The stakes of getting it right are high. Not only will the industry produce an expected $1 billion in annual tax dollars for youth drug prevention, restoration of the environment, and enforcement against the black market, but legal marijuana will influence the state’s economy, reshape the national market for marijuana, and likely determine when and how the rest of the United States adopts paths to legalization.

For all the drama inherent in bringing an industry out of the shadows, the success of the transition may depend on seemingly boring details: specifically, the technical business processes that could allow rapid progress towards an industry that looks and feels like a traditional consumer market.

And at the center of a progressive structure is distribution.

I’ve operated businesses in a variety of consumer industry sectors—including several years re-building a historical New England beer brand—and that gives me a deep appreciation for the significance of logistics and distribution. When building its nascent supply chain, California should prioritize the success of the distribution function in this regulated industry.

Modern distributors, regardless of industry, build the logistical and transportation infrastructure that their supply chain partners use to conduct commerce. By developing a sophisticated, modern logistics system, California can reduce waste, protect current industry operators, and hasten the industry’s transition from its black market roots.

The distributor is a natural middleman. And, given the estimated 30,000 to 50,000 marijuana producers in California, plus an expected 10,000 eventual retailers, California’s cannabis industry requires an organizing center with a group of operators tasked to monitor and police the system from the inside.

Good distributors serve as built-in rule followers and can therefore be trusted to take on system functions—such as taxation and test-monitoring—in order to reduce the government’s expensive and significant oversight burden. Distributors will be even more important in this case, due to marijuana’s status as an illegal drug under federal law. As such, the cannabis industry lacks access to the U.S. banking system and remains dominated by cash transactions. As middlemen, cannabis distributors will be in a great position to create “chain of custody” systems, provide credit terms, and deliver the temporary financial lubrication that this industry so desperately needs.

Then there is security. A truck full of marijuana products is a multi-million dollar asset that requires protection, whether it’s on the roads or parked at a warehouse. The bulk of the security responsibility rests with distributors, who will need to build sophisticated apparatuses to track and protect assets throughout the supply chain. You can bet that newly-displaced organized crime outfits and common criminals alike will try to pick off low-hanging fruit. In fact, the Central Valley has recently encountered a criminal enterprise stealing truckloads of nuts, a product that delivers a significantly smaller dollar payload than marijuana does.

The best chance to successfully transition cannabis into a safe, regulated, and tax-paying economy will come if California designs its cannabis policy by borrowing frameworks and best practices from similar industries and then adjusting for elements that are unique.

The obvious analog is the alcohol industry, due to its own similar transition from an illicit economy after the repeal of prohibition in 1933 and its 84-year history of success since then. As a small beer operator I certainly had my frustrations with the system, but the big picture looks quite good: There’s no tainted product, no mob control, and no moonshining anymore. Alcohol also mirrors marijuana as a “sin product” that has age limitations, social stigma, and public safety challenges.

As we approach 2018, when California will begin regulating the commercial sale of cannabis, much of the Sacramento sausage-making hinges on the issue of distribution. Nearly everyone agrees that there ought to be three distinctly licensed supply chain segments—production, distribution, and retail. But an intra-industry schism threatens the question of whether a distributor should also be allowed to hold additional license-types. That is, should the system allow operators to vertically integrate, or should it contain rules that limit certain business activities from co-ownership?

Many current industry operators support a hands-off approach that allows cultivators and manufacturers of cannabis to continue distributing their own products directly to retail stores. On the other side, a coalition including law enforcement, small growers and current distributors support the concept of “mandatory independent distribution.” In short, the coalition wants to prohibit those holding distribution licenses from owning businesses in other market segments simultaneously. (There would be an exception for small operators, who could hold end-to-end microbusiness licenses or something similar.)

In the fight over “mandatory independent distribution”, as with any good Sacramento battle, big labor has a dog on both sides. The Teamsters have long supported the distributors’ coalition, and the United Food and Commercial Workers have thrown in with the current industry big players. In short, the debate pits a strict rules-based design against one that lets the free market determine the industry’s outcome over time.

I launched a company last year with former California Attorney General Bill Lockyer that has participated in this debate, which will ultimately determine how the legal cannabis system will work. We have spoken to multiple stakeholders, both inside and outside the industry, and we are very much in the rules-based design camp. A free market approach can be attractive, but it comes with a significant risk of non-compliance.

