California to vote on marijuana legalization

[Puppycow]

On Wednesday, the California secretary of state certified a November vote on a ballot measure that would legalize, tax and regulate marijuana, a plan that advocates say could raise $1.4 billion and save precious law enforcement and prison resources.

Indeed, unlike previous efforts at legalization — including a failed 1972 measure in California — the 2010 campaign will not dwell on assertions of marijuana’s harmlessness or its social acceptance, but rather on cold cash.

“We need the tax money,” said Richard Lee, founder of Oaksterdam University, a trade school for marijuana growers, in Oakland, who backed the ballot measure’s successful petition drive. “Second, we need the tax savings on police and law enforcement, and have that law enforcement directed towards real crime.”

Supporters are hoping to raise $10 million to $20 million for the campaign, primarily on the Internet, with national groups planning to urge marijuana fans to contribute $4.20 at a time, a nod to 420, a popular shorthand for the drug.

The law would permit licensed retailers to sell up to one ounce at a time. Those sales would be a new source of sales tax revenue for the state.
. . .
a 2009 Field Poll showed 56 percent of Californians supporting [legalization]

Linky (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/us/26pot.html?src=me&ref=general)

I think that the political ground is shifting. This is probably going to pass. :)

What will the Feds do then?

[ravdin]

It's about time.

My guess is that if passed, there won't be an immediate effect. The absurd War On Drugs will still continue at the federal level, even if the state stops cracking down on hippie pot farms.

[JFrankA]

Linky (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/us/26pot.html?src=me&ref=general)

I think that the political ground is shifting. This is probably going to pass. :)

What will the Feds do then?

I was about to post this in a thread but you beat me to it! :)

Here's the link from a Newsweek article on the subject.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/235480?GT1=43002

It says

. Obama's newly appointed drug czar, R. Gil Kerlikowske, has since condemned legalization, in a speech to police chiefs in San Jose earlier this month.

You'd think it might make California users nervous—except that the drug czar does not have the legal authority to enforce drug laws. The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy did not return NEWSWEEK's calls for comment, but experts say the reality is that the federal government doesn't have the resources, or the desire, to go after each and every Californian who is operating within their local laws.

I always thought, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the state laws, in most cases override the federal laws until either state lines are crossed or if a case goes to a federal court.

[Aepervius]

I think it is a ploy to reduce californian debt. Legalize Mari-jeanne, then sell a lot of pot to all the stoner travelling from the other 51 state to california for their legal smoking ;).

(note : the above was a joke).

[Profanz]

If tobacco and alcohol are legal then there is absolutely no reason for pot to be illegal. And I don't smoke. If people want to get high then let them. Maybe then less of them will be hooked on prescription drugs. Or is that the problem?

[JFrankA]

I think it is a ploy to reduce californian debt. Legalize Mari-jeanne, then sell a lot of pot to all the stoner travelling from the other 51 state to california for their legal smoking ;).

Duuuuuude.....geeez come on....you know that there's only fifty........hey are you going to eat all that popcorn?




:D

[Aepervius]

Duuuuuude.....geeez come on....you know that there's only fifty........hey are you going to eat all that popcorn?




:D

Doh. 50 yeah.

I seem to have counted UK in the list.

*DUCK*

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Isn't there a chance the federal government could punish individual states financially by denying funding for various things if they pass laws that the feds don't like?

[Cobalt]

Man, I hope this goes through. It would certainly be a step in the right direction by far.

[NewtonTrino]

I don't live in California but I'm going to send them some cash.

It's about time this absurd prohibition ended.

[psychictv]

Finally! The prescription system is silly. I hope the Oaksterdam plan comes to fruition because Oakland could really use the tourist dollars.

[Fnord]

Mneh ... the politicians are merely following the trail of money, right towards the only California agricultural product that can still be considered a cash crop.

Well ... maybe not the only one, but it is certainly more popular than avocados or Marin County wine.

[softstuff]

Maybe I have an over-exaggerated view of the smoking laws in California, but I was under the impression that they were pretty strict. In which case the only place to smoke marijuana even if it were made legal would be at home behind closed doors, and smoking it in a public place would still be illegal. I find this a touch amusing.

Of course I could also be mistaken in the assumption that most people there like to smoke it, for all I know kids at college in that area could be having mammoth brownie baking sessions each week instead.

