14day and 7hrs until polls close. It is going to be pretty cool watching CA get tons of cana tourism.
cha ching
Vote YES or NO on Prop 19
- Thread starter Feb2006er
- Start date
- Status
cha ching
I'm not counting my chickens until they come home to roost 
how surprised would we all be if it came back as a NO. I would be shocked and suspect foul play. I dont trust our gov
how surprised would we all be if it came back as a NO. I would be shocked and suspect foul play. I dont trust our gov
♥Mo♥
Member
After reading that article, one could almost ponder if prohibition of cannabis was nothing more than to boost the percentage of users so once prohibition of cannabis ends there would be great financial reward. Based on the statistics given, the government could have curbed cannabis use greatly many years ago if it were truly concerned for it's citizens.
Also, I think although hemp is not mentioned too much, I believe people that can see this for what it is can see that this opens the door for hemp completely. What a great opportunity to get in on a plethora of new jobs that will be created. Someone earlier mentioned an industrial hemp bill. Why do we need another bill for anything? We are billed out and this will cover hemp just fine.
The Man Behind Prop. 19: Richard Lee on Marijuana's Chances
Author
Chris Good
Source
The Atlantic
Few non-criminals can accurately be described as "marijuana entrepreneurs," but that's what Richard Lee is.
Since California legalized medical marijuana in 1996, he's become something of a cannabis commerce don in Oakland, opening up legitimate (depending on whom you ask) businesses around the activity of weed smoking: in 1999 he opened the Bulldog Coffeeshop, which has doubled as a medical-marijuana vendor to card carriers, and in 2007 he founded Oaksterdam University, a college that will teach you how to grow and sell marijuana at campuses in Oakland, Sebastopol (an hour to the North), Los Angeles, and Flint, Michigan.
He's pushed for legalization along the way, helping to pass a law in Oakland that effectively decriminalized marijuana and called for city a city taxation scheme. This year, California voters will pass judgment on his paragon effort to date: Proposition 19, the ballot initiative to legalize pot statewide.
Lee drafted Prop. 19 and put it on the ballot despite opposition from the established players in the marijuana legalization community. National groups like Drug Policy Alliance told him 2010 was a bad year and that 2012 would be better, given the broader turnout of a presidential race.
Staid voices in the political pot scene also told Lee he was writing it wrong. Prop. 19, as it is written, would only legalize possession and personal cultivation statewide; it would be up to individual cities and counties to allow, regulate, and tax commercial growth and sale, as well as public places (nightclubs, for instance) where pot could be smoked in public. This was wrong, Lee was told: a more statewide model--a mandated regulatory regime to treat pot like alcohol across the state, with the state collecting taxes--was the only way to sell legalization to the public.
Lee ignored that advice, spending over $1.45 million of his companies' money to put it on the ballot (it qualified in June, surpassing the needed 433,971 signatures), and here we are. Prop. 19 stands a reasonable chance of passing on November 2, with polls conflicted on its fate.
Find below an interview with Lee on legalization, its chances, and what will happen if Prop. 19 succeeds.
How is business at Oaksterdam?
It's good. We're bringing in lots of students form all over the country, so that's good for the city, selling lots of hotel rooms and other business for the city.
How many students do you teach per year?
We have about a hundred in our weekend seminars that we have a couple [of] per month, and then we have a few hundred students enrolled in our semester programs at any one time, we have three semesters a year, so we're over 12,000 now ... for the first three years.
Is marijuana going to be legal in Californa next year?
If Prop. 19 passes. It looks like at the moment it's going to.
You've put this measure on the ballot in 2010 against the advice of some other voices in the marijuana legalization establishment who thought that 2012 would be a better year. Why did you want to go ahead in 2010?
Well, I think the issue can't wait. We've been proven right that the campaign has made this a legitimate political issue, and it's been real nice to have a lot of the people who were against it last year call me up and thank me up and thank me this year for doing it.
Prop. 19 leaves it up to counties to establish regulation and taxation regimes, which was another thing people disagreed with. What's better about your bill?
First of all we had to do it that way because of federal law. We could not set up a positive conflict [with federal drug law], otherwise it would get thrown out in the courts--you understand the difference between mandating that you do something against federal law and just eliminating the state laws against it and changing the state law to allow cities and counties to break federal law. So really, we didn't have a choice.
As far as the different laws, we have that for everything else. Cities make up their own zoning and all kinds of other laws, so the argument that this is crazy and that it's only thing we do it for isn't true at all. We have different alcohol laws where cities decide what bars and restaurants and whatever can sell it.
Do you think the commercial licensing provision in Prop. 19, even though it doesn't set up a positive conflict, would survive a court challenge from the federal government?
