What Killed Prop. 19?

[kannubis]

M E D I A

 

[Cookie monster]

M E D I A

I was gonna say politics and lumping legalization in with other agendas?

 

[SCF]

Norml's F.A.Q on United States Medical Marijuana #12

Norml's F.A.Q on United States Medical Marijuana #12

Normal's F.A.Q on United States Medical Marijuana laws click for link

Didn't Congress vote on a measure to prevent the federal prosecution of medical marijuana patients in 2005?

On June 15, 2005, the House voted 264 to 161 against a bi-partisan measure, sponsored by Reps. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), that would have barred the US Department of Justice (DOJ) from targeting patients who use marijuana medicinally in accordance with the laws of their states.

The 161 House votes in favor of the patient-protection provision was the highest total ever recorded in a Congressional floor vote to liberalize marijuana laws. Of those who voted in support of the Hinchey/Rohrabacher medical marijuana amendment, 15 were Republicans and 128 were Democrats. The House's only Independent Congressman also voted in favor of the amendment.

Many Congressional battles are won only after several failed attempts. Please contact your representative now and urge their support for federal medical marijuana legislation.

 

[GRINKEEEPER]

great info.. but Im still getting my head wrapped around which side Im on.. Im A legal med guy so Im not sure which side I should be on

 

[CaptainTrips]

I'm a 45-year-old married father of two in a non-medical state who would like to be able to smoke pot and not get in trouble. It's a sad day for all tokers when the spirit of cannabis gets stomped on by greedy little capitalists.

You could move to california and do that without prop 19. I fail to see how people wanting prop 19 to pass so they can make money is not greed or self interest capitalists either. Prop 19 was a bad bill. With the state of things in cali, we can be patient and do things the way they should be done, not the first thing that comes along.

 

[215forLife]

Simple answer...

This wasn't on the ballot...

PROPOSED LAW



SECTION 1. Section 11357.1 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:

11357.1 This section shall be known and may be cited as the Cannabis Freedom Act of 2012.



(1)The people of the State of California hereby find and declare that the purposes of the Cannabis Freedom Act of 2012 are as follows:

(A) To declare in accordance with Article 22 of the United Nations Nations Single Convention on Narcotic drugs that prohibition is the least suitable measure for the control of cannabis in the State of California in the United States of America. To provide notification in accordance with Article 3 of the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic drugs to the United Nations and World Health Organization that cannabis needs to be descheduled.

(B) To ensure that Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for their own purposes.

(C) To ensure that Californians who obtain and use marijuana are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction.

(D)(1)To authorize the state legislature to tax cannabis products at the same general retail sales tax rate per tobacco products.



(2)Regulation and Licensing

(a)Authority to regulate and promote the commercial cultivation of 100 cannabis plants or more shall be given to the California Department of Agriculture. (1) The cultivation of 100 plants or less and less than 500 square feet total cultivation area ) shall be considered out of the scope of government regulation and control. (a) Plants & their remnants cultivated under this provision shall not be sold for retail consumption but however maybe be freely exchanged as gifts.

(b)Authority to regulate wholesale and retail transactions shall be given to the California Department of Alcohol Beverage Control. (1) Entities which can show good cause they provided non-profit cannabis prior to the adoption of the Cannabis Freedom Act shall be granted automatic licensure with a 5 year waiver on fee's. (2) Licensing shall be granted without discrimination unless the applicant has a history of crimes involving minors. (3) After a four year period a cap on the number of licenses shall be established. (a) The cap shall be the sum of current number of licenses plus fifty percent. The cap shall be adjusted upward annually at a rate of atleast 5% not to exceed 20%. (4) Persons convicted of crimes against or involving minors shall be prohibited from employment by license holders.

(c)Regulations on transactions and cultivation of less than 100 plants shall not apply to collectives and cooperatives as authorized in SB420.

(d) SB420 entities shall be prohibited from public advertisement and direct over the counter retail sales.



(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede legislation prohibiting persons from engaging in conduct that endangers others.

(a) Persons driving under the influence of Cannabis shall be subject to the provisions and penalties in California Vehicle Code Section 23152. (1) Testing for behind the wheel impairment shall be done by using "Frustrated total internal reflection (FTIR)" devices.

