Upsurge Rocks The Wonky World Of California Cannabis Excise Tax
Large stacks of tax documents piled high in an office. (Photo by)
Writing—and reading—about taxes is about as interesting as watching paint dry. Tax policy is wonky, complicated, and boring. You may not last past this sentence unless you happen to be part of the cannabis industry in California, where the state excise tax is set to increase on July 1.
As it stands now, the excise tax in California is 15% on every purchase of marijuana by consumers at the retail counter. It's set to go up to 19% on July 1, unless assembly bill 564 (AB 564) passes the California legislature and then gets signed into law by Governor Newsom.
Lowering taxes is a tall order for any industry in California, let alone the weed industry, which pays much higher taxes than wine, cigarettes, and even firearms. It's informative to look at this data.
An excise tax graph made by the activist organization California NORML
Firearms and ammo have an excise tax of 11% in California, which is already substantially lower than weed. A glass of wine has about one penny in state taxes. Not bad for the consumer or industry. A shot of whiskey is about 8 cents, also tolerable. A single cigarette is about 14 cents, which may be appropriately more than alcohol.
Yet a single joint of cannabis has a tax of about $1.25, which will go up to $1.57 should the tax increase take effect. That's a much different taxation for Californians who enjoy weed than wine, tobacco, or even guns. A wine lover could consume 157 glasses of wine before paying the same in taxes as the cannabis consumer smoking one joint.
The data may continue to surprise you in its disparity. Despite alcohol having much higher rates of consumption than weed in California (93 million gallons of alcohol per year vs. 1.4 million pounds of weed), the state collects more tax revenue from cannabis consumption than booze. To make matters worse, cannabis is taxed on gross sales while alcohol is taxed on volume, substantially lowering the tax per serving for alcohol consumers (see graph).
It's a tax collecting machine like few others in the state's history and the state has a large budget deficit this year ($38 billion). While the increase in the excise tax is not directly tied to the budget deficit, lawmakers may be reluctant to give the industry a break.
This is where it gets really wonky. Back in 2022, in order to help weed farmers stave off collapse, the cultivation tax was eliminated by the legislature to help. The same deal also lowered the excise tax from 19 to 15% but there was a catch. If overall cannabis tax revenue did not go up in two years, the excise tax would go back up to 19%, thereby making up for lost tax revenues during the two years.
A majority of California cannabis consumers buy their marijuana in the illicit market 7 years after ... More legalization.
Overall tax revenue went down as cannabis consumers continued to flock to the illicit market which has no taxes at all. Price compression has also lowered tax revenue despite slightly more consumers in the legal market today than two years ago. A lack of retail outlets in California also constrains tax revenue as 60% of the state still has a ban on dispensaries in those jurisdictions. This cuts off legal access and drives folks to the underground market.
The complexities only get wonkier when looking at the taxes themselves. The law that legalized weed stipulated that the excise tax would be used to fund 'tier 3' special interests like law enforcement (to combat the illicit market), environmental (to clean up illegal grows), and drug education (to prevent future drug consumers). All told about 60 organizations benefit from tier 3 status. The excise tax and licensing fees also pay for the Department of Cannabis Control, the regulatory body for the industry.
For the most part, the industry has not been able to outmaneuver these special interest groups in Sacramento. As a result, they are awash in money. In fact, there's enough tax money going to these groups that over $600 million of it hasn't even been spent yet. That's a lot of unspent money and begs the question: Is more tax needed from an industry that's shrinking, not growing?
'We need to stop the bleeding and then address the wound,' said Caren Woodson, president of the California Cannabis Industry Association which represents 150 cannabis businesses in the state. 'Ten years after alcohol prohibition, 60% of liquor sales were not underground,' she said.
Post-prohibition, the booze industry could rebuild—after a disastrous public policy—with reasonable tax structures (one penny per gallon of alcohol) and regulation. Keep in mind that cannabis had 100 years of prohibition in California while alcohol had about 10.
Despite rosy analysis and projections from the Department of Cannabis Control, I could not find a single operator who felt good about the excise taxes or the growth rate of the California industry.
"Raising the cannabis excise tax from 15% to 19% during a market collapse is the equivalent of throwing an anchor to a drowning industry,' wrote Alex Freedman to me by email. 'AB 564 offers a critical lifeline to California's legal cannabis market to help stabilize an emerging industry that supports tens of thousands of jobs and millions in state revenue.'
Freedman is president of the California Cannabis Operators Association which represents 20 of the largest dispensaries in the state.
The California cannabis employment figures show an industry in decline.
Eli Melroud, owner of the Solful manufacturing and dispensary chain, was blunt in his assessment of cannabis taxes in California. "The high taxes in California already make it difficult for the legal market to compete for customers,' he said. 'Increasing the excise tax another 25% will only serve the underground market.'