[Yalius]

It would still fail, since half the people who would vote for it will forget to go to the polls.

[Cain]

a 2009 Field Poll showed 56 percent of Californians supporting [legalization][/quote]

Who cares what Californians think? As mentioned earlier, this issue will be decided by voters. Take into account likely voters, plus the fact it's an off-year election...

Will businesses still discriminate based on what you do on your own time.

[Dog Town]

Isn't there a chance the federal government could punish individual states financially by denying funding for various things if they pass laws that the feds don't like?

Happened under Reagan I believe. The 21 drinking age was forced on states, or lose some highway cash. Doubt it would fly today. We'll soon see. Venice Beach has like 50 "clinics", all booming. Kinda annoying, and I partake.

[Dog Town]

Just saw this. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_pot_cases_tossed
Many felony pot cases getting tossed out of court

SAN FRANCISCO – Police in a northern California town thought they had an open-and-shut case when they seized more than two pounds of marijuana from a couple's home, even though doctors authorized the pair to use pot for medical purposes.

San Francisco police thought the same with a father and son team they suspected of abusing the state's medical marijuana law by allegedly operating an illegal trafficking operation.

But both cases were tossed out along with many other marijuana possession cases in recent weeks because of a California Supreme Court ruling that has police, prosecutors and defense attorneys scrambling to make sense of a gray legal area: What is the maximum amount of cannabis a medical marijuana patient can possess?

[Dog Town]

Maybe I have an over-exaggerated view of the smoking laws in California, but I was under the impression that they were pretty strict.

It's a ticket, if even that. Depending of course, what you are doing, or where you are.

[Cain]

Happened under Reagan I believe. The 21 drinking age was forced on states, or lose some highway cash. Doubt it would fly today. We'll soon see. Venice Beach has like 50 "clinics", all booming. Kinda annoying, and I partake.

Wasn't that mostly a MADD thing? Not that I think Reagan (or any Republican) respects "states' rights" -- unless we're talking in code about race.

[Newtons Bit]

Happened under Reagan I believe. The 21 drinking age was forced on states, or lose some highway cash. Doubt it would fly today. We'll soon see. Venice Beach has like 50 "clinics", all booming. Kinda annoying, and I partake.

The Democrats in Congress and/or Obama may turn a blind eye to it, but what happens when Republicans take over Congress or the White House again? They'll put down the federal hammer. People who are heavily involved in the now legal (for the state) trade will find themselves in a very bad place. And by bad place, I mean: federal-pound-me-in-the-ass-jail.

[shadron]

I was about to post this in a thread but you beat me to it! :)

Here's the link from a Newsweek article on the subject.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/235480?GT1=43002

It says

. Obama's newly appointed drug czar, R. Gil Kerlikowske, has since condemned legalization, in a speech to police chiefs in San Jose earlier this month.

You'd think it might make California users nervous—except that the drug czar does not have the legal authority to enforce drug laws. The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy did not return NEWSWEEK's calls for comment, but experts say the reality is that the federal government doesn't have the resources, or the desire, to go after each and every Californian who is operating within their local laws.
I always thought, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the state laws, in most cases override the federal laws until either state lines are crossed or if a case goes to a federal court.

1. Federal laws always trump state laws until a SCOTUS decision renders them invalid.
2. Here in Colorado we had a "memo" that said anyone acting within Colorado's medical marijuana law would not be prosecuted. Later on, after a change of prosecutors, several have been arrested. Law experts say the memo wasn't worth the paper it was printed on.
3. If you have an ambitious federal prosecutor in California, at any time from the law's start up till the Federal law is repealed, growers and distributors will be at risk.

Oh, the cases do go to federal courts. That's where being arrested by a fed (FBI, marshal, any other with federal authority) gets you automatically.

[shadron]

The Democrats in Congress and/or Obama may turn a blind eye to it, but what happens when Republicans take over Congress or the White House again? They'll put down the federal hammer. People who are heavily involved in the now legal (for the state) trade will find themselves in a very bad place. And by bad place, I mean: federal-pound-me-in-the-ass-jail.

Doesn't even take a republican (though that might be the most likely case). Any ambitious federal prosecutor could see it as easy meat.