If distributors collect taxes and monitor testing compliance, then allowing them to be producers or retailers leaves the fox guarding the proverbial henhouse. Transitioning an industry whose operators have never existed inside a regulated environment will be challenging. Allowing companies to monitor themselves seems naïve.

By designing independent distribution into the system at the outset, the state of California will have a good chance of transitioning this complex industry successfully. Without it, failure points appear around every curve.

The post Marijuana Needs Middlemen to Reach the Mainstream Market appeared first on Zócalo Public Square.

If California is going to transition successfully to full legalization of cannabis, our state is going to need its own cartel.

For the record (and to reassure my friends in federal law enforcement), I am not smoking anything. And I am not suggesting that California encourage a criminal syndicate like the Zetas or the Sinaloa Cartel for weed. The California cartel actually would need to be a legal corporate oligopoly. The cartel members would be a small number of companies with the size and resources necessary to control the distribution of cannabis so that our state can properly track, regulate, price, and tax America’s largest marijuana market.

Yes, oligopolies have their drawbacks. But without a powerful force to wrangle the many motley cannabis players who operate in remote corners of the state, California marijuana could quickly spawn yet another convoluted unaccountable regulatory mess for which our state is famous.

A new market, like the one California needs to develop for cannabis, must be carefully designed. But the early attempts to design regulation around cannabis are worrying.

For starters, instead of designing one system to cover all forms of cannabis, regulation is moving right now on two separate tracts. Regulatory work is underway on a new system for medical marijuana, which has been largely unregulated at the state level since it was made legal in 1996. At the same time, voters are considering whether to approve Prop 64, which legalizes, and proposes regulation of, marijuana’s recreational use.

Hopefully, the two would be combined into a single regulatory system with Prop 64. But even then, things might get convoluted. Prop 64, at 62 pages, is the longest initiative on the November ballot. And it outlines so many different priorities and rules, from protecting everyone from children to today’s outlaw growers, that a regulatory system based on them would be highly complicated and difficult to manage.

How to bring order to the potential chaos? A cartel is by far the best answer.

For one thing, it’s proven. Alcohol has worked this way since the end of Prohibition; it’s managed by a three-tier system, with a middle tier of powerful distributors connecting a diverse array of brewers with all the various places that sell beer. For another, having a big centralized cartel makes it possible to protect the existing small growers and small marijuana retailers. Some larger entity is needed to connect them, and to do many costly time-consuming things — transporting the product, keeping it fresh, bearing the brunt of regulatory compliance and taxation — that smaller players can’t easily do themselves.

Having a powerful distributing cartel, as with alcohol, allows for ownership and accountability in the system. The cartel must buy the product from the growers, and thus provide a check on supplies and quality and licensing. And the cartel then must sell to the retailer, thus providing a check on the amounts of sales, and the quality of the product sold. And by tying together the system, they provide the natural vehicle for taxing all three tiers of the system—the suppliers, the distributors themselves, and the retailers.

The cartel has another important role: Keeping the price high enough to protect small players. Without a choke point in the industry, legalization of recreational cannabis in California will likely produce a big drop in price. That’s because demand is unlikely to spike after legalization; most of those who use cannabis in large amounts already have access to it, via medical marijuana and the ubiquity of the black market. But legalization is all but certain to increase supplies significantly, as growers can move out of the shadows, expand their operations and thus make their once illegal businesses vastly more productive.

That combination—a big increase in supply, while demand stays relatively flat —could produce a dangerous drop in prices. Such a price drop might encourage more people, particularly young people, to use marijuana. And it could put pressure on smaller producers to consolidate.

Distributors, as middlemen, would by their existence make prices higher. And there would have to be serious checks on the distributors. They would have to be barred from playing favorites with growers or retailers. It would have to be illegal for distributors to purchase exclusive rights to shelf space, or offer special pricing to some retailers but not others.

Still, as a business model with this oversight, a distributor oligopoly would be able to attract investment into the industry at a scale that individual small players can’t. (To quote Warren Buffett: “The products or services that have wide, sustainable moats around them are the ones that deliver rewards to investors.”) The cartel would thus be powerful enough to defend the industry. For example, governments tend to raise sin taxes in the name of raising revenues, but high taxes can keep black markets alive. A distributor cartel would be a force for keeping taxes reasonable, and the black market in check. (Colorado recently lowered its cannabis tax for this reason).