(b) Employers shall retain the right to screen employees for cannabis use so much that it does not discriminate against those with a legitimate medical use under the Compassionate Use Act and does not impair job performance.

(c) Persons must be of legal age to join military service in order to lawfully purchase cannabis.



(4) Removal of Criminal Penalties for Cannabis

(a)Section 11054(d)(13) Classification of marijuana as a California controlled substance, Section 11357, relating to the possession of marijuana, Section 11358, relating to the cultivation of marijuana, Section 11359, relating to the sales of marijuana, Section 11360, relating to the transportation and distribution of marijuana, Section 11362, relating to classification of marijuana as a crime shall be repealed from the California Health and Safety Code and the legislature and local governments are hereby prohibited from imposing any criminal penalties relating to cannabis.

(b) All persons previously arrested and/or convicted of the offenses listed in 11357.1 (4)(a) shall have the record of their arrest and/or conviction vacated. All persons whom incarcerated solely for offenses listed in 11357.1 (4)(a) shall be immediately released from custody.

(c)The words marijuana and cannabis and all its surnames shall be removed from the penal and health and safety code.

(1) Section 11362.5 The Compassionate Use Act, Section 11357.1, Section 11361, Section 11361.5 and Section 11361.7 of the Health and Safety Code shall retain the words marijuana, and cannabis.



SECTION 2. Section 420.9 is added to the Government Code, to read: Marijuana (Cannabis Indica) is the official state herb..



SECTION. 3. If any provision of this measure or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the measure that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this measure are severable.

 

[Hammerhead]

would not have mattered what bill was on the ballot. We just did not have the voters. Until the older voters get on board it's a uphill battle. Also the 18-21age group most did not even vote they where pissed about the age restriction. With any bill that comes out getting this age restriction lowe then 21 wont be easy.

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

Simple answer...

This wasn't on the ballot...

Yeah, im sure telling all these republicans your going to release people from prison would have gone over without a problem....

 

[zen_trikester]

Yeah, im sure telling all these republicans your going to release people from prison would have gone over without a problem....

And the non-smokers would have been just fine with allowing people to grow 100 plants for personal (sell to kids on the street) use. This isn't even remotely close to something that would pass. Not hating just because you wrote it, but it isn't realistic. It would be praised by growers but that would be it! If another prop gets on the ballot in 2012 I bet you guys will be praying for 1 zip and a 5x5,

Jed

 

[Cannaseur Kid]

You could move to california and do that without prop 19. I fail to see how people wanting prop 19 to pass so they can make money is not greed or self interest capitalists either. Prop 19 was a bad bill. With the state of things in cali, we can be patient and do things the way they should be done, not the first thing that comes along.

Pretty much.

 

[ddrew]

. Also the 18-21age group most did not even vote they where pissed about the age restriction. .

And here's the dumb thing about them not voting for it.
By the time another bill comes along that would allow 18 and up(which it never will) these guys will all be 21 already.

 

[Japanfreakier]

Some of the people I know personally with med cards are shit head kids(all 18 or older) who know how to play the game. I can't hate on them because I would have capitalized on the med card program as well as a young man.

I would have no problem doing it as a middle aged man, I highly doubt anybody would, I know a lot would claim they would, but we know that's not true.

 

[contra]

long winded

 

[BrnCow]

Even if Prop 19 Failed - It Still Won

Even if Prop 19 Failed - It Still Won

The fact that Arnold signed the decriminalization act into being was actually a knee jerk reaction to the fear that pot would be legalized. You made him move! Kudos! So, even if Prop 19 failed for the moment, the real desired action got done! And the integrity of the med system is still intact. That includes the retail marketing and pricing for growers. and yes, it also maintained the street prices also. You have affected America and made a dent in the failed war on drugs as well as prohibition across the nation. Thanks for sponsoring Prop 19 and for voting for it - pro or con. You rule Cali!

 

[GMT]

when members of this site say that they want the right to grow and smoke their own, but dont want others to do it, and when they do, they want them to be sent to prison for it, I have to wonder why they would want to be a member here.

