What's new

Legalize Marijuana Will Be on CA Ballot

vta

Active member
Veteran
By John Hoeffel
Source: Los Angeles Times

cannabis California -- An initiative to legalize marijuana and allow it to be sold and taxed will appear on the November ballot, state election officials announced Wednesday, triggering what will probably be a much-watched campaign that once again puts California on the forefront of the nation's debate over whether to soften drug laws.

The number of valid signatures reported by Los Angeles County, submitted minutes before Wednesday's 5 p.m. deadline, put the measure well beyond the 433,971 it needed to be certified. Supporters turned in 694,248 signatures, collecting them in every county except Alpine. County election officials estimated that 523,531 were valid.

The measure's main advocate, Richard Lee, an Oakland marijuana entrepreneur, savored the chance to press his case with voters that the state's decades-old ban on marijuana is a failed policy.

"We're one step closer to ending cannabis prohibition and the unjust laws that lock people up for cannabis while alcohol is not only sold openly but advertised on television to kids every day," he said.

Lee, tapping $1.3 million from his businesses, has put together a highly organized campaign that he emphasized Wednesday would be led by a team of experienced political consultants, including Chris Lehane, a veteran operative who has worked in the White House and on presidential campaigns.

"There's all kinds of big professional politicos who are coming on board now to take it to the next level," Lee said.

Opponents have also started to put together their campaign. "There's going to be a very broad coalition opposing this that will include law enforcement," said John Lovell, a Sacramento lobbyist who represents the California Police Chiefs Assn. and other law enforcement groups. "We'll educate people as to what this measure really entails."

The measure, like the medical marijuana initiative, could put California on a collision course with the federal government. The possession and sale of marijuana remain a federal crime.

This month, President Obama's drug czar, R. Gil Kerlikowske, decried legalization in a speech to police chiefs in San Jose.

The initiative would allow adults 21 or older to possess up to an ounce for personal use.

Possession of an ounce or less has been a misdemeanor with a $100 fine since 1975, when Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, who was then governor, signed a law that reduced tough marijuana penalties that had allowed judges to impose 10-year sentences.

Legalization supporters note that misdemeanor arrests have risen dramatically in California in the last two decades. The initiative would also allow adults to grow up to 25 square feet of marijuana per residence or parcel.

But the measure, known as the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act, goes further, allowing cities and counties to adopt ordinances that would authorize the cultivation, transportation and sale of marijuana, which could be taxed to raise revenue.

Supporters hope this feature will win over voters watching local governments jettison employees and programs in the midst of a severe budget crisis.

Three other marijuana legalization initiatives have been floated this year but are not expected to qualify for the ballot. One failed, one was withdrawn and one remains active.

Lovell said that the initiative would lead to increased marijuana use, cause the same kind of social ills as alcohol and tobacco and put more demands on law enforcement. He said voters are distressed by the medical marijuana law. "Neighborhoods feel very uncomfortable with these locations that have a lot of dope and a lot of cash," he said.

Lee countered that the state's experience with medical marijuana shows "the sky didn't fall." He said the measure would allow police to focus on serious crime, undercut Mexican drug cartels and make it harder for teenagers to buy marijuana.

Underscoring the importance the backing of law enforcement will play, Lee's campaign on Wednesday highlighted the support of retired Orange County Superior Court Judge James P. Gray, a former L.A. County deputy sheriff and Torrance police officer.

With polls showing that a slim majority of voters support legalization, the legalization campaign will be trying to appeal to a slice of undecided voters who are mostly mothers. "It's always easier for people to say no than to say yes for an initiative," said Mark Baldassare, the pollster for the Public Policy Institute of California.

Lee hopes to raise as much as $20 million. He will probably be able to tap a handful of wealthy advocates who have supported efforts to relax drug laws, including multibillionaire investor George Soros and George Zimmer, founder of the Men's Wearhouse. Zimmer has donated at least $20,000.

Lovell said he expected to raise less than his opponents but would have enough to get his message out.
 

