The field of marijuana taxation turned into the field of cannabis revenue, and now it’s getting down to the level of Technical Corrections. Keith Humphreys explains a Prop 64 drafting blunder. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/16/the-marijuana-initiative-blunder-that-could-cost-california-millions/).
No one’s perfect. I do some proofreading and editing for hire, and I encourage hiring other readers, for important jobs.
The way to avoid costly blunders is to let lots of eyes look at the language.
“Pioneer 1” comments at the site above: “Poor drafting is a hallmark of legislation at all levels of government. No editing, no real oversight by the sponsoring groups or legislators. This happens at the federal level all the time and often results in years of expensive litigation to no real purpose other than to assign meaning to bad drafting. Competent lawyers draft more-complicated private documents all the time, but for some reason their lessons are rarely used in government. There are many times where ambiguity in legislative drafting is a feature sought by the drafters.”
But ambiguity was not sought in this case, so far as I know. The drafters indicated an intent the BOE did not find.