreciate it.
[00.16.54]
I appreciate that. I appreciate that. Hey, I look for every opportunity to lobby with with our local government partners and they they've been great and I and and one of the messages I've conveyed to the legislature with their assistance has been the fact that many local governments very recently, Sonoma County, I believe it was Palm Desert and others have actually reduced their local taxes because they they are experiencing a loss of revenue and massive consolidation or of licenses or licenses, just, just, you know, licensees just going under. And so they see it locally and realize that it's incumbent upon all of us to work collectively to provide relief to this industry.
[00.17.42]
Yeah, for sure. And the unfortunate part is, is the local tax generally is the most impactful to the community, right. You know, to your point earlier, you know, all the beneficiaries you listed out. Those are big groups, large, you know, kind of invisible to the public eye oftentimes. Right. But you know, the city tax that we pay or the. County tax that we pay. It's much more material to the day to day lives of the people paying it, generally speaking. So it's nice to hear that you're getting support from local because oftentimes those are the hardest, you know, heels dug in in my experience, because like I said, we we deal with locals much more than we do with state with what I'm doing now. So I get it. But, you know, it's a bummer that they have to fold up their revenue because the state is drawing such a hard line. It's really frustrating.
[00.18.26]
Yeah. Yeah. And I and I've heard them say the same thing. I'm sure you have. I mean, it's it's it's pretty stark. You know. So yeah, hopefully we can get this bill through, uh, and, you know, give some breathing room to make some further changes, which I'm sure are on your radar following this hopeful victory. You know. Well, I mean,
[00.18.46]
talk us through the timing, because I may be misunderstanding, but the. Okay, so the tax increase would go into effect July 1st. If the bill passes, then when would it even actually be enacted? Would that be January 2026, or would it be in time for July
[00.19.01]
1st? I really appreciate that question. And I want to. I don't want to confuse anybody that's listening when I try to walk through this. So, so bear with me. So, so AB 564 is currently the only game in town. It is a policy bill. It is in the Assembly. It still has to go to the Senate. A typical timeline for a piece of legislation is about is about nine months, which would mean it would. The bill would probably not take effect until after the tax hike occurs on July 1st. Now. So having said that, oftentimes bills are introduced to provide context to the legislature and to the administration. So in this case, the Newsome administration on, you know, the appetite of the legislature and the appetite of various constituencies that are affected. And so this bill is, I think, the better way to put this this bill is like a barometer, if you will. And so I think what we are hoping to achieve is some sort of fix through the budget process. So we've seen the bill, the bill's been debated. We've seen, you know, who's coming out and support, who's coming out in opposition. What we're hoping will happen now is that this bill essentially merge into the budget process. And if it goes if it if it transitions into the budget process, we can wrap this up and avert any sort of tax hike by July 1st. Keep in mind the deadline to pass the budget is June 15th. So we're hoping that to see some sort of an evolution where we go from this policy bill into a budget play, if you will, or a budget process. Drill and we can actually avert this tax hike. Come July 1st. Sorry, that's a little bit detailed, but it's just the way the legislature works and it doesn't negate the significance of this bill. Again, the intent was to really understand where there was alignment, the appetite of the legislature. And now we've seen all that. And so again, next up is is something I'm working on very aggressively and in real time is to to move this into that budget process which is starting actually starts tomorrow, tomorrow May 4th, late May 14th. Yeah.
[00.21.36]
Okay. Yeah. I think that's really helpful context just for again folks that, you know, don't work in policymaking and and aren't quite sure like well it's a bill. So like isn't that the final say. It's like well or it may just be a vehicle to something better.
[00.21.49]
Yep, yep.
[00.21.50]
Yeah. That's really helpful.
[00.21.52]
Um, but I'm sure you all saw that Wall Street Journal piece that sort of ripped rip California new one for, you know, only sort of picking the cannabis industry to receive tax relief when really everyone in California could, could, could have
[00.22.05]
benefit from getting some tax relief. So walk us through and both of you actually write because you both sort of sit from different angles. But why do cannabis businesses in the industry deserve tax relief versus any other business?
