The city-level restrictions seem fair. Without some sort of "escape valve" to let places that are predominately opposed opt out, I suspect you'd get a lot of backlash and you might see a reversal. Better to let some cities lead and others sit the first round out ... although they'll probably be losing some valuable first-mover tourist dollar advantages in doing so.

Not at the same "level", but. Many things should not have "local" opt outs. Such as opting out of providing abortions, health care, desgregation. Access to drugs is one of these things. One job of government is to protect the rights of the minority against the majority. (and no I don't believe in "negative" rights such as we have the right not to have mary jane sold in our town.)

OTOH, I can accept this as a necessary and temporary compromise to get the decriminalization ball rolling.

Marijuana tax revenue is going to fund schools? That's awesome. (In an ironic sense)

I mean, of course it has to be used for something, and most models I hear of have the revenue being used for treatment or medical programs.

Cities can do whatever they want. If you look at the distribution of dispensaries in the Bay Area, they are in SF, Oakland, San Jose, and a few other cities but none in the stretch between South SF and SJ

I recall that the measure specifically allows for municipalities to outlaw sale and production within their jurisdiction, and I imagine many will do so. Seems like a reasonable compromise to me.