 

[binaryfission]

Maybe it failed because all of Central And South America was ready to follow. Mexico has a few of the world's richest folks. Maybe we can get them to sponsor a prop.... hehe

How California's Pot Proposition Is Agitating Latin America
By John Otis / Bogotá Sunday, Oct. 31, 2010

What was Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos smoking? Colombia has long been an obedient lieutenant in the U.S.-led war on drugs, yet there was Santos musing out loud — at a presidential summit, of all places — about the possibility of exporting bales of marijuana to California dopers. "I would like to know," he said on Oct. 26, "if the eighth-largest economy in the world and a state that's famous for high technology, movies and fine wine, will permit marijuana imports?"

It turns out that Santos (a nonsmoker, by the way) was simply turning up the sarcasm ahead of Tuesday's referendum in California on legalizing marijuana. His summit colleagues had some acid comments of their own. Mexican President Felipe Calderón accused the U.S. of trying to criminalize and legalize drugs at the same time. Costa Rican President Laura Chinchilla decried U.S. drug policy as "contradictory." (How California's Prop 19 is leading the way to pot legalization.)

These leaders have good reason to be frustrated. For decades, Washington has demanded that Latin American fall in behind its hard-line prohibitionist approach to cocaine, heroin and marijuana. But now, many U.S. states are taking a softer stance. In January, New Jersey became the 14th state to approve the use of marijuana for medical purposes. On Tuesday, Californians could go a dramatic step further. If approved, Proposition 19 would legalize the recreational use of marijuana for adults 21 and over and allow California cities and counties to regulate and tax cannabis sales. (See pictures of the marijuana conventions of California and Colorado.)

For Latin Americans accustomed to decades of drug double standards, Prop 19 is more mind-bending smoke blowing in from the north. Augusto Pérez, the former head of the Colombian government's drug-abuse prevention program, recalled how his nation came under ferocious pressure from Washington to eradicate its marijuana crop in the 1970s. The Colombians complied only to watch cannabis become a multibillion-dollar illicit industry in California. Later, at Washington's behest, Colombia, Mexico and Peru spent billions and sacrificed thousands of lives fighting cocaine cartels, whose main customers are U.S. drug users.

Yet none of this seems to be working. It may not be as bad as that infamous headline in the fake newspaper the Onion would have you believe — "Drugs win drug war" — but the real news is almost as dreary. Major cartels have been destroyed in Colombia but dozens of so-called micro-cartels have picked up the slack. The biggest cocaine syndicates now operate out of Mexico, where 30,000 people have been killed in drug-related violence over the past four years. Through it all, drugs have remained cheap, potent and plentiful on U.S. streets. That's why Santos suggested to his fellow Presidents at last week's summit in Cartagena, Colombia, that they should turn the page. "If all we are doing is sending our citizens to prison while elsewhere drugs are legalized," he said, "we must ask ourselves, Isn't it time to revise the global strategy against drugs?" (See pictures of Culiacán, the home of Mexico's drug-trafficking industry.)

The answer, according to a growing number of high-profile and very mainstream advocates in Latin America, is yes. "We should consider legalizing the production, sale and distribution of drugs," former Mexican President Vicente Fox wrote on his blog in August. He went on to argue that the very fact that drugs are illegal makes them more lethal. "Legalization does not mean that drugs are good," Fox wrote. "But we have to see it as a strategy to weaken and break the economic system that allows cartels to make huge profits, which in turn increases their power and capacity to corrupt."

Fox's predecessor, Ernesto Zedillo, teamed up with former Presidents from Brazil and Colombia to produce a report last year calling for the decriminalization of marijuana. Instead of plowing the sea by trying to eliminate drugs, they recommended so-called harm-reduction policies, like treatment and needle-exchange programs, to reduce the damage caused by illegal narcotics.

One of the report's authors is César Gaviria, who was Colombia's President when the country suffered a wave of car bombs and murders orchestrated by cocaine kingpin Pablo Escobar. For all the blood and treasure his American-backed government spent on gunning down Escobar in 1993, Gaviria told TIME, "U.S. drug policy has failed. So please, change it. Don't force us to sacrifice thousands of lives for a strategy that doesn't work simply because American politicians lack the courage to change course." (See pictures of Mexico's drug wars.)

