ICMAG Administration endorses The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010

[binaryfission]

they just don't have the resources to do this man, and once Prop 19 passes, Mexico will soon follow, to end THEIR drug war, ...then other states will come on board as well.

so think a little more deeply before you get so caught up in stressing over the impossible.

peace, and stay safe, it won't be legal for another 2 weeks, SOG

Quoted for truth-i-ness. Reading this makes me giddy. :yay:

Thinking about something that could happen in order to keep ones mind free from

stressing over the impossible.

Hmm... Almost feels like... hope?

transitive verb
1
: to desire with expectation of obtainment
2
: to expect with confidence : trust

 

[someotherguy]

Quoted for truth-i-ness. Reading this makes me giddy. :yay:

Thinking about something that could happen in order to keep ones mind free from

Hmm... Almost feels like... hope?

transitive verb
1
: to desire with expectation of obtainment
2
: to expect with confidence : trust

right on man, i'm already packin' my stuff, come November i begin the process of moving back to California!

peace, SOG

 

[bigbrokush]

Legalizing marijuana in California not the answer to drug war, federal official says

Legalizing marijuana in California not the answer to drug war, federal official says

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...answer-to-drug-war-federal-official-says.html

Legalizing marijuana in California not the answer to drug war, federal official says
October 20, 2010 | 5:07 pm
The nation’s drug czar traveled to California to highlight his contention that legalizing marijuana is not the answer to a drug war he acknowledged has not succeeded.

Instead, Gil Kerlikowske stressed what he called a middle way: increased prevention and treatment.

Kerlikowske’s stated reason for the drop-in visit Wednesday was an invitation from the Pasadena Recovery Center to participate in a round-table with drug treatment specialists that lasted less than half an hour.

Before the event, he spoke to the media about his opposition to Proposition 19.

“The facts are that this proposition would not be helpful to the people of California,” he said, insisting that it would not solve the state’s budget crisis or reduce Mexican drug violence.

He also dismissed the argument made by proponents that children would have less access to marijuana if it were regulated, noting that children can still find alcohol and cigarettes.

“Why do we think that we can suddenly do it with marijuana, which can be grown in a backyard?” he asked. “I think it’s such a false promise.”

The Obama administration has cranked up its efforts to defeat the measure.

Last week, U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric Holder said he would “vigorously enforce” federal narcotics laws, even if voters approved the measure Nov. 2, and “is considering all available legal and policy options.”

Stephen Gutwillig, the state director for the Drug Policy Alliance, said he was not surprised the drug czar found his way to California. “They have to fly people in from D.C. with the news flash that the federal government opposes marijuana,” he said. “I’m shocked, shocked.”

Kerlikowske also released an analysis that showed 47% of Californians receiving treatment for marijuana are younger than 18, compared to 28% in the rest of the nation, and 65% began using marijuana at 14 or younger, compared to 55% for the rest of the nation.

Gutwillig said the analysis underscores that the drug war has failed.

 

[SELFHEMPLOYED]

Interesting take on Prop 19

Interesting take on Prop 19

I'm not an expert on the issue I must admit, but while surfing cnn I came accross this article and it seems to speak a different language than a lot of folks can accomplish..

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/10/19/miron.prop.19/index.html


"
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
California to vote November 2 on Prop 19 to legalize smoking, production, sale of marijuana
Jeffrey Miron: Both sides have exaggerated claims on what passage would mean
Effects wouldn't be significant because pot virtually legal already in state, Miron says
Federal law could override it, he says; best reason to pass it is presumption of liberty


Editor's note: Jeffrey A. Miron is senior lecturer in economics and director of undergraduate studies at Harvard University and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.


