[Skip]

Californians get to decide this fall whether to legalize the recreational use of marijuana.

This ballot measure has managed to split the cannabis community right down the middle, with big time growers against the act, and most recreational users for it.

While there are many things to take issue with in this measure, including how many things are still illegal or suddenly become illegal under the act, we need to step back a moment to get a glimpse of the big picture here.

At this moment, public opinion, at least in California has swayed in favor of cannabis legalization. Whether this bill satisfies that desire, to legally use cannabis, is not the issue.

What is most important today and tomorrow is the National debate about cannabis. What happens in California will affect this debate. Whether Californians decide to legalize marijuana or not determines the narrative that the media will pickup and use going forward. And that narrative won't focus on the minutia of the act and why it was accepted or rejected. No, the media will focus on the end result only.

So we have two possible outcomes. One, cannabis is legalized in California, or two, it's not. If cannabis is legalized in California, it will send up a CHEER heard 'round the world! It will rally the masses to demand legalization in other states. It will encourage everyone active in the legalization movement to redouble their efforts in other places, and at the Federal level. It will place a lot of pressure on the Feds to back off on their War on Americans who use cannabis. Of course there will likewise be pressure from special interests groups to take action against the new California law. And I can easily see the California or Federal courts attempting to strike down California's law as being unconstitutional.

You see the Feds also know what a legalization victory means. And they will be relentless in their efforts to keep cannabis illegal. Of course this will have the effect of turning off a lot of people to the Obama administration, who might otherwise have supported it, if he was more lenient regarding cannabis. So there are some political risks if they get draconian on California as a result of legalization.

Now if Californians reject the act, another scenario will come into play. The media and government narrative will be different. They will take a defeat in November as a sign of a new backlash against cannabis, and play up the idea that the tide has turned against it. Then the positive spin that media has given cannabis over the past few years might turn negative. They will look for (and find) signs that cannabis is also being rejected at the local level in California, as counties and cities apply restrictive zoning ordinances. Therefore the media can run with the idea that the conservative view of cannabis as an illegal and dangerous drug is true, and that even the public that was once for it, is now against it. And you can bet the Feds will encourage this narrative in the media.

Once we lose the media narrative in our favor, we may lose the battle for legalization. Once the very progressive state of California rejects legal cannabis, how can less progressive states hope to pass a legalization bill? Much of the progress we've seen over the last few years will be lost.

Let's not forget what effect this will have on politicians whose platforms can blow with the prevailing wind. They will see the writing on the wall if legalization is defeated and won't support it again. And there lies the biggest challenge. It's been so difficult to round up enough politicians to support cannabis now. After a defeat, it might be impossible.

Think about these consequences. I know most people vote only in their self interests, but as a community that stretches around the world, we must see beyond ourselves and think about what will benefit the larger community over the long run. I was against this measure while there were better options available. But now with this or nothing else on the ballot this fall, I realize that a no vote against legalization won't just affect me or my local community, but the hopes and dreams of millions of cannabis users everywhere.

A victory in November, is a victory for the plant and for the movement, no doubt there. Whatever the shortcomings of this measure, we can improve it later, as any section in the measure is severable if found to be invalid/illegal/unconstitutional. Also the measure allows amendments by the people or the legislature to improve it (but not to undermine it).

Once Californians have shown they want cannabis legalized, politicians will follow along, and there will be a new, more powerful cannabis lobby, with fresh clout thanks to the legalization measure. We must not undermine the progress we've already made, we must keep moving forward or we will weaken the movement.

We cannot let this opportunity for change to slip by, we might not get another chance, and in fact, we may ensure we don't get another chance if it fails...

[SunshineJoy]

That was extraordinarily well said!

[Leon Brooks]

this is what i had said in another thread(less well put together).

the gov/media will jump all over this if it is voted no.

glad there are others that can see past there profit margin.

[headinthetrees]

That was a well thought out post for sure. Thank you. While I'd selfishly prefer it didn't pass, I'll still vote in favor of it. Its simply the right thing to do. The state needs it, the people need to wake up, and law enforcement needs to move on to real problems, but there's just too much money to be made busting growers.

[Hash Zeppelin]

just research the meth problem in the usa right now and you would legalize pot just for the purpose of using the extra police force to stop meth.

Skip I understand your meaning of "Legalizing" but we are not voting on Legalizing because Decriminalization is what we are voting on.

I stood up and told Richard Lee that I thought 2012 was our best bet during one of the meetings but Tax2010 aims to create permission for business while appeasing those opposed to Cannabis. That is something that Tax2010 believes in even to the point of not specifically protecting working class folks that will test positive in a urine test even if they are responsible smokers.
No matter what the outcome I agree that Tax2010 is a piss poor way to provide Cannabis freedom. One that caters to the opposer-to-cannabis while it tries to offer some concept of Cannabis horticulture freedom to the people ( 25 sqft per property no less )

So do we have a backup plan for a vote in the Presidential year 2012?

