Marijuana Legal in California in 2010?

[OldMan&TheWeed]

A California Marijuana Legalization Initiative may be on the 2010 ballot in California. Three different groups have filed proposed initiatives with the California Secretary of State for ballot measures that would legalize and impose a tax on marijuana:

Joe Rogoway, Omar Figueroa and James J. Clark filed the language for 09-0022 on July 15, 2009. They refer to their measure as The Tax, Regulate, and Control Cannabis Act of 2010.

Richard Sieb Lee and Jeffrey Wayne Jones filed the language for 09-0024 on July 27, 2009. They refer to their measure as the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010.

John Donohue of "Californians for Common Sense" filed the language for 09-0025 on August 4, 2009. He refers to his measure as the Common Sense Act of 2010.

The Field Poll released survey results in April 2009 which indicate that 56% of Californians support legalizing marijuana.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.ph...itiative_(2010)

Share your opinion.

[zerodown]

Legalization is inevitable, the time it takes for it to happen depends on how fast people get educated on the subject. And the fastest way to do it is through TV, and I am amazed to see marijuana documentaries popping out here and there. We're on the right track, if it can manage to not loose steam its a sure win.

[OldMan&TheWeed]

Let's say it passes (if public opinion polls are any indication, it will). And I assume that being a ballot initiative it will be both broad in scope and vague on details as initiatives usually are.

Would the state and local officials just ignore marijuana, leaving it up to the feds to enforce federal law without local cooperation?

Would it get shot down in the state courts, or upheld by the state supreme court but shot down in federal supreme court?

Well, there's only one way to find out.

Where do I sign. . . where do I sign?

[The Rev]

The most interesting part would be the fight such a law would set up between states and the federal government. Medical Marijuana still leaves us with a, "well, it's not okay, but we're letting them because they're sick." Full blow legalization jumps right to, "Well, I guess it must be okay, then!" which flies in the face of federal efforts to demonize the drug. Imagine the DEA raiding your local drugstore or farmers market, because they are acting legally within state law, but violating the federal law.

It's the kind of thing that can reignite the issue of states rights and possibly redefine what it means to be a state within our union. Legalizing cannabis would open a big fat can of worms, with possible benefits in all regions of politics that deal with personal and lower than the biggest dog autonomy.



The Rev

[OldMan&TheWeed]

Go here to become involved in the initiatve process:

Tax and Regulate Cannabis California 2010

The first meeting is September 11th.

I'll be there.

[OldMan&TheWeed]

California Marijuana Legalization Initiative Effort Underway, Aimed at 2010 Ballot
And the news just keeps on coming.

--------------------------------
Feature: California Marijuana Legalization Initiative Effort Underway, Aimed at 2010 Ballot | Stop the Drug War (DRCNet)

Quote:
Talk about marijuana legalization is at a level never seen before this year, and nowhere is that more strongly the case than in California. For the first time, a legalization bill is before the state legislature. Legalization recently polled at 56% in California. Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, perhaps entranced by visions of dollar signs as he presides over an exploding budget deficit and imploding state economy, has publicly pondered whether now is the time to talk about legalization. And with the state bordering on Mexico, the notion of undercutting Mexican drug trafficking profits through legalization resonates especially loudly in the Golden State.

Now, somebody wants to do something about it, and the revolution is starting in Oaksterdam, the medical marijuana business empire/social movement centered in downtown Oakland and anchored by Richard Lee's Bulldog Café, SR-71 dispensary, and Oaksterdam University. Lee and a team of activists, attorneys, political consultants, and signature-gathering pros are working on the final drafts of an initiative to tax and regulate marijuana in California that they hope to place on the November 2010 election ballot.

In its current form (which is still subject to revision), the initiative would:

* Allow for the possession of up to one ounce of marijuana by adults;
* Allow adults to grow in an area of up to 25 square feet, and keep the fruits of the harvest;
* Allow counties and municipalities to license the cultivation of marijuana for commercial sales and license marijuana retail sales;
* Allow consumption in licensed premises;
* Allow counties and municipalities to tax any licensed production or sales;
* Not allow interstate or international sales.