It may be wonky but AB 564 intends to give the governor and legislature the mechanism to change the law and keep the excise tax where it is, which is still higher than any other industry in the state. The July 1 deadline is only weeks away. It remains to be seen if the industry can prevail and pass AB 564 and get the governor to sign it.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
a day ago
- Newsweek
California Closes $12 Billion Budget Deficit With Hit to Migrants
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a $321 billion budget on Friday that closes a $12 billion deficit by scaling back several progressive priorities, including a landmark health care expansion for undocumented immigrants. Newsweek reached out to the governor's office via email on Saturday for comment. Why It Matters The budget agreement between Newsom and Democratic leaders marks the third consecutive year the nation's most populous state has been forced to reduce funding for programs championed by Democratic leadership. The governor and legislative leaders framed the budget as a response to what they describe as economic challenges stemming from President Donald Trump's tariff policies, immigration crackdowns and rising costs tied to increased enrollment in Medi-Cal, California's state-funded healthcare program for low-income residents that was expanded last year to include undocumented adults as part of the state's universal healthcare goals. The cuts to immigrant health services represent a significant retreat from California's universal healthcare ambitions, affecting hundreds of thousands of residents. With projected annual deficits of $17-24 billion in coming years and potential federal revenue losses of $16 billion, the state faces sustained financial pressure that could force deeper cuts to essential services. What To Know The budget addresses the deficit primarily through state savings withdrawals, borrowing from special funds, and payment delays rather than implementing new taxes on families or businesses. The most significant immigrant health program changes target Medi-Cal, the state's Medicaid program. Starting next year, the Golden State will halt new enrollments for undocumented adults in Medi-Cal, effectively capping the program's growth. Additionally, beginning July 2027, the state will implement a $30 monthly premium for immigrants currently enrolled in the program, including some with legal status, affecting adults under 60 years old. These changes represent a scaled-back version of Newsom's original proposal from May, which would have imposed deeper cuts to the landmark program that began just last year. The Medi-Cal modifications mark a retreat from California's ambitious universal healthcare expansion, which had made the state a national leader in providing comprehensive health coverage regardless of immigration status. The program cuts come despite California's role as home to the nation's largest immigrant population, with undocumented residents comprising a significant portion of essential workers in agriculture, construction, and hospitality sectors. Healthcare cuts extend beyond immigrant services, eliminating $78 million in mental health phone line funding that served 100,000 people annually and removing dental service funding for low-income residents in 2026. However, lawmakers successfully preserved funding for in-home care services, Planned Parenthood, and reproductive health programs. A Napolitan News/RMG Research poll released in May, conducted between February 10–12 among 800 registered California voters, found that 60 percent of Californians think illegal immigrants living in America should not be provided with taxpayer funded health care. The poll also found that 72 percent believe illegal immigration is harmful to the country. The poll had a margin of error of ±3.5 percentage points. RMG Research is a Republican-leaning pollster. California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks during a news conference at Gemperle Orchard on April 16 in Ceres, California. California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks during a news conference at Gemperle Orchard on April 16 in Ceres, People Are Saying Governor Gavin Newsom in Friday's press release announcing the balanced budget: "As we confront Donald Trump's economic sabotage, this budget agreement proves California won't just hold the line — we'll go even further. It's balanced, it maintains substantial reserves, and it's focused on supporting Californians — slashing red tape and catapulting housing and infrastructure development, preserving essential healthcare services, funds universal pre-K, and cuts taxes for veterans." Speaker of the California State Assembly Robert Rivas in Friday's press release: "This is an incredibly difficult time for Californians. Trump is undermining our economy with reckless tariffs, harsh cuts, and ICE agents terrorizing our communities. At a moment when so many are already struggling, he's adding fear and instability. In contrast, Democrats have delivered a budget that protects California. It cuts red tape to build more housing faster — because housing is the foundation of affordability and opportunity." He added: "It preserves critical investments in health care, women's health, education, and public safety. And it honors our commitment not to raise taxes on families, workers, or small businesses. In unprecedented times, under painful circumstances, Democrats are delivering for Californians." Republican state Senator Tony Strickland told reporters prior to the vote on Friday: "We're increasing borrowing, we're taking away from the rainy day fund, and we're not reducing our spending." He added: "And this budget also does nothing about affordability in California." Senate President Pro Tempore Mike McGuire in Friday's press release: "The State is delivering a responsible on-time budget in a challenging year focused on fiscal restraint and investing in the people and programs that make this State great. This budget prioritizes record funding for our kids and public schools, protects access to health care for millions of the most vulnerable, and will create more housing at a scale not seen in years." He added: "Thanks to this budget agreement, the state will help get more folks off the streets and into permanent shelter, and we'll expand the ranks of CalFire, deploying hundreds of additional full-time CalFire firefighters, which will save lives and make us all more wildfire safe. And this agreement helps prepare our state for the ongoing chaos and massive uncertainty caused by the Trump administration. Thank you to our Senate Budget Chair Scott Wiener, Speaker Rivas and Governor Newsom and their staffs for their hard work for the people of California." Representative Pramila Jayapal, a Washington state Democrat, wrote on X in May: "Immigrants aren't making health care more expensive – Republicans are. Trans people aren't making health care more expensive – Republicans are. Poor people aren't making health care more expensive – Republicans are." What Happens Next The budget's implementation depends entirely on lawmakers passing housing legislation (AB 131 or SB 131) by Monday's deadline, or the entire spending plan becomes void. Reporting from the Associated Press contributed to this article.