Boston, Massachusetts (CNN) -- On November 2, California will vote on Proposition 19, a measure to legalize marijuana. Advocates believe Prop 19 will generate a major budgetary windfall and unleash an economic boom in marijuana-related industries while reducing crime, corruption and Mexican drug violence.
Prop 19 opponents fear it will increase marijuana and other drug use via the gateway effect and spur the alleged negatives of use, such as crime or diminished health. Most claims on both sides are exaggerated or misleading. Legalizing marijuana is the right policy for California and the nation. But in considering Prop 19, everyone should start with a balanced assessment of its likely impact.
California has long been at the forefront of the push-back against marijuana prohibition. The state decriminalized marijuana in 1975, meaning it eliminated criminal penalties for possession of small amounts. California then legalized medical marijuana in 1996. Plus, in 2009, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said the federal government would not interfere with medical marijuana in states where it is legal under state law.
Most claims on both sides are exaggerated or misleading. Prop 19 goes a step further by legalizing all marijuana use for adults 21 or older as well as production and sales. Thus marijuana would be a legal product under California law.
Full legalization sounds like a major policy change. But under existing law, marijuana is almost legal in many respects. Almost anyone can get a prescription for medical marijuana, and prices are not much elevated compared with a legal market. So legalization would have minimal impact on use. This means that concerns over the negatives of use -- valid or not -- are irrelevant.
Legalization would be a significant change in that marijuana production and sale would move above ground. State and local governments could then tax it. California is expecting $1.4 billion in additional tax revenue from legalization, along with reduced criminal justice expenditure.
In a recent Cato Institute paper, however, Kate Waldock and I estimate that California could collect only $352 million in addition revenue. This amount is not trivial, but it is minor compared with California's budget deficit. California might also see a reduction of around $960 million in expenditure on arrests, prosecutions and prisons, but only by laying off police, judges and prison guards. This is politically painful, so it may not happen.
Video: Ex-surgeon general: Legalize pot Video: Scientist fights to legalize pot
Legalizing marijuana is the right policy for both California and the nation.

Legalization advocates also believe that bringing the market above ground will spur related industries, such as head shops or marijuana cafes. Most of this economic activity, however, is already present; legalization just recognizes it officially. Marijuana cafes, for example, will shift business from medical marijuana dispensaries, or bars, without a major net increase.
What about Prop 19's effect on crime? Critics believe marijuana causes criminal behavior, as in "reefer madness," but these claims have no empirical support.
Legalizers argue black markets are violent and corrupt, so legalization should reduce crime. This view is well-founded, but because the California's marijuana market is close to legal, the reduction in crime will be modest. Likewise, much Mexican drug violence relates to cocaine and methamphetamines, so marijuana legalization will have a small impact.
Perhaps the most important caveat about Prop 19 is that it only legalizes marijuana under state law.
The federal government's prohibition will remain in place, so the federal government could still enforce that prohibition in California. This happened for medical marijuana under the Bush administration, and under the alcohol Prohibition of the 1920s and early '30s, when the federal government enforced prohibition in states that had not banned alcohol.
Prop 19 advocates have assumed that the Obama administration would tolerate legalized marijuana, as it does now for medical marijuana. This always seemed unlikely, however. Federal abdication would give the Republicans a huge issue and suggest that states can ignore federal laws they oppose, such as "Obamacare."

And just last week, Holder announced that the federal government strongly opposes Prop 19 and will aggressively enforce federal marijuana prohibition in California, regardless of Prop 19's outcome.
Prop 19's passage could mean a Supreme Court showdown, which California would lose. In the 2005 Gonzalez v. Raich case, the court held that the Constitution's commerce clause allows the federal government to bar individuals from cultivating marijuana on their own property for their own medicinal use. Reasonable people dispute the ruling, but the Supreme Court's conservative-to-liberal ratio has not changed. So the court will again invoke the commerce clause, wrongly, to justify a federal ban on full legalization.

On many fronts, Prop 19 might have less impact than proponents or opponents suggest. But Prop 19 might generate benefits.
If Prop 19 passes, this will encourage other states to legalize. And if enough states do so, the pressure on the federal government could pass a tipping point.

In a free society, the presumption must be that people can smoke, snort, eat or inject whatever they wish, so long as they do not harm others. The burden of proof should rest on those who would ban marijuana, not those who want it legal. That burden has never been met.

By adopting Prop 19, California can restore a presumption of liberty. That is reason enough.


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Jeffrey A. Miron."

 

[sac beh]

Does this have anyone worried?

PPIC Poll: Prop 19 Behind 49% to 44%

Proposition 19, the initiative to legalize, regulate, and tax marijuana in California, has lost support and is now trailing, according to poll results released Wednesday by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC). The landline and cell phone poll of 2,002 adults surveyed between October 10 and 17 has Prop 19 losing, 49% to 44%, with 7% undecided.

The numbers for Prop 19 are down eights from PPIC's September poll, which had it winning with 52%. But they are almost the mirror image of SurveyUSA poll also released Wednesday that showed Prop 19 leading 48% to 44%.

In the new PPIC poll, the initiative lost significant support among independents (from 65% to 40%) and Latinos (63% to 42%), and among almost all demographic groups. Whites are now more likely to oppose the support Prop 19 by a thin margin, a reversal from last month.