[shadron]

Isn't there a chance the federal government could punish individual states financially by denying funding for various things if they pass laws that the feds don't like?

Certainly possible. They did just that with the drinking age.

[quixotecoyote]

Mneh ... the politicians are merely following the trail of money, right towards the only California agricultural product that can still be considered a cash crop.

Well ... maybe not the only one, but it is certainly more popular than avocados or Marin County wine.

Well, I think you're half right, in that it's openly a money issue.

However, it's not about taxation. It's about law-enforcement.

No legitimate taxable business is going to take advantage of California's legality while the feds are still going to bust 'em.

What this is doing is saving all the money being spent on state and local policing, jailing, processing, trying, adjudicating, imprisoning, etc.

It's saying to the feds "If you really think putting pot-smokers/growers in jail is a good way to fund resources, fine. You do it. We're done."

eta:
Per shadron's point above, given how much money they'd save, it'd have to be a big financial penalty. One so big, it might even generate it's own pushback.

[Fishstick]

Won't somebody think about the for-profit prisons?

[quadraginta]

It would still fail, since half the people who would vote for it will forget to go to the polls.

m4GhW6VVGyw

Sorry. Had to be done.

(Music starts about 20 secs. into the vid. If you haven't heard this (:eek:) be patient. It's worth the wait.)

[quadraginta]

Won't somebody think about the for-profit prisons?


That's right. A burgeoning crime rate is essential to a healthy economy. What we need to do to speed economic recovery is make more things illegal!

(Oh, wait. The Republicans lost this time around, didn't they.)

[JFrankA]

1. Federal laws always trump state laws until a SCOTUS decision renders them invalid.
2. Here in Colorado we had a "memo" that said anyone acting within Colorado's medical marijuana law would not be prosecuted. Later on, after a change of prosecutors, several have been arrested. Law experts say the memo wasn't worth the paper it was printed on.
3. If you have an ambitious federal prosecutor in California, at any time from the law's start up till the Federal law is repealed, growers and distributors will be at risk.

Oh, the cases do go to federal courts. That's where being arrested by a fed (FBI, marshal, any other with federal authority) gets you automatically.

Thanks for the info. That makes it clear that the law, if passed, will be as clear as mud. :)

[Dog Town]

The Democrats in Congress and/or Obama may turn a blind eye to it, but what happens when Republicans take over Congress or the White House again? They'll put down the federal hammer. People who are heavily involved in the now legal (for the state) trade will find themselves in a very bad place. And by bad place, I mean: federal-pound-me-in-the-ass-jail.

Not so sure it remains a Dem/Rep issue, at least not hard and fast by rule.
States with Med, or lax laws.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/109234bb1138a707f8.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis_in_the_United_States
(http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19549)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/109234bb1139d7cf28.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19550)
Governors by Party.

From Wiki link above
In the United States, it is important to differentiate between medical cannabis at the federal and at the state level. At the federal level, cannabis per se has been made criminal by implementation of the Controlled Substances Act but as of 2009, new federal guidelines have been enacted. According to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, "It will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws on medical marijuana, but we will not tolerate drug traffickers who hide behind claims of compliance with state law to mask activities that are clearly illegal."[1][2][3] It is also important to note that a recent ABC news poll shows that 81 percent of Americans believe that medical marijuana should be legal in the United States.[4]

Also Fed prisons for pot crimes tend to be country clubs. More than one old friend of mine did time in them. The most famous being Clifford Antone, of legendary Blues Club Antone's in Austin, Texas. CA put on concerts in and outside "prison" walls. Even was allowed to be at his club on the week-end. He got busted for LARGE quantities of pot (read: tons)

[Beerina]

Linky (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/us/26pot.html?src=me&ref=general)

I think that the political ground is shifting. This is probably going to pass. :)

What will the Feds do then?


Ehh, what will the liberals in California do, then? Now they are required to stop loving it and start hating it and blaming it on Big Business. :)

[NewtonTrino]

Ehh, what will the liberals in California do, then? Now they are required to stop loving it and start hating it and blaming it on Big Business. :)

There's probably more truth here than a lot of people would want to admit ;)

Anyway it's pretty much de-facto legal in most places in California now. If you want it you just grab a medical card and go to one of the hundreds of pot stores.

