A recent operation in California uncovered more than 2.2 million pieces of fake cannabis packaging that officials say was being used to sidestep the state’s legal cannabis requirements.
In a press release, California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office announced a recent sting operation in the Los Angeles Toy District led to the seizure of over 2 million cannabis packages illegally marked with a forged California seal, undermining the safety and integrity of the state’s regulated cannabis industry.
Officials said most of the illegal packaging was designed to mimic popular food and candy items that could appeal to children.
HARD DRUGS FOUND INSIDE BUC-EE’S PLUSHIES DURING TRAFFIC STOP IN TEXAS
California authorities seized more than 2.2 million pieces of fraudulent or forged cannabis packaging materials they say were likely being used to get around the state’s legal cannabis requirements.(Gov. Newsom’s Office)
Advertisement
“California is committed to supporting our safe and legal cannabis market. We will not tolerate criminal activity that undermines the legal market, especially when it puts children at risk. This successful operation in the Toy District reinforces our commitment and sends a clear warning to criminals choosing to operate outside the safer legal industry,” Newsom said in a statement issued to Fox News.
PARAGUAY FINDS 4 TONS OF COCAINE HIDDEN IN SUGAR IN ‘OPERATION SWEETNESS’
California state law enforcement agents seized more than 2.2 million pieces of fake cannabis packaging they say was being used to get around the state’s legal cannabis requirements.(Gov. Newsom’s Office)
The sting operation focused on 11 storefronts in the Toy District of Los Angeles, where numerous businesses were manufacturing and selling bulk packaging used in the illicit cannabis market to deceive customers and thwart state safety and quality regulations, officials said.
“The operation in the Toy District represents an important new direction by the Unified Cannabis Enforcement Taskforce to disrupt unlicensed cannabis sales. Illegal packaging is dangerous to consumers, especially when it is ripping off well-known brands that are attractive to children, and needs to be removed from the marketplace,” said Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) Director Nicole Elliott.
Advertisement
POLICE BUST FINDS OVER 700 POUNDS OF DRUGS INSIDE TRANSFORMERS STATUES
Authorities seized over 2.2 million fake cannabis packages in California.(Gov. Newsom’s Office)
The task force also recently announced it had seized more than $120 million in illegal cannabis since January.
“The legal cannabis market brings billions of dollars to our state’s economy, helping to sustain California’s position as the fifth-largest economy in the world,” said Newsom.
Advertisement
In recent months, the task force conducted operations in 11 California counties, including Mendocino, Tuolumne, Shasta, Orange, Kern, Alameda, Yuba, Trinity, Los Angeles, Butte and Humboldt, FOX 58 Bakersfield reported.
“We will not tolerate illegal operations that threaten our economy and the health and well-being of California communities,” Newsom said.
Brendan Duval, CEO and founder of Glenfarne Group LLC. (Bill Roth/ADN)
No one envies the Alaska Legislature being called back into a second special session on the proposed liquefied natural gas pipeline. One wonders if legislators are being held hostage to the governor’s predetermined decision. While the benefits of an LNG project are easily imagined, the economic risks of the Alaska LNG project must not be ignored.
Alaskans are not assured that Glenfarne, the company that was granted 75% of this project in an undisclosed document, won’t just flip it — sell it — to another entity after it gains billions of dollars in concessions from Alaska. Why the sudden change by Glenfarne and the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation from saying no legislative action was needed to the recent assertion that billions of dollars in property tax reductions are now necessary? It is without question that local municipalities will collectively incur hundreds of millions of dollars in direct impact costs.
Will Alaska give away another resource “farm” again? How would Alaska respond if the LNG project stalls and our resource continues to be a stranded asset? No purchaser has signed on the dotted line to actually buy fixed quantities of our gas. Are prospective purchasers interested? Yes. Have they signed binding contracts? No.
Russia has natural gas pipelines flowing into China. Russia has substantial volume to sell, having lost its natural gas sales to Europe after invading Ukraine. China currently produces 60% of its oil and natural gas needs by fracking its resources in western China. What would keep the Chinese from selling their or Russian natural gas to Alaska’s potential customers in Asia?
Advertisement
Natural gas prices have remained steady, which says there is plenty of it. Can Alaska’s project, including costly export facilities, be built at a cost that allows it to compete?
Legislators, please respond. But don’t sell out the interests of Alaskans. Glenfarne’s and AGDC’s lack of truthful answers raises many red flags. The correct decision is to let Glenfarne pay for its project. If it can’t or won’t, it isn’t economic.