And this cartel would have the money to fight the federal government to overturn rules and laws that make it difficult for people in the industry to have bank accounts or pay federal taxes.

Encouraging such a cartel poses a political challenge; many growers and dispensary owners oppose Prop 64 and other regulations because they fear such a corporate entity. But, in a regulated and legal market, some bigness may be inevitable and its virtues outweigh its potential problems.

“Corporatization … brings advantages in terms of public accountability and regulatory compliance, product safety and reliability, market stability, and business professionalism,” said a Brookings Institution report on legalizing cannabis in California. “Attempts to block corporatization are likely to backfire or fail. For policymakers, the concern should be bad marijuana, not big marijuana.”

So, what sort of person could assemble such a cartel?

My own choice would be someone like Eric Spitz, who has already publicly raised his hand as a person interested in shaping the future of pot in California. I got to know him a few years ago when he and a partner purchased The Orange County Register and made a game, if unsuccessful attempt, to give the paper a brighter future by hiring journalists and expanding its offerings.

Spitz, who has an MBA from MIT’s Sloan School of Management, ran a brewing company and founded a “fast-casual” food chain. He talks messianically about how those experiences, along with the newspaper investment that brought him to California, make him the right man to help the state design a new regulatory regime and structure for the industry. “I was meant for this moment,” he says.

Spitz’s goal? To help shape the system and eventually become a distributor. Spitz is now advising local governments about how to regulate cannabis businesses and he’s been talking with former state Attorney General Bill Lockyer. “It’s great fun to see how he thinks,” says Lockyer.

Spitz says the question is not whether such a cartel (which is my term; he uses the word “consortium”) arises, but when, and how it’s structured. Will it have only a couple of distributors or many? And will such a distribution system be divided up into regions, or be truly statewide? He says that it should start statewide and then become regional as the number of outlets proliferates and retailers transform themselves from marijuana-focused dispensaries to restaurants or clubs that offer cannabis in the same style that bars offer alcohol.

“We have a responsibility to do it right, not only to make sure our system works, but because we know how California is going to tilt the scales for the rest of the country,” Spitz says.

And how will you know if the system is working? My own view: When people in the marijuana business stop complaining about all the uncertainty and chaos as their industry emerges from prohibition—and start complaining about the decisions of a quasi-monopoly that’s in charge.

The post Why California Will Need Its Own Weed Cartel appeared first on Zócalo Public Square.

You keep saying that marijuana is supposed to help manage anxiety. But those of you who work in or partake of the cannabis industry sound like the most stressed-out people in California.

And that leaves me wondering what’s in your bongs, especially since 2016 is supposed to be a year of great triumph for you. Cannabis is booming in California; the limits on profits and the number of plants you can grow are being lifted. New regulations on medical marijuana are coming together, and a November ballot initiative to legalize recreational use seems likely to pass. California is thus well on its way to becoming Mary Jane’s global capital, and a national model for how to pull cannabis out of the black market shadows and into the legal light.

If the future looks so dank (that’s stoner-speak for awesome), why do you all look so wrecked?

Did you get some bad schwag or something?

In recent weeks, I’ve posed these questions to people on farms and in dispensaries and I keep hearing two big reasons why cannabis people seem so cashed (reduced to ash). The first involves all the necessary pressure you’re putting on yourselves. The second reason is about all the unnecessary pressure the rest of us are putting on you.

A bottle of “Chongwater,” a flavored hemp drink marketed by comedian and marijuana icon Tommy Chong.

Let’s start with the self-pressure. Cannabis is not just an industry, it’s a movement to end prohibition, and the hardest times for movements can come right when they are on the verge of winning what they want. Your movement’s victory—the end of cannabis prohibition—requires a difficult transition that is stressful and scary.

In California, by one estimate, there are as many as 10,000 cannabis-related businesses—only a couple hundred of which have the proper zoning and licenses to operate a medical marijuana business. That leaves thousands of you trying to work out your futures very quickly—at least before 2018, when regulations for medical marijuana (including a state marijuana czar) and for recreational use (assuming the ballot initiative passes) are supposed to be in place.