Each provision leaves room for argument over its wisdom and its complications. Leaving legal marijuana commerce and taxation to localities instead of the state, for instance, could weaken the argument for state tax revenue benefits, but make the measure more palatable to counties either cash-strapped and eager for revenues or conservative and not desirous of allowing "pot clubs" to sprout in their domains.

Others require a bit of explanation. The provision for allowing possession of only an ounce runs contrary to treating it like alcohol -- there are no limits on wine cellars or beer collections -- and appears at first glance to at least potentially conflict with the personal grow provision. But the one ounce would be the state minimum; even in counties or cities that choose not to allow marijuana commerce, pot smokers could still have their stash.

The larger questions around a 2010 legalization initiative in California are whether the time is right and what would be the consequences of failure. Movement opinion appears to be split.

"We see a lot of things making it right for this time," said Lee. "The budget crisis here in California, the violence in Mexico, the economy continuing to decline, the polls -- all suggest that this may be the time to do it. The bigger picture is it's important to keep the issue alive, and we hope to have a vigorous campaign over the next year and a half to move this forward."

"This initiative is inevitable," said long-time Southern California activist Cliff Schaffer, who has been insisting for several years now that legalization in California is unstoppable. "I understand the money is already in place to gather signatures. They plan to do this whether anybody else likes it or not."

The time is ripe now, said Schaffer. "We've already got the tax issue -- the billion dollars in tax revenue even got Arnold's attention, and I think that 56% approval number is going to increase naturally. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it in the 60s by this time next year," he predicted.

But the national marijuana reform organizations are not so excited, and even a little bit nervous. National NORML didn't even want to talk about it, deferring instead to the state chapter. And the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), while diplomatic, was decidedly lukewarm.

"Everybody supports the idea of what Richard is trying to do and wants to see marijuana regulated and taxed in California as soon as possible, but there is also an ongoing debate and uncertainty as to when and how is best to proceed," said Bruce Mirken, MPP's San Francisco-based communications director. "Our take is that the polling we've seen so far suggests it is not likely to pass in 2010. Everyone wants to take advantage of public opinion moving in our direction, but it's not clear that it has moved enough. There is honest debate about when to pull the trigger. In our opinion, we should wait and build our forces and aim at 2012."

"I think it's premature," said Dale Gieringer, executive director of California NORML. "If you look at the poll numbers carefully, it's clear it wouldn't pass. We saw 56% in the Field Poll, but other polls show smaller margins, and once an initiative has any particulars to attack, you start seeing support melting away percentage point by percentage point."

Urging patience, Gieringer harkened back to the days of Proposition 215. "Before we did Prop. 215, there had been three medical marijuana bills in the state legislature, the Vasconcelos medical marijuana bill had passed and been vetoed, and that was basically what we took to the voters," he said. "We knew that an initiative to allow the personal use and cultivation of marijuana for medical purposes would pass because we had already gotten it through the legislature."

[OldMan&TheWeed]

continued. . .



Marijuana legalization, on the other hand, doesn't have that extensive legislative pedigree or the years of discussion in Sacramento about its ins-and-outs that allows points of contention to be fleshed out. California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) has introduced a legalization bill this year, but this is the first time, and it hasn't even had a hearing yet.

"The Ammiano bill is very far-reaching, but it hasn't been discussed," said Gieringer. "We need to take this to the legislature, see where the weak points are. Those kinds of discussions will lead to changes and revisions and give us an idea where we can get the public to support this."

And then there's the cost. "Initiative campaigns are mind-bogglingly expensive here, and we may not get a lot of chances to raise the money to do it right," Mirken pointed out. "Smaller states like Nevada, we could do for around $2 million, but that doesn't even cover a decent local campaign here in California."

The challenges are considerable, Lee conceded, but that isn't stopping him. "We need to collect 460,000 valid signatures, and that means we need to collect 650,000 signatures. We think it will cost about $1.50 a signature, so you're looking at about a million dollars just to get it on the ballot."

Lee said backers hoped to have a final draft early next month. From there, the initiative goes to the attorney general's office for a title and summary, and should be ready for signature-gathering by the end of August. From then, organizers will have 150 days to collect the required signatures.