But, while lawmakers from Mexico to Argentina to Portugal are passing more permissive drug laws, the subject remains taboo in the U.S. Congress. That's because a quarter-century after the "Just Say No" hysteria of the Reagan years, American politicians still fear being labeled soft on drugs, says Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the New York City–based Drug Policy Alliance, which supports the California referendum. Instead, nearly all the movement on drug laws has come from cash-strapped state governments anxious to empty their prisons of nonviolent drug offenders and — at least in the case of California — replenish their coffers by taxing pot sales that are going to happen whether they're legal or not. State officials estimate California could collect about $1.3 billion annually in tax revenue from marijuana.

The latest California polls show opponents of the referendum with a slight lead over supporters. But if it does squeak through, the new law would place the White House in an embarrassing position overseas. John Walsh, of the Washington Office on Latin America, points out that the U.S. government was the primary architect of the global drug-prohibition regime, embodied in three U.N. treaties beginning with the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs — a regime that outlaws marijuana.

"Can you imagine what I am going to say to our [people] in Colombia that grow marijuana if the referendum in California is approved?" Santos asked during a recent interview with TIME. "It would be very difficult for the U.S. to continue saying that the war on drugs is marvelous, but for [its] richest state, it's legal to produce and consume [marijuana]." It would also lead to more catcalls from America's weary drug-war partners in Latin America. A political cartoon in the Bogotá daily El Tiempo sums up the region's thinking: it shows an impoverished Colombian marijuana farmer being clubbed by a glassy-eyed, joint-smoking Uncle Sam.

 

[binaryfission]

Again with the international issue. Thinking about this globally could benefit us. Getting the world involved. It is already, we just act like its not now. some reefer madness in there b ut interesting points.

5 Expert Takes on How U.S. Marijuana Legalization Would Affect MexicoThe Atlantic Home
Thursday, November 11, 2010

Emily Quanbeck - Emily Quanbeck is an editorial project associate at The Atlantic. She has worked in Guyana, France, and India, and now lives in Washington, D.C.

In recent years, the frequency and intensity of violence associated with Mexico's drug war has escalated dramatically: 28,000 murders between 2006 and 2010; 7,000 this year alone. More and more, the victims of such violence are not involved in cartel activity themselves, but rather caught in cartel campaigns terrorize Mexico's government and people.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon has accused the United States of failing to act and blames this country's "terrible inconsistency" in drug policies for failing to control consumption and manage addicts' treatment. Calderon himself has loudly opposed initiatives to legalize marijuana in California, on Tuesday's ballot as Proposition 19. Supporters of legalization claim that cartels' finances would be hit hard. But it wouldn't necessarily put them out of business: A new study from Rand Corporation estimates that not more than 15 to 26 percent of cartels' income comes from marijuana export.

We asked five experts on Mexico's drug wars to assess both U.S. and Mexican policy, and to predict the effects in Mexico of California legalizing marijuana.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has compared Mexico today to Colombia 25 years ago. How is this comparison fair or unfair?

Peter Reuter (Professor of Public Policy, University of Maryland): In Colombia it was the drug cartels that launched the attack on the power of the state. In Mexico, it's the opposite: it's the state that has attacked the drug dealers.

Peter Andreas (Professor of Political Science and International Studies, Brown University): The analogy fits in the sense that Colombia was ground zero for the drug war international 25 years ago and now Mexico is, and they're getting all the attention. They're very apprehensive about the analogy. Colombia had no hesitation about Americanizing their war on drugs--accepting U.S. advisors and aide and technology and so on. Mexico is much more reluctant to embrace a similar relationship.

Robert Bonner (Senior Partner, Sentinel HS, and former Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration): Colombia had ... a real [political] insurgency: the FARC, ELN, and other groups who had territorial control over a pretty significant part of [the country]. To defeat an insurgency takes a military solution, but to defeat transnational criminal organizations is primarily a law enforcement issue: you need judicial reform and stronger law enforcement institutions. You can't bring down, powerful criminal organizations with military force alone.