Some of you, particularly weed boutiques that operated outside the law, are preparing to shut down. But others of you are engulfed in the difficult, expensive process of making your businesses legal quickly, but not so quickly that you run afoul of the authorities. In the process, you’re learning that while managing an illegal business has its perils, it may be even more dangerous to run a legal capitalist enterprise in the Regulatory Republic of California, and not run afoul of its dizzying array of licensing, workplace, and environmental rules.

A number of you are taking on outside investors; there’s even a new private equity firm making “strategic investments” in cannabis. Those kinds of big-money decisions raise new anxieties, even as you still have to operate semi-underground. Some local governments don’t want marijuana operations and are sending the police on raids of your facilities. And the federal government, by maintaining that your businesses are illegal no matter what state law says, has made it difficult for you to use banks and pay taxes.

On top of all this stress comes the burden of being a political cause. Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom is trying to build a gubernatorial campaign by backing the ballot initiative to legalize recreational use. At the local level, there are competing initiatives that sometimes divide the cannabis industry. And the presidential race creates uncertainty about federal intentions. A Trump presidency might bring Attorney General Chris Christie, who wants to wipe out medical marijuana. Some of you fear Hillary Clinton would turn the industry over to her rich donors in the biotech and pharmaceutical industries.

“All of this creates a tremendous amount of stress and anxiety for people,” says Derek Peterson, CEO of Terra Tech Corp, a publicly traded “cannabis-focused” agriculture company. “This is going to be an entirely different animal than anyone is used to. A lot is being born right now.”

Of course, such pressure is inescapable, given the realities of ending prohibition. What can make this moment unbearable for all of you are the outside demands that this transition has brought from what cinematic stoner Jeffrey “The Dude” Lebowski called “The Square Community.”

In other words, California leaders have gotten way too high on the possibilities of fully legal marijuana. Today you hear rhetoric from politicians and media that legal cannabis in California will end the drug war, rationalize our prison and court systems, create new jobs and economic opportunities in poorer and rural areas of the state, save agricultural businesses and lands, and replenish strained local and state budgets with new taxes on weed.

All this amounts to Bogarting weed for our selfish priorities. Los Angeles County recently debated a plan to “solve” homelessness—it has the largest homeless population of any American county—with a marijuana tax. Environmentalists have been talking about how marijuana, which requires considerable water to grow, can pioneer water-saving practices to mitigate the state drought. And no small number of musicians—chief among them Snoop Dogg, the wizard of “weed wellness,” and Tommy Chong, the “godfather of ganga”—seem to think that by licensing their names to marijuana products, they can replace the revenues that music used to provide before iTunes and Spotify.

Rapper Snoop Dogg, the “wizard of weed wellness,” performing in Cancun in 2014.

Cannabis has come to be seen by its most zealous champions as a substance that can alter California realities—in ways reminiscent of our craze for gold in 1849 or for oil in the early 20th century. Broader legalization of marijuana will bring opportunities, but there are just too many expectations riding on this one plant.

Before exploiting legal marijuana for all manner of schemes, California governments need to get this transition right. The tax system for cannabis should be comprehensible and not so extortionate that it drives out small players (or creates incentives to keep the black market alive). The regulatory regimes for medical marijuana and recreational use should fit together, and be transparent enough that California cannabis goes forward as a competitive market, not a state monopoly. To ease the transition, state government needs to do everything it can to help you—growers, processors, dispensary operators, and customers—negotiate these changes, including protecting you from the feds and the banks.

If California gets this right, maybe some of the biggest dreams for marijuana can come true. At the very least, cannabis could be a thriving and well-regulated industry.

But for now, as the marijuana-friendly rap group Cypress Hill like to say, you gots to chill. These are stressful enough times for stoners already.

The post California Stoners Are Stressing Me Out appeared first on Zócalo Public Square.

Jeffrey Lebowski, better known as the Dude, is arguably the most successful fictional Californian of the past two decades. Created by the Coen brothers in their 1998 film The Big Lebowski, and embodied by the actor Jeff Bridges, Lebowski became a cult favorite for being an outsider (in his own words, not a member “of the square community”). He was a stoner who drank White Russians, wore a bathrobe to the grocery store, bowled, tangled with pornographers and German nihilists, was indifferent to work, and retired the trophy for most laid-back Angeleno ever.

But times have changed since the movie was made (and since 1991, when it was set). And so has California. This weekend, Bridges and his country-rock band, The Abiders, headline Lebowski Fest Los Angeles at the Wiltern Theater. Tickets, priced at $40, are sold out, though as of this writing $25 tickets for the Lebowski Fest bowling party in Fountain Valley are still available.