[00.22.19]
Well, I certainly I can certainly provide some some color there. And I'll, I'll, I'll frame it this way. Um, the Department of Cannabis Control, which is our regulatory agency overseeing cannabis license holders, commissioned an economic report that was released earlier this year. And the findings are pretty staggering. So when you look at California's excise tax on cannabis businesses and the licensing fees on cannabis businesses, they are 124% and 162% higher, respectively, than Then states like Michigan. So our tax rate on cannabis businesses is overwhelming. And when you and I'll, I'll I'll pare that down even more. And again this is pulling directly from the economic analysis. All together cannabis taxes and fees in California amount to almost 78% of the wholesale value of that product. Now, when you compare that to other age restricted products, the wholesale value is 8.4% for alcohol and 29.5% for tobacco. So what that tells you is that we are we are heavily taxed and heavily regulated to the point that it's just not a sustainable framework. So going back to your question, Laura, why why not tax relief for all businesses? You are not seeing the same level of regulatory fees and taxes that is that is faced by this industry or experienced by. The legal industry, and that is why we're being singled out. And that is why we need the tax freeze immediately. Yeah. And David,
[00.24.06]
from your perspective as a business owner, right. I mean, what are some of for maybe somebody who doesn't know anything about cannabis and running a cannabis business, like what are also some of the other just inherent challenges that you face that say like a florist or a restaurant here?
[00.24.19]
Sure. Yeah. Well, I think I think something that's largely missed by regulators, regulators, um, and other governing bodies is the fact that California specifically had a 2020 plus year gray market under prop 215 that was just allowed to grow and evolve, and those pricing expectations were set. Unlike Michigan, unlike Missouri, unlike many of these other states that are coming online, where it almost is a new industry, this is not a new industry here, right? So, you know, a top shelf eight has been, you know, 40 to 50 bucks at retail for 20 years. You know what I mean? And before that that was the street price as well. So you have a consumer whose expectation has been set for decades, and that's not the case almost anywhere else in the country like it was here. There's very few states that had a medical market as robust and self-developed as California as was. Right. So then when you all of a sudden change and it's not to discount the huge influx of new consumers that have come to the space since legalization and practices, 64 happened. But I don't think that influx has been as marked as in other states. Right. Because we already had this huge industry in place, this multibillion dollar industry in place for for decades. All of a sudden, we just had these new taxes and regulations layered over essentially what was already an existing industry. So I think that's been the biggest kind of blind spot for regulators. It's not like in Missouri again, for example, where there was no real legalization and all of a sudden there was and people were happy to pay whatever, you know, prices they needed to pay to get access right here. A you have, you know, an existing market, like I said, be you have a robust, very robust black market and traditional market however you want to call it. Right. So there's there's all these opportunities to source amazing cannabis that, you know, if you want to avoid paying the higher price you can. So the the segment we service in regulated dispensaries, you know, there's almost a cap on it. And it's a fragile cap to Amy's earlier point. Right. There's there is a breaking point where people just aren't going to pay it when they have all these other opportunities to source, oftentimes the exact same product, unfortunately. And we can get into that another time if we want. But, you know, that's that's just the state of things. And and I don't think that that can be overstated, honestly, because, you know, the price cap is the price cap. People aren't going to pay more than what they've been paying for years and years and years in California. And every time you land that's taxed, it takes out of the margin. And that's going to come out of the supply chain. It's. Come out of the retailers going to come out, the grower is going to come out of the distributor wherever it lands, it's going to land and everyone is in such a fragile state at this point, you know, six years in seven years in that this, this type of a, this type of a push to increase is, is, is a little bit crazy for lack of a better term, you know. Well,
[00.27.20]
and I hadn't, I hadn't considered that with the 20 years with prop 15. That's really two. Excuse me prop 215. That's really interesting. And then also you've got the fact that
[00.27.28]
you can't use regular banks and regular insurance. Right. And tax deductions aren't the same. And
[00.27.35]
oh yeah, that's a whole other animal. Right.
