With the failure of all three marijuana regulation initiatives in Kern County this past election season, medical marijuana dispensaries are left questioning their next move.

 Tim Blakeley uses cannabis as a healthier alternative to the medications that he could be taking for his bipolar disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder.

 “They put you on terrible medications sometimes. Sometimes the medicines you’re given hurt you more than what the illness is,” Blakeley said.

 Blakeley works in public relations for Rosamond, California’s Antelope Valley Diamond Collective just across the Los Angeles County border. On the outside, the shop looks like an unassuming, blue shed. But the inside is spacious, consisting of a waiting room for people to sign in, and a show room where patients can purchase marijuana in bud form, concentrates such as wax and edibles that can be drank or chewed.

 AVDC ranks as number one on the county’s legal non-conforming medicinal cannabis retail locations as of Jan. 3, 2018. This means that while they operate in a county that has a ban on the sale of cannabis, they have been established as legal in a court of law.

 Blakeley and his collective wrote Proposition J with the help of attorney and medical marijuana advocate Phil Ganong and the Kern Citizens for Patients Rights organization. The initiative proposed to keep the county’s ban on recreational marijuana use and to impose a 7.5 percent business tax on the income of dispensaries that would go to the county’s general fund.

 “We were hoping that would pass and it would be the easiest route so that we didn’t have to do litigation again,” Blakeley said. “We’ve been through this twice. I believe it was back in 2010 and then again in 2016, they tried to shut us down twice saying we were banned. We took it to court and won. It’s kind of like double jeopardy, we’ve already been established legal, you can’t shut us down.”

 Blakeley blames the failure of the measures on too many pot props being on the ballot that ultimately split the vote as well as the measures being poorly written. He referenced the closeness in results of Measure K—52.35 percent opposed to 47.62 percent in support— and O— 52.35 percent opposed to 47.65 percent in support— as examples of the people of Kern wanting marijuana to be legalized and regulated.  

 “Had there not been so many cannabis measures, we know for sure cannabis would have won, which is why David Abassi currently has his ballot going to 2020,” Blakeley said. “So everyone’s kind of backing him right now because if he’s the single one on the ballot then we know that will win. That puts the county in a position where they either come up with a plan or they go to elections again.”

 Abbasi is the president of the Central Valley Cannabis Association and at one time operated three Green Cross Co. dispensaries before being shut down. While the storefronts are closed, Abbasi’s organization is now focused on political and legal action.

 Abbasi’s measure aims to keep cannabis businesses away from schools, stop special interest monopolies, prevent public corruption, provide local tax revenue at a low rate of 3.5 percent for the Kern County general fund, protect safe access for patients and veterans, and order that existing dispensaries become state licensed and only conduct cannabis business activity in industrial or agricultural zones.

 “We took a lot of input from the county and the community and put it into this ballot measure,” said Abbasi. “It’s a good place to start; they can always adopt adult use cannabis if they wanted to. The Board [of Supervisors] can always add commercial cannabis activities if they wanted to.”

 When Abbasi presented his measure to the Board of Supervisors for Kern County, they had two options: they could adopt it as law right then or let it go to election. Abbasi said that District one Supervisor Mick Gleason countered his proposal by stating that the unsuccessfulness of any of the measures was proof that the people of Kern were against the legalization of pot.

 “What he didn’t mention, is how K almost passed and that was for adult use and medical use, and it would have passed if it wasn’t split between two measures,” Abbasi said. “People are saying they want regulated cannabis, that’s clear, so Supervisor Gleason should know that, but again these guys create the narrative for their decisions before they even get into the boardroom. They’ve already made their decision before they’ve heard from the public.”  

 In addition to the dozens of people that showed up to the boardroom in support of Abbasi’s proposal, 45 people had called in to voice their support before the meeting was held. According to Abassi, zero people were in opposition and when they asked, no one wanted it to go to election.

 In a text message, medical marijuana activist Heather Epps faulted Abbasi’s public claims that supervisors were partaking in “pay to play” corruption as the reason behind the supervisors’ reluctance to adopt the measure.

 Abbasi said that he was quoted the price of $25,000 by a lobbyist that would be paid to “buy the Republican influence on the board.”

 “I was naïve, I didn’t think I had to. I was like ‘ehh, no I’m sorry, that’s $25,000.’ That’s a lot of money, right.” Abbasi said. “I just figured that wasn’t necessary. Why? Because I got documentation. I’ve got seller’s permit, lease agreement. It shows I was already established … What more do I need? I don’t need anything more than that. I don’t need to buy any influence. Boy, was I wrong, because it was soon after that I was taken off the list.”

 Abbasi believes that supervisors were getting rid of competition for their special interest group.

 “[The supervisors’ are] not anti-marijuana, they just want it on their terms for their friends,” said Abassi.

 District three supervisor Mike Maggard responded to Abbasi’s claims in an email.

 Maggard wrote: “… In the past he has claimed he had to “pay to play” with one specific supervisor. He has alleged others may have been involved. The District Attorney investigated allegations of corruption by the other members of the Board of Supervisors and concluded there was no evidence of any wrongdoing by any of the other member of the Board of Supervisors. I have not been involved in any pay to play schemes of any sort.”

 Blakeley also denies any involvement in exchanging money for protection from raids. While Abbasi believes that the seven dispensaries that have been given an extension into next year is evidence of a monopoly, Blakeley disagrees.

 “It’s not necessarily a monopoly over them, it’s a group he can’t stop, that the county literally can’t stop,” Blakeley said. “We don’t pay to play unless you call paying fees paying to play, and there are lots of fees. We have to constantly file something and we have to constantly appeal, so we don’t pay to play, we pay to fight.”

 Abassi’s measure will be on the 2020 election ballot. In the meantime, the Board of Supervisors will have to come up with ways to regulate marijuana in Kern. This may be difficult considering the marijuana industry may be one they are unfamiliar with.

 AVDC, along with about six other collectives, have been given an extension of six months to give the supervisors enough time to form a plan. The supervisors are predicted to keep issuing these extensions if they aren’t able to figure out how they want to regulate the shops by the end of the six months.

 “Another initiative makes it a relevant issue. They can’t keep putting it on the back burner. Now they are all officially in office they can finish putting together their cannabis advisory board to understand the industry better and move forward,” said Epps.