Yes, Dude, there are signs that you are no longer the outsider. Indeed, no movie character better represents the 2014 California mainstream than Jeffrey Lebowski.

Let’s start with Lebowski the stoner. Since the film, medical marijuana has become so commonplace in California that I used to pass four dispensaries while taking my baby for a walk in our old Los Angeles neighborhood. Last year, for the first time, a majority of Californians supported legalization in a Field Poll. Governor Jerry Brown recently warned against this creeping Lebowskization on national TV: “How many people can get stoned and still have a great state or a great nation?”

Perhaps an unfair question, but it is true that in matters of economics, we are all Lebowski now.

The Dude used to stand out because he didn’t hold a steady job. Today, that makes him an avatar of L.A. As Judy D. Olian and Edward F. Leamer of UCLA pointed out in the Los Angeles Register, Los Angeles has lost more than 3 percent of its payroll jobs since 1990, ranking dead last among American cities. And since 2000, San Jose has lost 3 percent of its job base; booming San Francisco has gained just 1.5 percent.

The work Lebowski did—apathetic detective stuff involving the location of a young woman named Bunny—was purely freelance. Today, Southern California is the national capital of self-employment, according to data from Atlantic Cities; the Bay Area is full of freelancers, and Sacramento has more than its fair share. The number of Americans working from home, as the Dude did, increased by more than 4 million from 1997 to 2010, with Western states leading the way.

The Dude’s consistently slovenly attire, even in professional situations, was ahead of its time. As someone who is writing this in his office while dressed in a T-shirt and shorts, I’m appreciative. And the Dude was forward-thinking environmentally: He devoted himself to carpooling, riding with his friend Walter Sobchak (played by John Goodman) even though it meant tolerating the Vietnam veteran’s rages.

Lebowski’s cultural passions have been widely embraced. The Dude enjoyed imbibing heavily, and Americans have followed suit; adult binge-drinking rates have increased significantly since 1997, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention figures. Bowling, the Dude’s great passion, has rebounded in recent years, though growth in casual, recreational bowlers masks a decline in devoted league members like Lebowski. And while few Californians do battle with German nihilists like Lebowski did, it should be noted that the number of UC Berkeley undergraduates majoring in philosophy increased 74 percent in the last decade.

Lebowski remains out of step from today’s California only in his dislike of the Eagles; their recent run of sold-out shows at the Forum in Inglewood demonstrates that they are more popular than ever.

Some of these statistics may surprise. California’s image of itself is of a young and diverse place. But in fact, for all our diverse heritage, we are rapidly becoming, like Lebowski, middle-aged and thick around the middle.

Let’s not forget that the state has plenty of people like the film’s “other Lebowski”—an elderly plutocrat, also named Jeffrey Lebowski (confusion over the two Lebowskis drives the plot). This Lebowski pretends to be wealthy and philanthropic, but we learn during the course of the movie that he is actually house-rich and cash-poor. Presumably he would have to sell the place, if it weren’t for Proposition 13’s limits keeping his property taxes so ludicrously low.

It will be interesting to see how long the Lebowski phenomenon persists. As the film’s narrator puts it, “Sometimes, there’s a man, well, he’s the man for his time and place. He fits right in there. And that’s the Dude, in Los Angeles.”

And in California. The cult has become cliché.

The post We’re All Lebowski Now appeared first on Zócalo Public Square.

Colorado and Washington each legalized marijuana for recreational use more than a year ago, and this year, they will become the nation’s first states to sell over-the-counter weed to anyone 21 or over. I’m a diehard NFL fan, the editor-in-keif of Weedmaps.com (an online guide to marijuana dispensaries), and a relatively new resident of Denver (who still roots for the football Giants, who are hosting this Super Bowl in their stadium in my native New Jersey), and so you can imagine that I’m pretty stoked about what this contest might mean. Regardless of whether legalization is a cause or a meaningless correlation to these two teams’ success, this head-to-head matchup begs the question: Which state is doing a better job of legalizing marijuana?

First things first: It’s a bit early to know which state will win this game. Washington state’s new legal weed laws aren’t supposed to go into effect until June. In the meantime, Colorado has taken an early lead. The state began selling legal, over-the-counter pot on January 1 of this year, and fans from around the world have taken advantage, flocking to what’s being called “The New Amsterdam.”