[00.27.37]
Like all these other barriers that just make running a cannabis industry a cannabis business so expensive compared to other
[00.27.43]
businesses. Yeah, yeah. I mean, at the end of the day, the consumer is the boss and the consumer is only going to pay so much, right? Yeah. We don't have the consumer buying that. We don't have an industry like the earlier point. And then what happens right then. Then what? Where do these beneficiaries that are so hung up on their allocation is going to be sitting, you know. So which brings up another point, Amy. This again this is not getting into the we probably getting into the weeds a little bit too much. But I think that our listeners are going to be really interested in some of these deeper mechanics. I don't think you can go into too much detail, but is there a toggle in prop 64 for if this funding doesn't, doesn't, you know, hit certain budget allocations? Is the state required to backfill that or is that funding just not there. Right. Like in Sacramento specifically, we're dealing and I think most cities in the state were dealing with a huge budget deficit. So there's hard cuts that are going to need to be made. So if this funding that these groups are expecting doesn't come through through prop 60 for funding, does the state have to back that up out of the general fund or or do they just not have the budget?
[00.28.51]
No, that's a good question. I I'm going to answer that in two ways. So the first is the just the the practical response is no, there's no obligation for the state to backfill. Now, I will will say that in the first three years since the passage of the last tax reform bill in 2022, there was a requirement to meet a certain baseline in those three years. And and it was like 670 million total. We never made that baseline. But that was that was only established for those first three years. We didn't make it. Um, and the legislature knew it and the beneficiaries knew it. And to everybody's credit, nobody, nobody sued or challenged. It was just the tax revenue that was coming in, just wasn't there to achieve that baseline. Now, coming up to present day fiscal year 2025, which begins July 1st, there's no more baseline. So it's whatever comes in is allocated according to the current formula in 64. Um, but two other points, I think that I'd like that I'd like to make that I think are really relevant. One is the actual program itself, the Department of Cannabis Control, and how it's run and funded. There's no no tax revenue. No cannabis tax revenue is used to fund the program. The program is funded entirely by the licensed industry. So you're talking all the enforcement, all the compliance salaries. Everything is funded entirely by the legal industry. And I think that's important to note. We do not use cannabis tax revenue at all for that purpose. And then another point I'll make. And again, it's a little bit it's a little bit of an outlier. But I think it's important for people to understand is that prop 64 promised a tax structure that would keep the legal market competitive. Instead, you know, we're still dealing with a, you know, a $19 billion illicit market. That's that's the current estimate. So going back to your original question, there is no baseline, but I would actually argue that if you really look at the intent and purpose behind 64, we should be talking about much lower taxes. If we're if the if the whole point and purpose of the initiative was to essentially, um, you know, prevent or, or address or reduce the legal market, we're not achieving any of the objectives as intended.
[00.31.21]
Sure. Yeah, 100%. And I think any operator would tell you, and I'm sure you hear it, if you strip out, you know, even half of these taxes, we are competitive with the black market at that point, you know, and then it becomes one of those incentive driven issues, you know, or is the black market going to thrive when the number gets so competitive? You know, because people would prefer to go to a legal store, I think over and above. Right. But, you know, price is the price. Right. When you're having an attack on 30, 40% to the ticket at the end of the transaction, you know, the that's a tough one. That's a tough one to overcome. Agreed. So yeah, I think that's I think that's something you know, we all were aware of these, you know, nuances in the language and purpose of the bill in 2018 when everybody was looking at it. But, you know, now, you know, 6 or 7 years in, like I said, I think everybody is dealing with such a collective trauma and in the trenches so deep that, you know, we kind of forget and we're just like fighting what's in front of us every day. So I really do appreciate you shedding light on some of this stuff that hasn't been looked at in a while for most of us, right, that are, that are just running the businesses day to day and haven't had a chance to really dig deep into the advocacy side for a while in the way that we were able to, you know, pre adult use pre prop 64 when we were really pushing for it because this stuff is, you know, it needs to be highlighted and you know the intent needs to be highlighted. And I understand that there was plenty of Faustian agreements made in the beginning with, you know, opposing groups to get 64 over the hump. But at the end of the day, you know, a thriving industry is going to benefit everybody, you
[00.32.58]
know, couldn't agree more.