This poll is the fifth of 15 polls taken this year to show Prop 19 trailing. Ten others had it ahead, but only four of them had it at 50% or over, and the last one to do so was last month's PPIC poll. According to the Talking Points Memo Polltracker, the average of all polls has Prop 19 leading 46.8% to 44.5%. As of publication time, it had not been updated with Wednesday's two polls, but in terms of the poll averages, they would be a wash.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2010/oct/21/ppic_poll_prop_19_behind_49_44

 

[TruthOrLie]

Does this have anyone worried?

PPIC Poll: Prop 19 Behind 49% to 44%



http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2010/oct/21/ppic_poll_prop_19_behind_49_44

Specialists have suggested that peoples open vote will say against, but true vote will be for because they don't want to publically out themselves as pro pot. When they are in private booths hopefully they show true colors.

 

[binaryfission]

Does this have anyone worried?

PPIC Poll: Prop 19 Behind 49% to 44%

No. Polls don't typically reach young and or Urban voters. They, will annihilate that 5%.
Its a scare tactic in my opinion, at very best it is a semi-falsified "news maker" used to get ratings or sell ads. These people know the polls are inaccurate. They know they aren't precise and they know that they are negatively reinforcing. BUT, they still show you them every chance they get. Its dumb. Even the linked story says they are a wash. Retarded.

 

[simos]

LA Times Editorial Denounces Prop 19

LA Times Editorial Denounces Prop 19

Their official endorsement is No on 19:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-prop19-20100924,0,4509321.story

Coming on the heels of polls released on Wednesday showing declining support for the measure (44% supporting, 49% against, and 7% undecided) this was, for me, at least, quite disappointing to see.

They do raise an interesting point about the cost of the massive local regulatory bureaucracies the proposition would necessitate, but also spew a load of BS about the bill facilitating a stoned workforce. I thought some people here would be interested in reading it, nevertheless...

I'll still be voting YES, but things aren't looking too bright. Here's to hoping a better initiative is already in the works as a backup plan.

Cheers

 

[JJScorpio]

I wouldn't put a lot of faith in the accuracy of some of those polls. People have been using them for years to sway uncommited voters. They can be "fudged" easily depending on who paid for them.......

I think if this Bill fails there will be some serious changes in Cali med laws. The times come when the Govt is going to get their fingers into the pie one way or another. If this Bill fails it will show them that there are a lot of people making a lot of money. And they aren't getting any of it..... How long they let that continue is anyones guess....

 

[Smoke Buddy]

I wouldn't put a lot of faith in the accuracy of some of those polls. People have been using them for years to sway uncommited voters. They can be "fudged" easily depending on who paid for them.......

I think if this Bill fails there will be some serious changes in Cali med laws. The times come when the Govt is going to get their fingers into the pie one way or another. If this Bill fails it will show them that there are a lot of people making a lot of money. And they aren't getting any of it..... How long they let that continue is anyones guess....

You are right about polls in general, but I think this poll that is being refered to is from PPIC which claims to be non partisan but which google calls left of center. This group is not the one you would expect to be trying to effect the proposition negatively. You can see their poll here http://www.ppic.org/main/home.asp

To your second point, California cities are not all waiting to see what happens on 19, they are planning to get a peice of the med dollars regardless of whether 19 passes:

Calif. cities ask voters to tax pot to ease gaps

By MARCUS WOHLSEN
Associated Press
Published: Saturday, Oct. 23, 2010 - 9:12 am
Last Modified: Saturday, Oct. 23, 2010 - 9:43 am

<!-- CLOSE: #story_header --> BERKELEY Calif. -- As Californians weigh whether to legalize marijuana statewide, many cash-strapped cities across the state will also consider ballot measures to tax on the drug.
Even if voters don't legalize pot for recreational use, cities from Sacramento to San Jose could still come away from Election Day with a hefty new source of revenue from taxes on medical marijuana.

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/10/23/3126565/calif-cities-ask-voters-to-tax.html



I hope the poll is wrong.
peace

 

[lbezphil2005]

215 will DEFINITELY be affected. The wording has already been blurred.

Dont you live in New York?

Why don't you enlighten us on what you think is being changed?

If you remember, the District Court already ruled that parts of prop 420 doesnt apply because "Prop 215 was passed by the people and left NO ROOM for legislation of ANY KIND to affect it's properties". Dude, widen your news format!

 

[TruthOrLie]

Arguments have been made that it will affect 215, not by the letter of the law, but the spirit of it.

Now you won't have to go to medical doctors. Less medical doctors, less medical dispensaries.