Andrew Selee (Director, Mexico Institute, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars): A big difference between Colombia and Mexico is that in Colombia you have large, ungoverned spaces where the central government was not very present. In Mexico you don't have that; what you do have is deeply corrupted spaces ... where the government is very present but organized crime is able to corrupt and co-opt.

What have been the U.S.'s biggest mistakes in Mexico policy? Biggest victories?

Andreas: What the U.S. has called a success has actually turned into failure. Twenty years ago, thanks to so-called success in combating smuggling into the country from south Florida and the Caribbean, the cocaine trade moved west to Mexico thanks to the U.S.'s interdiction. It was fabulous for Mexican traffickers because it has actually [made the drug trade] more difficult to control.

Reuter: I don't think the U.S. really has much of a role in this. In terms of policy, the long history of U.S. meddling in Mexico and the Mexicans' intense nationalism on that issue means that the U.S. can do very little in Mexico itself.

Bonner: [One of the most successful tactics in Colombia] was the use of extradition to the United States: Mexico is doing that. The only thing that the cartel leadership truly fears is extradition to the United States and prosecution here. It gave tremendous leverage to Colombia. Use of extradition started in earnest under Vicente Fox, but the pace has been increased under Calderon.

Vanda Felbab-Brown (Foreign Policy Fellow, Brookings Institution): The U.S.'s greatest failure, of course, has been [our] inability to conduct immigration reform, which is something that's incredibly important politically not only in the U.S. but for the Mexican government as well.

What are the most effective policy or enforcement countermeasures available to the U.S.?

Bonner: As we learned in Colombia, identifying the assets of the major traffickers in Mexico and seizing, freezing, and forfeiting their assets is incredibly important to weakening them and bringing them down.

Felbab-Brown: I'm skeptical that focusing on money laundering can be very effective. It's excruciatingly difficult to do, and of all the tools available to law enforcement it's one of the least efficacious programs. We capture something on the order of 2 to 5 percent of flows, and it would take a lot of effort just to get to 10 percent.

Selee: [We need to] do something about what happens on the U.S. side of the border, which is the demand for narcotics and the billions that American consumers spend on narcotics. This includes controlling the flow of arms.

Reuter: I am really struck by the lack of suggestions as to what the Mexican government should do other than just give up. I don't have any good ideas, and nobody else does, either.

What will be the effects on the Mexican drug trade if California legalizes marijuana?

Andreas: Marijuana's potential tax revenue has been overstated.

Bonner: I hope it doesn't pass: it would be a real slap in the face for Mexico. Almost 30,000 people have died in drug-related homicides [since 2006]. Some of those have been police and military who have been fighting the drug traffickers there.

Selee: The biggest effect of passing prop 19 would be to generate a serious debate over drug policy for the first time in many years in this country. I can't see prop 19 creating the conditions for a... market in which marijuana is not controlled by organized crime.

Felbab-Brown: In one outcome, cartels' market [for marijuana] would be threatened and so they would try to move into other illegal markets as they are doing already. The fight over the heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine markets would intensify and lead to even greater escalations of violence.

 

[CrumpleZone]

This is the reason

This is the reason

great info.. but Im still getting my head wrapped around which side Im on.. Im A legal med guy so Im not sure which side I should be on

In a nutshell. Disinformation put out by those with a vested interest in the status quo.

How the hell could a marijuana user think that legalization would be bad for them? Idiot.

 

[true grit]

Are you in a med state or California? The thought was a good idea, but organized and put together poorly by dick lee. There were better initiatives/props that didn't have millions behind them and big business sponsors chomping at the bit. This was not a good prop period, so why put Californians in a shitty position so the rest of the nation can benefit?

Plain and simple: Yes it needs to happen, but it needs to be done right the first time. Once its there it'll be impossible to get it where it needs to be if not put together correctly. People in non med states need to quit crying and realize it needs to be done right- not hastily... and this version was only about money- not rights.

 

[BigBudBill]

Maybe it failed because of Dragonsluts misinformation propaganda blitz. Dragonfly, you ignorant slut.