San Francisco Chronicle
a day ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
This rich California city is losing its mind over a housing project — and it shows why new rules are needed
Most Californians are intimately familiar with stories of cities going to comically absurd lengths to block new housing. Sausalito tried to argue it could build affordable units on underwater eelgrass. La Cañada Flintridge in Los Angeles County flirted with bankruptcy to fight its first multifamily development in more than a decade. And Woodside attempted to declare itself a mountain lion sanctuary to avoid duplexes. But the affluent city of Menlo Park is bucking the trend. At least it's trying to. This month, the city issued a request for proposals to transform three downtown city-owned parking lots into at least 345 units of affordable housing near public transit and local businesses. Since the city already owns the lots, it won't have to worry about land acquisition costs — making it easier for the projects to pencil out, Mayor Drew Combs told me. But this is California, where no good housing deed goes unpunished. A coalition of residents and small businesses called Save Downtown Menlo is suing to stop the development, alleging that the city lacks legal authority to repurpose the parking lots and that reducing parking would cause 'serious and irreparable harm.' It's also collecting signatures for a ballot measure to require voter approval to repurpose the downtown lots. The group announced this week that it already had 66% of the necessary signatures. 'Hoping to squeeze large apartment buildings into narrow, heavily used downtown parking lots … is not a path to success,' Save Downtown Menlo organizer Alex Beltramo told me in an email. When I pointed out that the Menlo Park City Council has pledged to replace most, if not all, of the 556 parking spaces that would be impacted, Beltramo argued it wouldn't be sufficient for residents and shoppers and replacing surface lots with parking garages would be 'more difficult to navigate and far less convenient.' Making space for workers who otherwise couldn't afford to live nearby is a no-brainer. So, who would actually be inconvenienced? Most likely wealthy shoppers from Portola Valley, Woodside and Atherton who drive to downtown Menlo Park and 'absolutely believe they're entitled to their parking spot in front of their store,' Karen Grove, co-founder of Menlo Together, a group that advocates for affordable housing, sustainability and economic justice, told me. Marlene Santoyo, a part-time Menlo Together organizer, told me she doubts that there would be as many businesses opposed to the project if it weren't affordable housing. 'They don't think low-income people can afford their coffee, can afford their pastries, can afford them as clients, when that is clearly not true,' she said. All this is a clear example of why state lawmakers need to pass more robust housing laws, such as state Sen. Scott Wiener's SB79 to legalize dense housing near major transit stops and other bills to exempt most infill housing and infrastructure from frivolous reviews and lawsuits under the California Environmental Quality Act. (Gov. Gavin Newsom is seeking to accomplish the latter objective via a state budget trailer bill and is haggling with lawmakers over the details ahead of a Monday deadline.) Even though the Menlo Park project would benefit the environment — it's close to transit and would save many residents from soul-draining, climate-polluting commutes — Save Downtown Menlo's lawsuit alleges that it violates CEQA and the city's general plan, which are 'standard fare challenges you'd see in almost any case objecting to new housing,' said Chris Elmendorf, a UC Davis School of Law professor and state housing law expert. Furthermore, most Menlo Park residents have made it obvious time and again that they support increased development. In 2014, a measure to limit downtown development was defeated with about 62% of the vote. In 2022, the same percentage of voters defeated a measure that would have prevented the City Council from rezoning land designated for single-family homes. Even Mayor Combs, the City Council member perhaps most willing to strike a compromise with Save Downtown Menlo, described the situation as 'frustrating.' He's being nice. The effort is unhinged. One of the main allegations in the group's lawsuit, for example, is that Menlo Park doesn't technically own the parking lots because they were paid for by assessments on nearby property owners. Only a majority vote of those property owners, the lawsuit contends, could allow the lots to be repurposed. When I ran this by Darien Shanske, a UC Davis School of Law professor and expert on taxation and local government law, he described the allegations as 'crazy,' noting that California law gives significant leeway to local policymakers to repurpose property paid for by an assessment district. 'I am not sure if this complaint was just drafted to be a nuisance, or by ChatGPT, or both,' Shanske told me in an email. 'For my part, the city should not be intimidated and should proceed.' The irony is that Save Downtown Menlo's efforts — if successful — could lead to the city being forced to approve even bigger, denser projects. If Menlo Park were to backtrack on its plan to redevelop the parking lots, the state could revoke approval for its housing plan — opening it up to the builder's remedy, which permits developers to bypass local zoning rules for projects with affordable units, a spokesperson for the state Department of Housing and Community Development told me. David Lanferman, the attorney who filed the lawsuit on behalf of Save Downtown Menlo, filed a similar lawsuit against Palo Alto, which is also seeking to transform a downtown parking lot into affordable housing. He did not respond to my request for comment. Ultimately, logic may not be the point here. The goal seems to be making it harder to do things that should be simple — like building housing. The state can't act fast enough. It's still far too easy for a vocal minority of people to hold up projects that would benefit the vast majority of a community. Emily Hoeven is a columnist and editorial writer for the Opinion section.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