[Steve]

Not so sure it remains a Dem/Rep issue, at least not hard and fast by rule.
States with Med, or lax laws.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/109234bb1138a707f8.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis_in_the_United_States
(http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19549)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/109234bb1139d7cf28.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19550)
Governors by Party.

From Wiki link above


Also Fed prisons for pot crimes tend to be country clubs. More than one old friend of mine did time in them. The most famous being Clifford Antone, of legendary Blues Club Antone's in Austin, Texas. CA put on concerts in and outside "prison" walls. Even was allowed to be at his club on the week-end. He got busted for LARGE quantities of pot (read: tons)

Interesting to see the number of "States with Med, or lax laws." along the Canadian border. Could the residents of these states who approved these laws have been influenced by the accessibility of Canadian weed? Just askin'.

[Mark6]

Isn't there a chance the federal government could punish individual states financially by denying funding for various things if they pass laws that the feds don't like?
Given that's exactly how federal government got every state to raise drinking age to 21, I would say yes, there is a very good chance of this happening.

[quixotecoyote]

Given that's exactly how federal government got every state to raise drinking age to 21, I would say yes, there is a very good chance of this happening.

Given how much money they'd save, it'd have to be a big financial penalty. One so big, it might even generate it's own pushback.

[Fnord]

As much as I enjoyed experimenting with hempen smokes, I'd be a hypocrite if I voted in favor of legalizing the stuff while simultaneously trying to get the use of tobacco products banned from every public place.

[glsunder]

If MJ was legal for drug use, there would be no reason to make it difficult for farmers to grow hemp. Agriculture is big business in CA. A quick search shows that in 2006, Arnold vetoed a bill that would have allowed California farmers to grow industrial hemp. I'd say that CA's coffers could eventually be helped by legalizing hemp as well.

[Praktik]

A quick search shows that in 2006, Arnold vetoed a bill that would have allowed California farmers to grow industrial hemp.

My lord... so dumb. I hadn't heard about that veto!

Anyway - let's go California - potheads in other states and yes - even in Canada - are hoping you vote this through!

[NewtonTrino]

As much as I enjoyed experimenting with hempen smokes, I'd be a hypocrite if I voted in favor of legalizing the stuff while simultaneously trying to get the use of tobacco products banned from every public place.

Why not just have it be legal for smoking at home then?

Or do you disagree that pumping billions into criminal gangs is a bad idea?

[Praktik]

As much as I enjoyed experimenting with hempen smokes, I'd be a hypocrite if I voted in favor of legalizing the stuff while simultaneously trying to get the use of tobacco products banned from every public place.

isn't having experimented with weed and later voting to keep it banned another form of hypocrisy? Don't worry though, there's millions of people in the same boat!

My generation has not forgotten the clips of young hippies in the 60s and 70s swearing they were gonna make it legal once they were in power - and then well, doing NOTHING. They totally went squaresville man.

And your premise is that smoking marijuana carries similar threats to addiction and health as tobacco, which it doesn't. So I dont see the hypocrisy in someone looking to ban public consumption of tobacoo and voting for legalizing marijuana.

[godless dave]

Isn't there a chance the federal government could punish individual states financially by denying funding for various things if they pass laws that the feds don't like?

Yes. That's why all 50 states have a drinking age of 21, and it's how they got 48 or 49 states to have a speed limit of 55 for a while.

The DEA also has the authority to enforce national drug laws anywhere in the country. State laws don't trump them. The DEA already limits itself to large volume marijuana cases just as a matter of resource allocation. How they will treat California depends on whether or not politicians in the White House want to make political hay out of acting tough on drugs.

[Mark6]

How they will treat California depends on whether or not politicians in the White House want to make political hay out of acting tough on drugs.
Does weed make good hay?

[godless dave]

Maybe I have an over-exaggerated view of the smoking laws in California, but I was under the impression that they were pretty strict. In which case the only place to smoke marijuana even if it were made legal would be at home behind closed doors, and smoking it in a public place would still be illegal. I find this a touch amusing.

I think the restrictions on smoking in public will make it politically easier to legalize marijuana.

(And I'm pretty sure you can still smoke a cigarette in your back yard, even in California.)