Yes. The federal government can't change state law. They can't force the state to change its laws--there's pretty good case history on that.
What do you think the federal government's response will be if California legalizes under Prop. 19?
Well, did you see that Wall Street Journal piece about the Democrats looking to run more cannabis initiatives in 2012 to help them?
I did, and we've actually written about that idea too.
That can be a good sign that the Democrats see that this is an issue that's gonna help them, and so they're not gonna come out against it. Plus, Obama would have to come out against Democracy and the will of the people voting, so I think there's a lot of reasons why they won't. But we don't know what they'll do.
At the same time, both Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer have endorsed the No on 19 campaign. Were you surprised by that?
No, and honestly that may be helping us in the polls because there's such an anti-incumbent mood. We may have to send them a thank-you note, just like they will owe us a thank-you note for helping to get them elected by bringing out the young Democratic voters.
As of about a week and a half ago, neither of the two mega-donors in the marijuana legalization scene--George Soros and Peter Lewis--had chipped in on this. Is that still the case, or have you gotten anything from them?
Yeah, the last I head they haven't.
Have you talked to them?
Uh-huh. They're looking at it. They're considering it.
Do you need an influx of cash at the end to put this over the edge?
I guess it depends on what happens with the opposition, if they raise a lot of money, whether we need to try to counteract their campaign.
If Prop. 19 passes, how many counties do you think will go ahead in the next couple years and allow for commercial sale and set up regulation and taxation systems?
There's about nine cities that halve already put adult cannabis tax referendums on their local ballots to be ready when Prop. 19 passes. Six cities passed adult legalization initiatives or resolutions back in 2006 or so. I think there's a number of places that will move ahead.
At times you've pitched this as a solution to California's budget crisis, but since counties would be reaping the tax benefit, do you think Prop. 19 can make a significant budgetary impact on the state?
Yes, and not just from the direct taxes but the indirect taxes, like I was talking about all the students we're bringing in from out of state [to Oaksterdam University]. Over half of our students, of our hundred first weekend seminars, are from out of state, so that's a lot of hotel rooms and jobs and taxes traded there, and all the other food and things people spend money on. When I go to Amsterdam, I spend more on hotels and transportation and everything else than I do on cannabis products, but I go there for the cannabis.
So it could be a boon to the California tourism industry.
Exactly, and some people have talked about how it could help the California housing market, 'cause there'd be a lot of people who say, "I'm going to move there where it's legal instead of worrying about being arrested here." California is losing population--there's a lot of people moving out of the state.
It's been argued that Prop. 19 would prohibit employers from testing...
That's not true. Go to our website and check out or legal opinions and everything.
Do you see any circumstance in which the federal government could deprive California of federal funding in response to Prop. 19?
Well, there is some history of the feds doing stuff like that with forcing the states to raise the drinking age to 21, otherwise they'd take away highway funding. But again it comes down to what helps get people elected, and as this issue now is starting to go past 50 percent, I think the politicians are realizing that it's not a whipping boy anymore, or an easy thing to just say you're against. Did you see the debate with Jerry Brown and Meg?
I didn't.
He didn't really come out against 19. He's been kind of waffling, realizing that this could help him a lot. so he didn't really come out against it this time...
He was against it, then he was neutral, now he's against it again but even his "against" isn't that strong. He's basically kind of said something about how we can't get compete with China if more people are getting high. It's not really very substantial debate on the issue.
So you're on the record as saying more people getting high will not hurt our competition with China?
Well, we don't know exactly how many more people will get high than now. I mean look at the kids: 85 percent say they can already get it, and 40 percent do, and you go to the Netherlands where only 20 percent of the kids do it, so it makes you think it's like the forbidden fruit, and other things are actually increasing consumption. So there's no definite proof that it's gonna go up.
Do you think the Prop. 19 model, as opposed to mandated statewide regulation, is going to become a model for other ballot initiatives in 2012 in different states?
Exactly. Colorado has two initiatives people are working on already for 2012, and Washington state I'm sure will try again. They were working on one this year but didn't get enough signatures, and Oregon and maybe Massachusetts and Michigan have a lot going on too.
Aside from a court challenge, do you think that if a few counties legalize commercial sale that federal law enforcement will try to shut it down?
I think it'll most likely be similar to the history of Prop. 215 [which legalized medical marijuana in California in 1996] where the feds did come in and harass and bust a few people, but in the long run they're losing the war, and here were are 14 years later and they haven't been able to stop that either.
