“Prop 64 did that… Big corporations started buying up small family farms, thinking they could grow better… Maybe some of those smaller family farms can come back.”
California Treasurer Fiona Ma didn’t stop at calling the state’s legalization framework a failure. In Part 1 of our coverage from IgniteIt’s Market Spotlight: California, she broke down enforcement gaps, banking barriers, and the need for federal descheduling. In this follow-up, Ma went deeper, explaining why she believes California must start over and how the state can rebuild a fairer market for cultivators, consumers, and taxpayers alike.
‘We have to start all over’
Asked whether the system could self-correct, Ma said California veered off course from the beginning. “We had models out there… we started saying, ‘Let’s follow the alcohol model.’ But then they went in a different direction. I think we have to just start all over.”
She pointed to the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) structure, strict but functional, as a better template than the patchwork of taxes and local rules that define California cannabis today.
The cash-only contradiction
Before SAFE Banking was even a talking point, Ma sat on the Board of Equalization collecting cannabis taxes in cash. “Two members didn’t like cannabis and wouldn’t take taxes in their offices. So only George Runner and myself would accept the cannabis taxes… You need to be able to go someplace to pay it.”
She recalled duffel bags full of bills, slow cash counters, and safety worries for staff. “We need to get with the times, credit cards, online transfers, so that selfishly we can audit you guys. We can’t audit you when you’re all in cash.” The room laughed, but the message hit: without modern banking, accountability is impossible.
Taxes, reform, and a possible redo of Prop 64
Ma described the latest tax-pause deal—keeping the state excise tax at 15 percent instead of 19—as a partial win. “It’s still too high to begin with,” she said. Her solution: educate lawmakers and, if needed, go back to the voters to fix or overturn Prop 64. “That’s the problem with these state initiatives: once we pass them, they supersede what the legislature is doing.”
Revisiting Prop 64 wouldn’t be easy. Ma outlined the mechanics: a two-thirds vote in the legislature or millions of dollars for a signature drive. Even so, she argued that a working cannabis system could help fill California’s $20 billion structural deficit.
Small farmers and corporate consolidation
On consolidation, Ma didn’t hedge. “Prop 64 did that.” She said the law opened the door for big corporations to buy up family farms, pushing out the local cultivators who built California’s reputation for quality.
“Maybe some of those smaller family farms can come back,” she said, suggesting that a reset could return power to the people who actually know how to grow.
Coalition over competition
Ma closed by urging operators and advocates to form a coalition and bring legislators real data. “I know there are many in this room who want to work together again and talk about what’s happened in the last ten years with real data and numbers,” she said. Her goal: to rally support for the next governor who “is going to care about this industry and really fix it.”
Her blend of candor and pragmatism left a mark. Part 1 showed her fiscal logic. Part 2 reveals a policymaker who has seen the system from the inside and still believes California can rebuild it better.
About the event, and what’s next
These remarks were delivered at IgniteIt Presents: Market Spotlight, California. The series moves next to Washington, DC for the IgniteIt Presents — Cannabis Capital & Policy Summit on November 17, 2025.
Photo: Shutterstock