"We're a draft or two away," said Lee. "We're making some changes in the current draft and then we will test it again with our focus groups. We're getting pretty close now."

Once the initiative makes it to the ballot, said Lee, financial backing should appear. "I think people will start coming out of the woodwork to get on board," he said.

There are also arguments that could appeal to so far untapped, even unfriendly constituencies, said Schaffer. "It's not just taxes. We're also talking about the revenue from growing this stuff. The tax revenues are chump change compared to that. We'll see an additional $20 billion in revenue from the Central Valley, and people here have to pay income taxes at an 11% rate; that's another $2 billion right there. We have to make that an issue," he said.

Schaffer already has been playing that card in the conservative, but economically depressed and increasingly desperate Central Valley, the state's leading agricultural region, and one of the most important in the world. His brash views have garnered interest from farmers and press attention in an area of the state not considered friendly towards marijuana.

"That's a huge cash crop -- do we want those billions to go to Mexico or to Central Valley farmers?" is the question Schaffer is posing. "This is going to be a very important argument in the Central Valley, and we're going to have trouble unless we can pick up votes there, too. If we turn this into an economic opportunity, then we're not arguing about whether marijuana is good or bad, but does Fresno want $20 billion."

While putting dollars signs in the eyes of farm country will build support there, said Schaffer, the best argument for legalization proponents will be the "like alcohol" argument. "Everyone understands that," he said. "The closer we can come to just saying tax and regulate it like alcohol, the better off we are with the general public."

It's the consequences of losing a legalization initiative in California that concern MPP's Mirken and CANORML's Gieringer. "California has a reputation as a liberal, progressive state," said Mirken. "If it loses badly here, that could be perceived as serious setback at the national level."

"If we lose in 2010, that will really take the wind out of our sails," said Gieringer. "The legislature won't have to take us seriously, and there won't be anything on the 2012 ballot because funders will get discouraged and pull out. When an initiative loses in California, the cause dies. We're on a really great track toward legalization now, but we need to develop this further, and that's going to take a few years."

And so begins the debate within the California marijuana legalization debate. Would California voters jump on board for legalization next year, with momentum growing like Iranian demonstrations, or will opponents find enough niggling loose ends and unanswered questions to derail it? Is now the time for the final push, or will eagerness to make progress turn into a trap?

Right now, the ball is in the hands of Richard Lee and his Oaksterdam team.

[OldMan&TheWeed]

POT INITIATIVE ENTERS CIRCULATION
by Thadeus Greenson, The Times-Standard, (Source:Times-Standard)

10 Sep 2009


California
-------
Months ago, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said it's "time for a debate" on the legalization of marijuana in California. Now, some want to skip the debate and get to the legalization.

Wednesday, the first of three initiatives seeking to effectively legalize marijuana possession, cultivation and sales entered circulation. While there seems to be a rising tide of support for such a state policy change, it remains wholly unclear if any of the three initiatives would garner support from a majority of the state's voters. And, if one does, the potential impacts on Humboldt County are murky.

"Complete legalization would not be good for the Humboldt County economy," said local attorney and longtime medical marijuana advocate Greg Allen. "But, there's no question that for the state's economy, legalization would be a good thing."

After years in the background as the state was awash in controversy over medical marijuana laws, the debate over out-and-out legalization in California was thrust forward amid the state's epic budget crisis earlier this year. With the state then facing a projected $42 billion deficit, state Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, introduced a bill in February seeking to legalize, regulate and tax marijuana. It was the prospect of new tax revenue -- to the tune of an estimated $1.3 billion, according to the state Board of Equalization -- that seemed to give the idea a foothold.

Ammiano and his staff trumpeted both the new revenue stream and a bundle of enforcement savings as reasons for the cash-strapped state to give the bill serious consideration. The governor said it was time for a debate, and a sprinkle of lawmakers throughout the state agreed, including North Coast Sen. Patricia Wiggins.

"We've heard estimates about how much money this could raise, and while it's hard to know how close to the mark those estimates are, my staff have heard from police and sheriff officials from throughout my district who say decriminalization would also allow them to devote more of their time and resources to more pressing law enforcement matters," Wiggins said at the time.