Patrice Lee is a 49 year resident of Alaska, a retired math and science teacher, and a former elected member of the Interior Gas Utility Board of Directors. She lives in Fairbanks.
• • •
The Anchorage Daily News welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.
VIDEO: Hundreds of loved ones and first responders gathered Saturday to celebrate the life of Nicholas Hutcherson, an Arizona wildland firefighter killed late last month while battling a wildfire in Colorado.
Hutcherson was part of a Helitack crew trained to respond to remote areas and contain wildfires before they spread.
He was one of three wildland firefighters killed June 27.
His father, Ron Hutcherson, said his son sent him a text message the morning he died, saying he was on his way to a fire and would try to call that evening.
Advertisement
“The text included a picture from inside his Helitack helicopter,” Ron Hutcherson said. “One of his crew members had a Snoopy on their helmet — he knew how much me and my wife loved Snoopy.”
That evening, a call came — but not from Nicholas.
Saturday, Ron Hutcherson read a letter addressed to his son, recounting their shared memories — including the moment a young Nicholas fell in love with the fire department.
Widening income inequality and a growing number of U.S. billionaires is supercharging the political debate around wealth taxes, at both the national and local level. Democratic lawmakers and candidates, including some from the party’s energized democratic socialist wing, are promising to impose new levies on the über-wealthy should they win control of Congress, citing both fiscal and moral imperatives. Many blue states and cities are exploring similar measures, even as critics warn of high-income residents fleeing to lower-tax red states.
A key test will come this fall in California, where voters will decide whether to impose a one-time 5% tax on the state’s billionaires. The Golden State has a history of pioneering policy ideas via ballot initiatives.
Supporters say the ballot measure, sponsored by a healthcare workers union, would generate needed funds to cover rising healthcare costs for low-income people. Critics – including Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom – say it could decimate the state’s tax base by driving wealthy people away. Opposition groups, funded in large part by Google co-founder Sergey Brin, have spent over $100 million to try to defeat the initiative. They are backing two counterinitiatives that would undercut the billionaire tax and that will also appear on this November’s ballot.
Why We Wrote This
With the top 1% holding nearly one-third of household wealth in the United States, efforts to impose new levies on the wealthy have been gaining traction. A key test will come this fall in California, where voters will decide whether to impose a one-time 5% tax on the state’s billionaires.
Advertisement
“What happens in California is going to determine the course of what happens in this country on this issue,” said California Rep. Ro Khanna, who supports the billionaire tax, on a call with reporters last month. “This fight is defining, for what type of Democratic Party we’re going to be.”
Taxing the rich has long been a familiar refrain among Democrats. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has been calling for wealth taxes for decades, and President Joe Biden proposed a billionaire tax in 2024. With the top 1% holding nearly one-third of household wealth in the United States, efforts to impose new levies on high-net-worth individuals have been gaining traction.
Katie Godowski/MediaPunch /IPX/AP
Advertisement
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders holds a “Tax the Rich” Rally at Lehman College in New York City, March 29, 2026.
In Washington state, which historically has not had an income tax, legislators this spring passed a 9.9% tax on incomes over $1 million. Opponents there are mobilizing behind a referendum to repeal the measure, which appears headed for the November ballot. Maine’s governor this spring signed into law a new income tax surcharge on incomes exceeding $1 million, and legislatures in Minnesota and Rhode Island have passed similar measures.
Advertisement
In New York, Mayor Zohran Mamdani won a historic victory last fall with a campaign that promised to impose new taxes on the wealthy while making life more affordable for ordinary New Yorkers. While New York legislators have not moved ahead on Mr. Mamdani’s biggest tax proposals, in May they passed a tax on second homes worth more than $1 million.
California’s wealth tax, known as Proposition 40, would apply to all billionaires who were living in the state at the start of 2026. Proposed by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, 90% of revenue from the tax will be earmarked to cover funding gaps caused by federal cuts to Medicaid; the other 10% would go to food assistance and public education from kindergarten through two years of community college.
New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani (third from left) holds a forum with economists at CUNY Graduate Center in New York to discuss the increasing gap in incomes between the very rich and the rest of the population, April 15, 2026.
Advertisement
Hours after the measure officially qualified for the November ballot, Mr. Newsom, who is term-limited and thought to be eyeing a White House run, announced his support for a federal wealth tax instead. Mr. Khanna and Mr. Sanders, who also support the California tax, introduced a bill in March for a 5% annual wealth tax on billionaires, which they say would raise $4.4 trillion in revenue over 10 years.