More recreational access, less medical dispensaries.

Recreational defense in court, no need for medical doctors.

Now patients (just the sick ones, not the ones that pretend to be sick) will pay inflated prices to make up for the lost business of the recreational user.

I know I for one don't completely agree. That's just the argument.

Not prop 19 messing up 215 because of the letter of the law, but the spirit.

Prop 215 says "We NEED medical marijauna"

Prop 19 says "I WANT to get high"

 

[Herborizer]

Arguments have been made that it will affect 215, not by the letter of the law, but the spirit of it.

Now you won't have to go to medical doctors. Less medical doctors, less medical dispensaries.

More recreational access, less medical dispensaries.

Recreational defense in court, no need for medical doctors.

Now patients (just the sick ones, not the ones that pretend to be sick) will pay inflated prices to make up for the lost business of the recreational user.

I know I for one don't completely agree. That's just the argument.

Not prop 19 messing up 215 because of the letter of the law, but the spirit.

Prop 215 says "We NEED medical marijauna"

Prop 19 says "I WANT to get high"

Fair enough. Though, I don't believe prices will go up long term (yes in the short term because of large demand). I respect your point of view.

Consider this. Do all the people who suffer and stand to benefit from Medical Marijuana have safe access to it? I know for a fact they don't. For many reason, but I will just name a few:

• Fired from their jobs if they are caught using it (testing).
• Inability to get a new job (testing).
• Negative Stigma towards Marijuana.
• Safe access.
• Cost of the Dr's Recommendation.
• Cost of the overpriced Cannabis at collectives and such.

Imagine for a moment if Aspirin, Tylenol, Advil, NyQuil, Sudafed, etc were only available by prescription... Can you imagine how many people would suffer without reasonable access to their medication? Not everyone has insurance. Even those with insurance, can afford the co-pay for the Doctor and for the medication costs.

By passing Prop 19, we open the doors not just for the recreational user, but for probably the majority of the to-be patients out there who don't have reasonable access now.

Anyway, just something to consider.

 

[ReelBusy1]

Will you join me in making calls for the Yes on Prop 19 campaign this week?
http://yeson19.com/dialer

The more the merrier and the more likely it will pass.
Join us won't you?

 

[oldpink]

I don't see any issue between rec use and medicinal, its a plant that we should all be able to use regardless of our circumstances
I make no bones about being a rec user / grower but I also support medical uses by donating any excess I have to "medical" groups
because they can not get there "medication" legally or for free
and as long as the taxes were reasonable I'd pay to be able to grow

 

[TruthOrLie]

Let's be realistic. Prop 19 aside. If marijuana is legalized for recreational use, then WHY would anyone even need medical access?

As it stands now, the only reason medical access trumps prop 19 is garden size, right?

 

[Herborizer]

Let's be realistic. Prop 19 aside. If marijuana is legalized for recreational use, then WHY would anyone even need medical access?

As it stands now, the only reason medical access trumps prop 19 is garden size, right?

I see how you came to that conclusion. Though, I don't agree.

Cannabis is very much a medical substance. A 25sqft grow space is actually not enough for many people in medical need. Furthermore, it is important that the medicinal part of Cannabis has a different focus, so that the medicines can be further researched and developed.

For example, most of the Cannabis available today is low in CBD and high concentrations of THC. For a lot of the medical community, this is a disservice. While the recreational community likes the psychoactive properties of THC, CBD often times is much more effective for the medical community.

I am one of those people. If I could find a strain that would provide me all the medical benefits without any of the high, it would be a dream come true.

 

[kmk420kali]

Let's be realistic. Prop 19 aside. If marijuana is legalized for recreational use, then WHY would anyone even need medical access?

As it stands now, the only reason medical access trumps prop 19 is garden size, right?

They will also be in different Tax Accounts--
Plus, under 215, you would be hard pressed to show 20 pounds was for personal consumption...but under 19, you could have that at your house--

 

[CrumpleZone]

This is not as Far-Fetched as it Sounds:

This is not as Far-Fetched as it Sounds:

....When ICmag votes in California....let me know.

In California, there is no ID requirement to register to vote. You may vote by mail and there will be no verification as to whether or not the person is even real, let alone if they are citizens. Then, when you get to the polls, you are not asked for ID. They want to know your last name and street address. They look at there list, cross your name off and ask you to sign next to your printed name. They hand you the ballot and you head to the voting booth to make your selection.

 

[Babbabud]

Vote Yes on Prop 19