The other thing you gotta remember is, you know about [state Assemblyman Tom] Ammiano's bill, so that will theoretically--if the legislature could ever get it together to pass it, and if the governor would sign it--it's a statewide system of regulation, and then the other thing a lot of people say is that there is no immediate taxes because you know it waits on the locals to put it in their tax provisions, sales tax would be collected immediately just like it's already, the Board of Equalization says they're already collecting about $105 million a year from the medical dispensaries, so there would be sales taxes on the adult cannabis as well as the local taxes until the legislature gets together and can do state excise taxes.
If Prop. 19 doesn't pass, are you going to try again in 2012?
I'm sure there's going to be an effort in 2012, so we'll see what happens.
If you guys pass this, what do you think the reaction will be in the rest of the country?
I think there's gonna be a lot of hope given to a lot of people out there that laws are gonna change around the rest of the country, just because historically things have started in California, just like they did with medical marijuana, and a lot of other social rights issues.
Prohibition is a disaster
Author
Joseph McNamara and Stephen Downing
Source
USA Today
Proposition 19 presents California voters with a simple choice: Continue a policy that has failed completely, causes massive harm and can never work — or say yes to a common-sense approach that destroys a $14 billion black market run by violent thugs and replaces it with a legal, controlled market, all while eliminating enforcement costs and bringing in new tax revenue.
As former big-city police officials, we're saying yes to the rational approach that regulates marijuana like alcohol and cigarettes.
After decades of marijuana prohibition, with millions of arrests and billions of dollars spent, the results are in. Prohibition is a disaster.
Anyone in California who wants marijuana can get marijuana. Massive law enforcement efforts have only made cartels rich, and black market violence hurts innocent people and their children caught in the crossfire between criminals. Teenagers get marijuana more easily than beer, because drug dealers don't ask for proof of age.
Because marijuana (other than legal medical marijuana) is illegal, it can't be taxed. Neighborhoods want police to fulfill their primary duty of protecting life and property, but officers are distracted by futile marijuana enforcement. Opponents of Prop 19, however, ask people to vote for more of what has not worked in the past and cannot work in the future.
Opponents of Prop 19 can't deny that marijuana prohibition is a disaster, so they try to discredit legalization by claiming that it would allow people to drive under the influence, that it is invalid since federal law will still be in force, and that it would increase use.
In our view, these are all untrue. For example, the U.S. already has the highest rate of marijuana use in the world, despite having some of the harshest penalties. Our rate is twice that of The Netherlands, where retail marijuana sales have been allowed for decades.
Opponents by now should realize that voters won't buy their fear-based claims much longer. The polls show Prop 19 ahead, with a real shot at passing. A broad coalition endorses Prop 19, including the state's largest labor union, the state NAACP, Latino leaders and Law Enforcement Against Prohibition — a 35,000-member group made up of police, prosecutors, judges, prison officials and others.
The latter are the people asked to enforce prohibition. They're saying it won't work, and so will (we hope) a majority of California's voters.
Joseph McNamara is a former San Jose chief of police; Stephen Downing is a former Los Angeles deputy chief of police.
Author
Joseph McNamara and Stephen Downing
Source
USA Today
Proposition 19 presents California voters with a simple choice: Continue a policy that has failed completely, causes massive harm and can never work — or say yes to a common-sense approach that destroys a $14 billion black market run by violent thugs and replaces it with a legal, controlled market, all while eliminating enforcement costs and bringing in new tax revenue.
As former big-city police officials, we're saying yes to the rational approach that regulates marijuana like alcohol and cigarettes.
After decades of marijuana prohibition, with millions of arrests and billions of dollars spent, the results are in. Prohibition is a disaster.
Anyone in California who wants marijuana can get marijuana. Massive law enforcement efforts have only made cartels rich, and black market violence hurts innocent people and their children caught in the crossfire between criminals. Teenagers get marijuana more easily than beer, because drug dealers don't ask for proof of age.
Because marijuana (other than legal medical marijuana) is illegal, it can't be taxed. Neighborhoods want police to fulfill their primary duty of protecting life and property, but officers are distracted by futile marijuana enforcement. Opponents of Prop 19, however, ask people to vote for more of what has not worked in the past and cannot work in the future.
Opponents of Prop 19 can't deny that marijuana prohibition is a disaster, so they try to discredit legalization by claiming that it would allow people to drive under the influence, that it is invalid since federal law will still be in force, and that it would increase use.
In our view, these are all untrue. For example, the U.S. already has the highest rate of marijuana use in the world, despite having some of the harshest penalties. Our rate is twice that of The Netherlands, where retail marijuana sales have been allowed for decades.
Opponents by now should realize that voters won't buy their fear-based claims much longer. The polls show Prop 19 ahead, with a real shot at passing. A broad coalition endorses Prop 19, including the state's largest labor union, the state NAACP, Latino leaders and Law Enforcement Against Prohibition — a 35,000-member group made up of police, prosecutors, judges, prison officials and others.