For the first time, it also seemed public sentiment was on the side of legalization, although many say they fear legalization would lead to more minors accessing the drug and more abuse in general.

In April, a California Field Poll estimated that 56 percent of registered voters supported the idea of legalizing marijuana for recreational use and taxing its proceeds.

In the Capitol, however, the topic soon lost steam. Under the weight of another budget crisis, Ammiano had essentially shelved the bill, saying it needed more study and retooling.

Now, as they've been known to do, Californians are taking matters into their own hands and turning to the initiative system. But, not everyone in the marijuana advocacy community is entirely optimistic.

Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws ( NORML ), said pro-marijuana initiatives generally lose support from the point when they are initially announced, as opposition groups begin advertising and speaking out against them.

"They all lose support," he said, adding that NORML expects them to lose between 5 and 8 percent of supporters at the polls.

NORML is so convinced in the drop-off effect, St. Pierre said, that it will only launch an initiative effort if its polling shows 58.5 percent of likely voters in favor of a proposition.

"Can 56 percent hold? Here at NORML we wouldn't launch. That just wouldn't be high enough for us," St. Pierre said.

The proverbial cat, however, is out of the bag, and St. Pierre said NORML will consider endorsing one of the soon-to-be-competing initiatives, likely basing its decision on which is most likely to pass.

The initiative that entered circulation Wednesday -- the other two are currently under review at the Attorney General's Office -- would repeal all state laws that currently make it a crime for people over the age of 21 to use, possess, sell, cultivate and transport marijuana, except those that make it a crime to drive under the influence.

If it gets the 430,000 signatures to make it to the ballot, and then gets more than 50 percent of the vote, the law would also expunge convictions based on the repealed laws. That might represent a challenge in getting it passed, St. Pierre said.

When people start talking about expunging records, overturning convictions and even offering reparations to those who have served prison time on marijuana offenses, St. Pierre said they tend to lose middle-of-the-road, pragmatic voters.

"Things like reparations or expungement typically retard or kill the initiatives," he said. "They make the process much more difficult."

But expungement might have its positives, Allen said, and would certainly translate to a savings of state revenue if everyone with marijuana convictions were released from prison and taken off parole.

"Getting these people out of the system, and I mean completely out, would save us a lot of money," Allen said.

According to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 809 people were in California prisons for marijuana-related offenses as of the end of 2007 -- the last day for which statistics were available. At an annual cost of $49,000 per inmate to the state, that equates to an estimated $39 million that taxpayers spent in 2007 to keep marijuana offenders behind bars. And that doesn't include funds spent to keep offenders in county jails, where the vast majority of those convicted of marijuana offenses end up serving their sentences.

Whether legalization would be a benefit or a hindrance to Humboldt County remains up for debate, Allen said.

There's the possibility, he said, that the county could carve out a high-end, boutique-type niche for itself, eventually becoming what Napa Valley is to wine and drawing tourists from across the state, and the country, to come sample the Humboldt brand of marijuana.

However, Allen said there's also the distinct possibility that massive farming operations in the Central Valley would flood the market, driving the price of marijuana down so far Humboldt County's smaller scale growers would be unable to compete.

Allen said the federal government's reaction to legalization in California could also prove to be the "joker in the deck" in how legalization affects the marijuana market.

In any event, it's very hard to tell what the impacts to Humboldt County would be, Allen said, both because it's difficult to determine how legalization would change the marijuana market and because it's just about impossible to tell how big a part marijuana currently plays in the local economy.

"It's interesting, and it's hard to actually really project where it's going to go," Allen said. "I think, in the long run, complete legalization would be really problematic for Humboldt County. We don't know how much of Humboldt's economy comes from marijuana sales, but we know it's a lot."

[OldMan&TheWeed]

Should we support this if it's not endorsed by NORML?

Are they right?

Will it hurt the cause for legalization if this goes down in flames?

[OldMan&TheWeed]

Sign up here:

California Cannabis Initiative

Maybe I'll stand in front of a Walmart for this.

[Nug_King]

I wish you all luck in California.


And even if it fails, it will get the whole country talking about it. That's progress, even if NORML is too paranoid to see it.