California will see 'devastating' healthcare cuts under GOP bill, Newsom says
As many as 3.4 million Californians could lose their state Medi-Cal health insurance under the budget bill making its way through the U.S. Senate, Gov. Gavin Newsom said Friday. Newsom said the proposed cuts to healthcare in the "one big, beautiful bill," a cornerstone of President Trump's second-term agenda, could force the closure of struggling rural hospitals, reduce government food assistance for those in need and drive up premiums for people who rely on Covered California, the state's Affordable Care Act health insurance marketplace. "This is devastating," Newsom said. "I know that word is often overused in this line of work, but this is, in many ways, an understatement of how reckless and cruel and damaging this is." Medicaid provides health insurance for about 1 in 5 Americans and generally uses income, rather than employment, as a condition for enrollment. Roughly 15 million Californians, more than a third of the state, are on Medi-Cal, the state's version of Medicaid, with some of the highest percentages in rural counties that supported Trump in the November election. More than half of California children receive healthcare coverage through Medi-Cal. The Senate is still debating its version of the bill. But the current version would require many Medicaid recipients to prove every six months that they work, volunteer or attend school at least 80 hours per month. States would be required to set up their work eligibility verification systems by the end of 2026, just after the midterm elections. States that do not set up those systems could lose federal Medicaid funding. Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters last month that the aim of the policy was to encourage poor Americans to contribute and "return the dignity of work to young men who need to be out working instead of playing video games all day." The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated this month that the requirements would cut about $344 billion in Medicaid spending over a decade and leave 4.8 million more people uninsured. Health policy experts warn that work requirements can lead to people who are eligible, but can't prove it, losing their benefits. Newsom said 5.1 million people in California would need to go through the work verification progress and about one-third would "likely" meet the requirements. The other two-thirds would "go through the labyrinth of manual verification," Newsom said. He said 3 million people in California could lose coverage through the new Medicaid work requirements, and 400,000 more could lose their insurance if they were required to re-verify their eligibility every six months. Newsom said that the state's estimate was based on the number of people who dropped off Medicaid in New Hampshire and Arkansas after those states briefly implemented their own work requirements. Last year, California became the first state in the nation to offer healthcare to low-income undocumented immigrants. The expansion, approved by Newsom and the Democratic-led Legislature, has cost the state billions and drawn sharp criticism from Republicans. Assembly Minority Leader James Gallagher (R-Yuba City), who has previously called on Newsom to walk back that coverage, said on social media Friday that Newsom and Democratic legislative leaders had "obliterated" the healthcare system. Newsom's budget proposal in May proposed substantial cuts to the healthcare program for undocumented immigrants, including freezing new enrollment in 2026, requiring adults to pay $100 monthly premiums and cutting full dental coverage. Lawmakers ultimately agreed to require undocumented immigrant adults ages 19 to 59 to pay $30 monthly premiums beginning July 2027. Their plan adopts Newsom's enrollment cap but gives people three months to reapply if their coverage lapses instead of immediately cutting off their eligibility. Democrats agreed to cut full dental coverage for adult immigrants who are undocumented, but delayed the change until July 1, 2026. In Congress, the GOP bill could also pose a serious threat to 16 struggling hospitals in 14 rural counties, which received a $300-million lifeline in interest-free loans in 2023, Newsom said. He said the Republican members of Congress in California who supported the bill and represent rural parts of California, including Central Valley Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford) and Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin), are "gutting an already vulnerable system." Some senators are pushing to change a requirement that would require states to freeze and cut by half the tax they impose on Medicaid providers, slashing a key source of funding for rural hospitals. Michelle Baass, the director of the California Department of Health Care Services, said that change could be "fatal for the many rural and critical-access hospitals that are already financially strained." Newsom said in aggregate, the cuts could threaten California's progress in reducing the share of residents without health insurance, which stands at about 6.4%. Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