The latter are the people asked to enforce prohibition. They're saying it won't work, and so will (we hope) a majority of California's voters.
Joseph McNamara is a former San Jose chief of police; Stephen Downing is a former Los Angeles deputy chief of police.
Just because theres going to be one doesnt mean shit. How many years did Herer try to raise the signatures and funding required to pass his iniative? Thats the problem. SOMEONE has to raise all the money out of pocket, because stoners feel that legalization is entitled to them and that they shouldnt have to pay for it or make any effort to get it passed, that legalization should be served up on a silver platter while they hit the bong and eat cheetos.
So sure, I could write up a proposition that would be better than Lee's, but who is going to put up the 2+ million dollars required to send out people to get enough signatures to get it on the ballot, then fund the media campaign required to get the support of the public?
That's what irritates me. You all act like this 2012 iniative (that has yet to be written) will automatically pass and that we are all just impatient by supporting the first REAL attempt at marijuana legalization in over 40 years. So if 19 is such a piece of shit, then someone would surely introduce another prop in 2012 regardless of what happends with 19 this november, right?
So says you. You don't speak for an entire state. I don't think anyone's told you that, so maybe that's the problem.
What really irritates me is that you all act like this Prop 19 should be impatiently supported.
I've posed the question of a future bill. I postulate that, if passed, Prop 19 will only be amended... reducing the will for a new bill (as this one seems like passing a kidney stone with some of you
)
CrazyCooter
Member
I believe it would be better to get it right the first time. Seems like the whole problem started when a few men with a lot of money started making shitty laws. And now what do we have? One guy with a lot of money trying to get shitty laws passed. If it does pass, what will happen in my municipality? A few guys with money trying to pass shitty laws.
Will zoning laws make indoor growing illegal like in some areas of CO? Will this affect patients too? Will it be harder for someone to get a medical rec. for something like migraines since it is now seen as a recreational outlet?
I think this reasoning is hilarious. There has not been one link to these ephemeral 2012 propositions, yet you two are willing to bet the bank on them. Then what happens if there is something you consider unpalatable in these as yet nonexistent propositions? Ooooh, let's wait for 2014-16-18-20. Meanwhile, the whole country is swinging the pendulum toward being more conservative. Get a clue.
It will always be a few guys with money trying to make more of it. MJ smokers have had decades to come together and raise money to pass legalization as they see fit. All of you anti's have proven that it will never pass unless someone with money steps up. Because nobody wants to donate money and nobody feels like they should have to put in any effort to get mj legalized.
No one has yet to tell me why the passage of 19 would impede a new proposition in 2012. Like I've said, if 19 is so horrible, the same person who would pass a new proposition if 19 failed, would do the very same as if it passed and why do you think it would be any better than 19 or have a chance at passing? Does anyone honestly think someone would put up a few million dollars and a immense amount of time and effort to pass a marijuana legalization proposition and not expect to see any returns on their investment?
Give me a better clue than the fences I've seen.
If we should all be so eager to act so actively, why is it impossible to see that act continued?
The world isn't ending in a couple of weeks... we can all agree on that... or can't we?
If a bill today is better than a bill tomorrow, then a prisoner today is worse than a prisoner tomorrow, no?
I do honestly believe that someone could put up millions of dollars and feel that millions and millions of individuals' freedom would be the return.
Sadly I see the greediest winning the bid in my worst speculations, as well as the vein of greed you speak of (on either side of it).
"If you aren't a liberal by the age of 21, there is something wrong with your heart. However, if you aren't a conservative by the age of 30, there is something wrong with your head." How old are you, MMM & Cooter? I think that I am too damn old to be fighting fascism and chasing rainbows. I would settle for some concrete change with the option to improve. Grab it while we can and work with it.
I'm old enough to know better, but I'm still too young to care...
The grab it while we can and work with it issue is what I'm thinking is the only real bait on this bill, I just wonder if it's there on purpose.
I'm old enough to know better, but I'm still too young to care...
The grab it while we can and work with it issue is what I'm thinking is the only real bait on this bill, I just wonder if it's there on purpose.
Could be, if so it's pretty damn effective! We all agree that the prop could be a lot better, but it could be a hell of a lot worse, too. In combination with ABX6 9, it is more than I ever dreamed would happen in my lifetime.
The End of the War on Marijuana?
The End of the War on Marijuana?
California’s Prop 19: The End of the War on Marijuana?
http://www.radioproject.org/2010/10/californias-prop-19-the-end-of-the-war-on-marijuana/
The End of the War on Marijuana?
California’s Prop 19: The End of the War on Marijuana?
http://www.radioproject.org/2010/10/californias-prop-19-the-end-of-the-war-on-marijuana/
- Status