[Praktik]

What's interesting about this is the unlikely alliance with some southern Republicans though, who may be opposed to marijuana legalization but whose belief in states rights is so strong it overrides their distaste for weed.

I hope to see that alliance come out with some joint statements once California votes to free the weed!

[JoeTheJuggler]

What will the Feds do then?

I've been talking about a similar issue on the various healthcare debates--responding to these arguments that the founding fathers intended us to have a tightly circumscribed limited federal government, and Congress only has the strictly enumerated powers listed in the Constitution and none others. Those same people look the other way wrt to the federal law banning growing pot at home in states where medical marijuana is legal (and other stuff--like the federal ban on some partial birth abortions).

At any rate, I think current federal law already treats pot as a Controlled Substance. I have no idea how the Supreme Court might rule on a case testing a state law to legalize it.

[godless dave]

Not so sure it remains a Dem/Rep issue, at least not hard and fast by rule.

I don't think it ever was. Speaking as a person who usually votes Democrat and smokes pot, I've met few politicians from either party who were receptive to legalization.

[Psi Baba]

I hope to see that alliance come out with some joint statements once California votes to free the weed!
I see what you did there. :D

[Fnord]

Why not just have it be legal for smoking at home then? Or do you disagree that pumping billions into criminal gangs is a bad idea?

Good points. The election is still a ways off, so I may change my mind at least once before then. No worries.

[Paranormal Inquirer]

What's interesting about this is the unlikely alliance with some southern Republicans though, who may be opposed to marijuana legalization but whose belief in states rights is so strong it overrides their distaste for weed.

I doubt it. Republicans and "conservatives" generally only support the states' rights principle when it furthers their agenda (i.e., ability to ban same sex marriage, ability to ban abortion, etc.)

Once it deals with applying this principle blindly and perpetually, they would not (and have not (http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/news/schafer.htm)) hesitate to become what they claim to hate and use the iron fist of the central government to prevent pot smokers from being able to toke up in peace.

Just one of their many, many blatant hypocrisies.

[Axiom_Blade]

I don't think it ever was. Speaking as a person who usually votes Democrat and smokes pot, I've met few politicians from either party who were receptive to legalization.

You think that's bad? There are few third party politicians who are willing to get up on the soapbox for legalization (much less Cognitive Liberty). Even the far-left Green Party will only mention it in passing, and then rarely.

The only ones who speak on this at length are Libertarians, and for that I have to give them respect.
Because:
Sure, it's a waste of money and other resources.
Sure, it creates crime, and puts otherwise innocent people in jail.
Sure, a lot of the illegal drugs are safer than the ones that are legal.
These are all very good reasons. But, the thing the Libertarians understand is: Everyone has a right to do whatever they want with their own minds and bodies. Drug prohibition is, at its root, a civil liberties issue.

[Praktik]

I doubt it. Republicans and "conservatives" generally only support the states' rights principle when it furthers their agenda (i.e., ability to ban same sex marriage, ability to ban abortion, etc.)

Once it deals with applying this principle blindly and perpetually, they would not (and have not (http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/news/schafer.htm)) hesitate to become what they claim to hate and use the iron fist of the central government to prevent pot smokers from being able to toke up in peace.

Just one of their many, many blatant hypocrisies.

Well maybe they're few in number, but I saw a few of em on TV speaking up - and thought that was pretty cool.

Probably fringe guys - I can't see the mainstream republican party seeing any democrat-sponsored legislation for legalization as anything other than a free gift for the next cycle. Which is why these ballot measures are key - political stasis borne of the two party system.

[Travis]

If MJ was legal for drug use, there would be no reason to make it difficult for farmers to grow hemp. Agriculture is big business in CA. A quick search shows that in 2006, Arnold vetoed a bill that would have allowed California farmers to grow industrial hemp. I'd say that CA's coffers could eventually be helped by legalizing hemp as well.

There would first need to be some sort of wildly profitable use for industrial hemp.

[WildCat]

As much as I enjoyed experimenting with hempen smokes, I'd be a hypocrite if I voted in favor of legalizing the stuff while simultaneously trying to get the use of tobacco products banned from every public place.
Why? Are you tryiong to make tobacco illegal?

[Puppycow]

Update:

Intrade odds are 60% that it will pass.

http://www.intrade.com/