AIDS Funding Sought from CA Legal Marijuana Measures

A San Francisco-based AIDS agency is calling on the proponents of legalizing marijuana use in California to direct a portion of the tax revenues generated by doing so toward HIV, hepatitis C, and other health needs.

Half a dozen groups have either filed paperwork with state elections officials or indicated they plan to do so in coming weeks to put a measure on the November 2016 ballot to allow for the personal use of marijuana in California. Medical use of cannabis in the Golden State was legalized with the passage of Proposition 215 in 1996.

Project Inform, which does education and advocacy work around HIV and AIDS at the local, state, and national levels, has reached out to a number of the marijuana legalization campaigns in recent weeks to ask them to designate for health care needs a certain percentage of the tax revenues collected from the sale of cannabis products.

The money could fund such things as HIV prevention, treatment for Hep C, substance use services, and mental health programs. Project Inform Executive Director Dana Van Gorder publicly disclosed the idea during a recent hearing in San Francisco held by state lawmakers working on a statewide plan to end HIV transmissions.

"Join us in asking the various campaigns to make sure this is addressed," he said during his remarks at the August 21 hearing.

In an interview this week with the Bay Area Reporter, Van Gorder said he was "kind of doing it solo" when asked what other AIDS agencies had signed on to the funding request of the cannabis legalization campaigns.

"The context for this is HIV and AIDS funding, particularly prevention, was cut by $85 million in the middle of the recession," said Van Gorder. "Advocates were able to get some of it restored. But we lag behind in terms of state funding so this seems like a reasonable opportunity to resolve that."

Should state lawmakers adopt what they are calling "A California Plan to End AIDS," it will cost money to implement the various recommendations included in the document, noted Van Gorder.

As the B.A.R. reported last week, HIV and AIDS advocates are pushing to see included in the state plan such strategies as access to a once-a-day pill that prevents a person from contracting HIV; treatment on demand for those people who test HIV positive; and access to drugs that can cure a person of Hep C.

"There is this conversation of whether the state is in a position to develop a plan to really end the AIDS epidemic. To fund that, we need to look for new sources of revenue. This seemed like an ideal opportunity," said Van Gorder. "It is not just HIV. We could designate it for a whole set of public health programs, including HIV, viral hepatitis, STDs, mental health, and substance abuse programs.

"Given the historic connection between the normalization and legalization of cannabis for medical purposes, it seems to make sense that some of this revenue might be used for public health purposes," he added.

ReformCA, a coalition of groups working on introducing a legalization measure this fall, is receptive to Van Gorder's proposal. It is hosting a roundtable meeting with various interested parties Thursday to discuss its initiative and how any tax revenues collected would be distributed.

"It is one of the things we are drilling down on as we speak," said Dale Sky Jones, chair of the Coalition for Cannabis Policy Reform and the executive chancellor at Oaksterdam University in Oakland.

Another ReformCA group, the Marijuana Policy Project based in Colorado, told the B.A.R. it was unaware of Van Gorder's request to see tax revenues from legal cannabis sales be used for health care needs.

"I don't think it's really just a question of whether we or anyone else supports using funds in this fashion. I think a bigger question is what the tax structure will look like (and) what types of licensing fees will be in place," wrote Mason Tvert, the agency's communications director, in an emailed reply. "First and foremost, revenue must cover the cost of establishing a regulatory system, implementing regulations, and enforcing them. Also, I'm sure there will be questions about how the funds would be allocated to ensure they are used on those particular public health matters (e.g. which department? a specific program within a department? etc.)."

One measure, the Marijuana Control, Legalization and Revenue Act of 2016, includes a number of 10 percent allocations in the tax revenues it would raise. Funding would be directed, for instance, to pre-K programs, public schools, community colleges and public universities, water conservation and environmental programs, law enforcement services, and drug abuse education and treatment.

John Lee, the director of Americans for Policy Reform, which filed the initiative, told the B.A.R. he had not been contacted by Van Gorder as of Tuesday morning this week.

"We are open to discussions on how we designate revenue generated through our initiative. I would be glad to talk to this organization," said Lee, adding that "time is of the essence," as his group plans to file a revised initiative in the coming weeks.

Chad M. Hanes, one of the proponents behind the Safe Communities, Parks and Schools Act of 2016 initiative, told the B.A.R. that health care needs could be funded under the local sale taxes allowed for under the ballot measure. Voters in cities and counties would be able to approve a tax of up to 10 percent on the sale of cannabis for non-medical use.

"If voters, for example, approve a 5 percent local tax and want it to go to HIV programs, they can easily do that, no problem," said Hanes.

One person supportive of Van Gorder's funding proposal when asked about it by the B.A.R. was Jeff Sheehy, who served as an HIV policy adviser to former San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, now the state's lieutenant governor and an advocate for legalization of marijuana.

"In my opinion I think a linkage between health care and marijuana has been there since Prop 215 in 1996. So I think that is a very positive frame in which to view marijuana. Prop. 215 has alleviated a lot of suffering for patients in California," said Sheehy. "So if you legalize marijuana, to have marijuana continue to provide benefits to patients in California, it really seems logical to me. ... Having this money go to unmet medical needs is perfectly consistent with the decriminalization of marijuana in California."