People from all 50 states and every continent excluding Antarctica have traveled to the Weedmaps.com office here in Denver and to the Clinic on Colorado, which is also a medical dispensary, to purchase recreational cannabis. I’ve personally bumped into people from Sweden, South Africa, Mexico, and even Libya. On the first day of the new year, I interviewed a grandmother who had come with her family simply to experience history. And I’ve spoken with a number of veterans from the Iraq war who suffer from PTSD, and are thrilled about what legalization means for people like them. The vibe has been not only historic and emotional, but also futuristic, as though Coloradans are glimpsing a time when every state will have legalized marijuana, and every Super Bowl thus will be a legal Smoke-A-Bowl. (Los Angeles, perhaps there’s a lesson here for you. Could legal pot in California help you bring back the NFL—and maybe even get a decent team?)

Washington state is playing catch-up. For the next six months, the Evergreen State will continue hashing out its policies and vetting prospective marijuana business owners. The state has been flooded with over 2,000 applicants, some of them purportedly not real businesses. Washington’s State Liquor Board Control handles the implementation of I-502, the initiative that makes marijuana legal there. But while the board has made recommendations, laws have not been finalized and remain in a state of limbo. Lawmakers in Washington anticipate recreational sales beginning in June, but that date is subject to change. Although the Liquor Control Board has attributed the delay to a desire to be careful, Washington’s implementation is mired in debates among growers, dispensary owners, counties, and municipalities.

This doesn’t bode well, given the state’s history. Medical marijuana was legalized in Washington back in 1998—but it wasn’t until 2010 that the state allowed fully operating dispensaries to serve patients. Colorado’s efforts, like the Broncos’ offense, was more hurry-up; Colorado voted to make medical marijuana legal in 2010 and almost immediately made it a reality.

Today, medical patients in both states can grow cannabis plants legally. However, in Colorado, growing is much easier, as “caregivers” (any person with a grow license—not just dispensaries) have more flexibility to grow more plants—upwards of 200 plants, which yield 300 to 400 ounces of marijuana. Like the Seahawks’ offense, Washington’s approach is more conservative and plodding: Medical marijuana patients can grow up to six plants in their homes, and the state’s proposed rules for recreational marijuana require you to have a medical card to grow. Under Colorado’s recreational rules, anyone can grow up to six plants in his or her home.

There is one area in which Seattle has the clear advantage over Denver: delivery, at least for medical patients. Unless patients are wheelchair-bound and have a written exemption, delivery services for cannabis are completely illegal in Colorado. That means you have to leave your couch to buy weed in Denver. In Seattle—like in California—it’s only a phone call away. You call up the delivery service, place an order for the weed, hash, or edibles you want, and they arrive at your doorstep faster than a pizza. (After all, you don’t have to cook the weed.) Show your medical marijuana card to the delivery person (like in a dispensary), and you’re good to go. Most of these transactions are of the cash variety, as many dispensaries and delivery services don’t accept credit cards.

While we’ve covered growing and buying, a key question remains: Which state’s got a better stash? It’s a matter of personal preference, and probably impossible to say for sure. Thanks to the high altitude, Colorado’s weed has a reputation for being more dry, which means it burns and dries out more quickly. For the most part, the strains grown there originated in Amsterdam. Colorado’s hash has a better reputation than its standard pot. Washington’s strains come from Northern California and British Columbia for the most part, and the pot from there has a more tropical vibe. In the end, it’s a toss-up, and you can get great weed in both states.

But think twice before you buy a plane ticket to Denver to cheer on the Broncos while getting high with local fans at the bar. Just because weed is legal doesn’t mean lighting up in public is legal. In both states, it can get you fined up to $300. While you’re allowed to smoke on your front porch in Denver, you’re technically not allowed to smoke in bars, restaurants, or clubs, pursuant to the state’s Clean Indoor Act. That said, from what I’ve heard and seen, very few fines are being levied by policemen for smoking in public. If you smoke discreetly in either state at the right venue, you should be good to go.

Who wins the Doobie Bowl? One team’s fans will smoke up in celebration come Sunday night. The other’s will just have to console themselves—legally, of course.

The post Who Wins the Doobie Bowl? appeared first on Zócalo Public Square.