KGB47

"It's just a flesh wound"
Veteran
This part really stood out:

"Lee countered that the state's experience with medical marijuana shows "the sky didn't fall." He said the measure would allow police to focus on serious crime, undercut Mexican drug cartels and make it harder for teenagers to buy marijuana."

If this passes it will have a monumental effect on the criminal mexican drug gangs setting up operations in our national forests and elsewhere, kill their profit margin and you kill the incentive to grow mass quantities of cheap weed which will become virtually worthless compared to the huge amount of people growing quality herb legally.
 

Hydro-Soil

Active member
Veteran
This will drop the FEAR of talking about cannabis and we'll FINALLY be able to get the word out.

I'm voting it in and I encourage everyone else to as well.:dance013:
(No... it's not perfect.. but it will cause a whole lot less strife than the current situation.)

:blowbubbles: :tree:
 

ChronJohn

Member
Opponents have also started to put together their campaign. "There's going to be a very broad coalition opposing this that will include law enforcement," said John Lovell, a Sacramento lobbyist who represents the California Police Chiefs Assn. and other law enforcement groups.

WHY THE FUCK AM I NOT SURPRISED. What happened to "we don't write the laws we just enforce them"??? GTFO of the way of progress you dark age minded lunatics!
 
I think the margin is still too thin to pass. Both sides will be well funded, but at the end of the day, more old people show up to vote than young people and that skews results. Old people don't like pot smoking hippies. I think 2012 is the year, tie it to the presidential election.
 

stc9357

Member
What really needs to be done is somebody on the legalization side should create a website so people all over the country could donate. I would definitely contribute to a cause that I find worthy.
 

hippie_lettuce

Garden Nymph
Veteran
:D

I just became a fan on Facebook and sent invites to everyone in my friends list. I am originally from CA and will be going back next year...so I am crossing my limbs on this one!
 

Hydro-Soil

Active member
Veteran
more old people show up to vote than young people and that skews results. Old people don't like pot smoking hippies.
Umm... actually, reports show that more old people are retiring and don't have drug testing anymore.

They're going back to cannabis because it beats the shit out of the Rx alternatives. It's also a NICE way to relieve your aches and pains.

That... and older people are generally less likely to care what 'other' people think.

:blowbubbles:
 

ChronJohn

Member
I think the margin is still too thin to pass. Both sides will be well funded, but at the end of the day, more old people show up to vote than young people and that skews results. Old people don't like pot smoking hippies. I think 2012 is the year, tie it to the presidential election.

For one thing, I think a lot of old people in Cali are going to be sympathetic to our cause. Maybe not the really conservative ones, which there definitely are, but the more liberal and libertarian ones will be. And yes, young people do historically show up less on the off-season election than the national election year. But think about it.. I think more people would show up to vote for legalization than would show up to vote for any one President (altho since Obama will be running in 2012, his legions of young supporters would probably skew the results even farther in our favor, I'll agree with you on that). We just have to be very concise, logical, and non-threatening in our arguments. Stress safety and legitimacy over black market, cartel control, etc.

I took a good reading into the law and I noticed something that I must have overlooked before. While it does say that people over 21 will only be able to possess one oz, and grow in a 5x5 area, it says later that that is a legal threshold that the legislature cannot make lower, only higher or "less restrictive". So places like Santa Cruz, San Francisco, the Emerald Triangle, Oakland, etc which are historically in favor of higher limits regarding possession and cultivation will be able to up their limits if they want. This is something that I can stand behind. I will just move to an area which has laws that I favor. At least EVERYONE over 21 is entitled to possess at least an ounce and grow at least 25 sq feet worth of buds. My thing is, for those people living in areas which will only keep the bare minimum limits, I KNOW people are gonna be getting more than an oz out of a 5x5 area, what are they gonna do with all that extra bud? An oz isn't even enough to last thru the next grow period. I didn't really see anything in the initiative which addresses this, except one line that confused me it said "It is lawful to.. (iii) Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of any harvest and processing of plants lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii), for personal consumption" *emphasis mine*
So it says that you can legally cultivate your 9 plants in your 5x5 and they each yield 2 oz, or even an oz, so you have to keep your harvest and trim in your house, and yet it contradicts it by saying "Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual’s personal consumption, and not for sale... 'Personal consumption' shall include but is not limited to possession and consumption, in any form, of cannabis in a residence or other non-public place"
I'm just trying to understand the law so when the time comes and it applies to me I am not still considered a criminal.
 