Also if we all have not read the Rand "Occasional Paper" https://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_...arijuana_plant then we all should.

Rand uses vague and non-committal language that does a fine job of supporting both sides of the argument. Like it or not the Rand Paper is now a foundation in the Cannabis debate.

What I have experienced is that there is great hope and support in this area of California, this is one of those deeply conservative areas of California, but we still face the fact that "Coming out of the Cannabis Closet" is still a frightening prospect for most. Sure I get the whispered hellos from having stood outside the Wallmart all those days gathering signatures for California-Cannabis-Initiative and even the occasional "Discount" for food and services from signers I run into around town but for the most part Californians are still in hiding.

The Medical Cannabis movement didn't happen in California all at once. It came to be after two Bills were Vetoed by the then Governor. Then once the people saw the failure we went to the polls and voted! I did. Tax2010 may be that first Veto but we need to keep motivated.

The point of the story is there is Change but it is not Silver. There is Gold but it is not metal. There is Victory but it may not be ours, at least not this Election cycle.

However if the readers want to get off their ass and volunteer to save everyone then Get a Vote Buddy.. Have them Get a Vote Buddy and form Voter registration clubs and go out and register folks.

Folks like Skip and myself are not the only people who have been active but there is only so much we as individuals can do. So the adage "United we Stand and Divided we fall" is the truth.

The Rand paper is a must read. You may find the "Warm~Fuzzy" "maybes" and "Mights" of the Rand paper amusing except that it is being quoted as fact when Rand States firmly nothing is written in Stone yet, it is a reality for our "News Media" and the Spin on the newscaster's tongue.


It's an "early call" with the Rand paper that is like the Shot fired at the start of a Track Event where the runners speed around the track jumping hurdles.
We will not win if we don't clear the hurdles and run the race..

If tax2010 fails then 2012 is a time for Legalization.. Something that honors Jack Herer Perhaps?

Remember Tax2010 is a very Conservative proposition. Lee is not a liberal leaning guy like Jack is <pun intended>

So do you have a Vote-Buddy yet? Do they have theirs and are they making sure the chain is not broken?


Ernst

democratic access to front page on polls isn't happening any more is it Skip?

[Gert Lush]

Originally Posted by JackTheGrower

That is something that Tax2010 believes in even to the point of not specifically protecting working class folks that will test positive in a urine test even if they are responsible smokers.

Hm, yes, but I think the point is that you will be in a MASSIVELY stronger position to negotiate workers rights if TC2010 passes than otherwise.

There will be a ridiculous inconsistency in the law if it says you can grow and smoke 25 square feet's worth, but you can be fired if you do so. If TC2010 doesn't pass, there will be no such pressing imperative to fix the law, nothing for the lawyers to dig their teeth into, and they can carry on firing your ass at their leisure.

Originally Posted by Gert Lush

Hm, yes, but I think the point is that you will be in a MASSIVELY stronger position to negotiate workers rights if TC2010 passes than otherwise.

There will be a ridiculous inconsistency in the law if it says you can grow and smoke 25 square feet's worth, but you can be fired if you do so. If TC2010 doesn't pass, there will be no such pressing imperative to fix the law, nothing for the lawyers to dig their teeth into, and they can carry on firing your ass at their leisure.

I disagree.. tax2010 becomes the basis of law..

If the Foundation gives rights to fire then what will the Tower of Tax2010 freedom bring?

I'd like to be found out telling lies on worker protections and Tax2010..

Anyone?? I think even Richard Lee bailed from our forums when i faced him here on this issue here. I think he said "give me a few weeks on that" and left.

Tax2010 is all about enabling Cannabis industry without providing Cannabis freedom for people.


Our America has a history of slavery and it isn't over.. Just look at our wars..

[Gert Lush]

Originally Posted by JackTheGrower

Tax2010 is all about enabling Cannabis industry without providing Cannabis freedom for people.

Now did you really need that last Prohibitionist propaganda sentence?

Put it this way:
Gert is an imaginary person who likes cannabis. He is not sick, on the contrary he enjoys herb because he is not sick, and would like his robust health to continue as it is. Gert would feel unbelievably humiliated if he had to go to some shill quack and pay a yearly fee (which is a tax, really, isn't it?) just to get some cruddy "permission" to obtain weed. Gert would also feel that such a thing is diabolically un-American.

In just what way does TC2010 "NOT" provide Cannabis freedom for Gert?
It may not be perfect, but it's still a thousand+ times better than the current options.