[00.33.00]
So yeah, I think it's really important to like laser focus in on some of those directives that are just purely, plainly stated, you know, and it can't be argued. And what's happening is not working. You know, you have local fires popping up, you have statewide fires popping up. You have, you know, it's crazy. Shareholders are losing money. You can't raise capital for anything because of the state of things. So it's just across the board. It's been a net negative that I don't think. I mean, when you're getting the you know, when you're getting the Wall Street Journal doing write ups about how bad it is, and, you know, every other trade rag writing up about how California is a no go zone for investors, it's tough to argue.
[00.33.38]
Yeah. Agreed. Well, so
[00.33.41]
assuming the budget goes the way that we wanted to, what next. Is there anything folks can do that you want to get involved on the advocacy side of
[00.33.50]
things? Well that's a really good question. And I you know, I appreciated, David, your response about, you know, the industry just just trying to survive and just, you know, running your business and trying to keep your business operation viable. Because we've certainly seen a drop off and in advocacy and engagement. However, it really is going to be critically important for the license industry to communicate the importance of this tax freeze to their legislators. And so it if if you have if your listeners have a relationship, if you are a cannabis consumer and you are concerned about the price, it's it's really would be incredibly helpful to to reach out to your state assembly member or your state senator. And and, Laura, as you know, I you know, I'm the executive director of the California Cannabis Operators Association. Our web page has a lot of information, message points, background that people can access to provide a little bit more, you know, color and as to what we're doing up here and maybe aid in somebody communicating the importance of of this tax freeze to their legislator, but the more outreach, the better. And I will say, you know, I don't want to. I'm optimistic, but I can't be overly optimistic until until I get this done. And, you know, we still have we have 120 legislators that we have to convince. And we're I don't know, we're about a third of the way there. So the more communication locally, the better. That's great.
[00.35.25]
And we'll put in the episode notes and stuff on Coco's website and all that fun
[00.35.28]
stuff. We're at. Okay, so
[00.35.30]
we're at, uh, 41 after the hour. Anything else we want to talk about for the podcast, David? Any other questions for Amy or Amy? Anything that we didn't ask you?
[00.35.39]
I mean, for me, I mean, we could go on and on, and I hope we have the opportunity to do another episode. Amy, I really appreciate you joining us for this one. Um, I think the focus on, on this Assembly bill is probably the most important. You know, top of mind. But like I said, we could go on and on and on. So. Yeah, if there's any. Do you want to cover? Let's let's make sure we cover it. But I'm. I'm good. I think this has been great and super helpful. And I think our listeners are going to be really stoked on it and definitely have my gears turn in on ways that we can, you know, mobilize some of our consumer base. I'm sitting here making a list of our assembly members and our Army and our state senators here in weed as well.
[00.36.22]
I appreciate that. I know, I think we covered everything. I think the the key thing that I always try to close with is really that, you know, we've, we've we've paid over $6.5 billion since prop 64 took effect up until, you know, the end of last year. And look, cannabis license holders, they're union employers, they're small business owners. They're huge contributors to their communities. David, you know, with all the tax revenue we generate. But but at the end of the day, we cannot keep carrying this weight alone. We cannot be burdened with a 25% tax increase. So if we want legal, regulated cannabis to survive, we need to stop punishing the businesses that are playing by the rules and otherwise, you know, otherwise we're just fueling illicit market activity. So I really appreciate you. I appreciate the time being on this podcast. I appreciate the opportunity to educate listeners, and I really appreciate being part of this fight, and I am committed to getting us over the finish line. Okay. Well,
[00.37.30]
I think that's a great place to wrap. I just want to thank you both for your time. As always. I think this was a really interesting conversation and hopefully the first of many. For folks wanting to connect with Kekoa, you can visit Kekoa CA oh, we are also on Twitter, blue Sky, Facebook and LinkedIn. And to connect with Golden,hour our collective, you can visit us in weed, California Point Arena, California online at goldenhourcollective.org and on Instagram. Thanks so much.