meduser180056

Active member
This initiative is designed to put big dispensaries in control of the market. It's not a fair intiative it is designed to benefit people like Richard Lee not your everyday pot smoker. It's not a true legalization bill. I'll be voting against it. I liked Peron's initiative too bad he doesn't have the 1.3million to push his initiative like Lee does from his supposed non profit dispensaries that have monopolized the East bay scene.
 

Anti

Sorcerer's Apprentice
Veteran
It's not a fair intiative it is designed to benefit people like Richard Lee not your everyday pot smoker. It's not a true legalization bill. I'll be voting against it.

Yeah, I'm sure someone will make a fortune off of it. But we need SOMETHING, and this is definitely SOMETHING. Being able to legally grow your own without the need of a medical license would be sweet.

And the domino effect of this legislation in other states is reason enough (IMHO) to vote for it.
 

Shcrews

DO WHO YOU BE
Veteran
FUCK CORRUPT GOVERNMENT TRYING TO MAKE MONEY OFF POT

FUCK CORRUPT GOVERNMENT TRYING TO MAKE MONEY OFF POT

this is so obviously a scam... COME ON!!


i wonder what Jack Herer, one of the founders of the legalization movement, thinks about this initiative? oh yah, he fuckin hates it.
 
M

medfinder

?

?

So how long did the lies and propaganda of randolph hearst last?

How much did the lies of a newspaper baron cost the world?

How much time did it cost those jailed?

How one very rich and powerfull man who felt threatened by a plant.



Yes cannabis will become legal in california in 2010.
 

bird

Active member
fox news had a thing on this today and the next story was about a 12 yr old boy who stole his moms car and went on a high speed chase. and they found pot and a pipe and a gun.
 
This initiative is designed to put big dispensaries in control of the market. It's not a fair intiative it is designed to benefit people like Richard Lee not your everyday pot smoker. It's not a true legalization bill. I'll be voting against it. I liked Peron's initiative too bad he doesn't have the 1.3million to push his initiative like Lee does from his supposed non profit dispensaries that have monopolized the East bay scene.

I think this is a half-truth. I can see the clubs benefiting, but if cannabis is legalized like this, then collectives can operate without fears of arrest, and though Richards shops will thrive, they are all still going to be loaded with overhead, and collectives with no storefront will do great along side them. Collectives will be able to compete with dispensaries in some ways. But without all the restrictions that go along with storefronts.

I think it could be a good idea.

I know growers in Northern cal are opposed to it, at least in Humboldt and Mendo areas. their whole lives depend on it, but it's like the old lumber people in Oregon and Cali, who the Fuck cares about them, let them retrain themselves and get new job experience, and let the people out of jail for a god grown herb.
 

meduser180056

Active member
I think you'll find that the lies and propaganda Hearst spewed out decades ago still have an effect on Americans when this initiative goes down in flames.

The supposedly liberal people of california won't even let gay people get married so I don't see them being progressive enough to allow legalization of marijuana. Not quite yet. I know a lot of people don't like this comparison, but I feel they are similar issues because they are both personal choice issues.

Prop 215 would have lost if people had known it was gonna be what it is today I really believe that. I don't agree with them, but come on they thought it was only for the sick and dying aids and cancer patients. If you had told california voters that an 18 year old with a skateboarding injury was gonna be able to get pot under 215 it would have failed. They slipped it under the radar. That's not gonna happen this time.
 
Top