When congressional Republicans passed President Donald Trump’s tax and spending plan last summer, they approved tax cuts for wealthier Americans and funding cuts to food benefits and healthcare. With the cost of living rising and gas prices up since the start of the Iran war, voters are concerned about affordability and disapprove of Mr. Trump’s handling of the economy, according to polls.
Surveys show slightly higher public support for raising income taxes on top earners than for a wealth tax. A majority of Americans support higher taxes on the wealthy, and more than 80% say they’re bothered by the feeling that wealthy people don’t pay their fair share.
“We think this is about values, we think this is about fairness, we think this is about equity,” said Dave Regan, president of SEIU-UHW, on a press call with Mr. Khanna. “We believe that Californians are willing to say that the most fortunate and the wealthiest people among us can put forth a modest, one-time 5% tax so that millions and millions and millions of people will continue to have at least a stable health insurance system.”
Advertisement
California – which has a progressive tax system that relies heavily on high earners as a source of revenue – is home to more than 200 billionaires, though some have relocated in recent years. Elon Musk, who recently became the world’s first trillionaire, moved his family and some of his business operations from California to Texas. Mr. Brin reportedly moved to the Nevada coast of Lake Tahoe early in 2026. Others – like Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page, and Bill Gates – own homes in other states as well as in California.
The proposed tax, if approved by voters, would raise about $100 billion, according to its architects. But critics say in the long run it could actually result in decreased revenue for the state. Even though the ballot measure is only a one-time tax, they predict many billionaires will anticipate that more such taxes will likely follow, and move out of state in response.
“[California gets] the one-time windfall of taxing the wealth, but then if [rich] people leave after that, they’re missing out on all of the income and capital gains taxes that would come for all of the future years they would have lived in California,” says Adam Michel, director of tax studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, shown at the Obama Presidential Center June 18, 2026, in Chicago, does not support the proposed billionaire tax in his state but says he favors a federal tax instead.
Advertisement
California’s dependence on tax revenue from high-income people, Dr. Michel says, makes it especially vulnerable to shocks like a downturn in the stock market – or people and businesses moving away.
Supporters of the wealth tax say those concerns are overblown.
“It is a total fallacy that this is going to mean that investment leaves California,” said Mr. Khanna, who represents a district in the Bay Area, on a press call. “There’s more capital infusion into California than ever before. No one thinks that the AI revolution is happening in Miami, Florida. It’s happening in Silicon Valley.”
Advertisement
In countries like Spain, where there might be three different wealth taxes in a 50-kilometer radius, studies have shown that wealthy people don’t tend to move in response, says Brian Galle, a law professor at University of California, Berkeley, and one of the authors of the California measure.
“The overwhelming evidence is that very few people move in response to wealth taxes,” says Professor Galle. “People are pretty embedded in their work and social lives.”
It’s possible to structure a tax so it doesn’t distort behavior, says Kyle Pomerleau, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Ideally, the tax would be retroactive, only applying to economic activity that already took place. It’s also better if the tax kicks in at the same time that it’s announced. And it needs to be one-time, he says.
Reassuring people on that last point may be hard in this case, though. While the architects of the billionaire tax say it is only a one-time levy, “if voters are willing to pass this one-time tax, it’s possible they’re willing to pass another,” says Mr. Pomerleau.
Mr. Regan, the president of the union, calls the state-level tax an imperfect solution. In a perfect world, the tax would be federal, he said in a press briefing the night the measure officially qualified for the California ballot. But that would require Democratic control of Congress. For now, the union views this as the next-best step.
Advertisement
Billionaire Tax Now, the coalition backed by the union to campaign for the measure, has far fewer resources than Building a Better California, the billionaire-backed coalition supporting the countermeasures.
There’s some concern voters might get confused among the three different ballot initiatives pertaining to the billionaire tax, two of which are designed to effectively neutralize it. One countermeasure would prohibit new taxes on retirement accounts and other assets, and includes a provision prohibiting retroactive taxes. The other requires audits of any state program funded by special taxes before funds are received. It would also prohibit California from creating or collecting new taxes that bypass the state’s appropriations limit, which caps the growth of tax-funded spending.
Wealth tax proponents note that California’s billionaires have seen their assets grow substantially just in the past six months.
“The estimates I’ve seen say that already this year their wealth has grown by 6% or 7%,” says Professor Galle, who also helped to author former President Biden’s proposed billionaire minimum income tax. “Even after they pay this tax, they’ll be richer at the end of the year than when they started.”
