CA: Californians To Vote On Legalizing Marijuana

IL: California legalization by the numbers

IL: California legalization by the numbers


| Permalink | by Pete Guither |March 29th, 2010

With the marijuana legalization vote coming up in November, I’m hearing some people say that it’s practically a sure thing — after all, the logic is there, and everybody in California smokes pot already.
Well, I thought I’d take a little more realistic look at what reformers are facing.

Caveat: I’m no expert in voting trends or California, so this is not intended to be anything definitive; rather it’s a set of points to consider, or a jumping-off point for further discussion.

The latest Gallup poll shows 44% of Americans support legalization — an all-time high — and in the west, that number goes up to 53%. Not bad, but far from a sure thing.
While it’s certainly an over-simplification, there’s some truth to the notion that those who have tried marijuana at some point in their lives are more likely to be sympathetic to legalization (since they realize first hand that much of the hype is false). So let’s take a look at those numbers.

Pacific West Marijuana use (2008 SAMHSA)

Age 18-25 Age 26 and over Lifetime 50.0% 45.5% Past Year 30.7% 9.2% Past Month 17.5% 6.0% Now, based on past use, 45-50% (lifetime use) may be sympathetic, but is that a powerful enough factor to actually get them out to vote in November? Uncertain. Past month is more of an indicator of strong motivation.
Now, let’s take a look at midterm voting trends.

Californians voting in 2006 election
Age Range Percent Voting 18-29 24.64% 30-44 41.67% 45-59 54.76% 60+ 67.21%
The old people are more likely to vote. The young people are more likely to support legalization.

Now the good news is that mid-term elections tend to have low turnout, so a motivated group getting out the vote can have a more significant impact. That could change, however, given the level of public interest in the financial woes of the state and the country, or if there is a hotly contested race for Congress.
But as you can see, it’s about far more than getting the marijuana enthusiasts to vote. (In fact, even within the marijuana enthusiasts, you may have to contend with the bottom-feeders who prefer to keep it illegal, either through financial interest or some misguided “I don’t want the government taxing my pot” nonsense.)

The key is going to be motivating the casually sympathetic (all those lifetime marijuana users who haven’t touched it in years and have kids of their own), and those who may not be sympathetic to marijuana use at all.
That probably means focusing on arguments that do not require an affinity of use, such as:

• Economic value of legalization (reduced costs, increased tax revenue)
• Practical value of regulation (age limits, place and time restrictions)
• Reduction of violence (street and Mexico)
• Environmental protection (illegal grows in public lands)
• The Economic self-interest of those opposing legalization (law enforcement unions, prison guard unions, cartels, DEA, etc.)

Opponents will do everything they can to get us sidetracked arguing over whether marijuana is dangerous or not.

Given the cognitive distortion factor I’ve discussed before, it’s going to take a lot of repetition to get people to actually hear the right message. To begin with, there will be a lot of discussions like this:

Reformer: It’s time to stop giving in to the criminals and lobbyists at the drug war trough and begin the legal regulation of cannabis so we can take back control, set appropriate age limits, and de-fund the criminals. As a side benefit, we could also dramatically help the budget.
Listener: Marijuana bad.

Don’t get cocky. California is a tricky state and doesn’t fall in line in the ways that some people think. After all, it seemed a sure thing that if any state would protect gay marriage at the polls, it would be California, but the last election showed that to be a miscalculation.

“Your gun control policy doesn’t have anything to do with public safety, and it’s certainly not about personal freedom. It’s about, you don’t like the people who do like guns. You don’t like the people.” — Ainsley Hayes, “The West Wing”

I’m not quite sure how to say this, but there’s a sociological phenomenon that sometimes results in a backlash factor in situations where a type of social change becomes publicly visible. Let’s call it the “uppity” factor. “Good” people may say that they support rights for blacks/gays/potheads in general, but become annoyed when they become uppity — flaunting their blackness or gayness or dope-ness in public as if they were equals, rather than keeping it hidden behind closed doors where it belongs.

Let’s face it. California cannabis culture can appear uppity. That doesn’t mean that people should stop being who they are — that’s impossible (and wrong). But awareness of the phenomenon can help with strategy.

So, maybe “Free the Weed” and “Ganja Rulez” may not be the best slogans for the legalization movement. Public appearances by Law Enforcement Against Prohibition will have an extra powerful impact. People in suits going door to door will lend the movement credibility. Professional-looking printed materials that are well-designed (and proofed!), focusing on facts (preferably sourced), are essential. These are obvious things, but still important to remember.

Again, I’m no expert, and these are just some ruminations on what the California legalization effort may face. I’m sure others have thought this through even more thoroughly, but this might help get some discussions going. With enough effort and the right message, I think success is possible, but certainly not easy.

Although he claims not to be an expert,he has been on target to much too just dismiss or ignore,as our government and many advocates know. The charts form his post did not stay. goto the permalink for visual check of voting statistics.

US: US: Marijuana Legalization on the CA Ballot: Separating Fact from Fiction

US: Marijuana Legalization on the CA Ballot: Separating Fact from Fiction
AlterNet / By Stephen Gutwillig /March 26, 2010

Brace yourself for a blast of alarmist hot air from the drug war status quo, a nine-month onslaught of distortions, half-truths and real whoppers.



With a historic marijuana legalization initiative certified for November's general election, California is ground zero for a growing national debate. No matter what you think about regulating marijuana for adult consumption, brace yourself for a blast of alarmist hot air from the drug war status quo, a nine-month onslaught of distortions, half-truths and real whoppers. Marijuana offenses account for over half of all drug arrests nationwide. No wonder the law enforcement lobby is furiously digging in its heels at the prospect of "losing marijuana." Here are three commonsense reasons to dump decades of failed marijuana prohibition. (Spoiler alert: Billions of dollars in new state revenue isn't one of them. That's just gravy.)

1. Regulation will help bring marijuana distribution under the rule of law.

Proponents for maintaining the marijuana ban claim that legalization would aid criminal markets. But it's prohibition that has ceded control to the black market; legalization and regulation would mean the opposite. Ending marijuana prohibition means ending the current state of chaos and implementing real controls on who has access to marijuana when and where.

Whether we like it or not, marijuana is a mainstream recreational drug and famously California's largest cash crop. Prohibiting a commodity that popular has simply fueled a massive, increasingly brutal underground economy. Criminal syndicates in Mexico reportedly derive at least 60% of their profits from marijuana sales alone. The horrifying carnage that's claimed 15,000 Mexican lives in three years isn't about drugs, of course, but the drug profits guaranteed by prohibition. While regulating marijuana in California won't single-handedly solve the problem, bringing the market for marijuana into the open will undermine the Al Capones and Pablo Escobars of today by ending the monopoly they currently enjoy over their most lucrative product.

2. Marijuana use has little to do with marijuana laws.

Drug warriors paint a dire picture of skyrocketing marijuana consumption, especially among young people, if the prohibition on adult use ended. But marijuana use isn't primarily impacted by criminal penalties. The U.S. has the highest rates of marijuana consumption in the Western world despite by far the most severe penalties. Among a stack of international studies of this question, the 2004 findings of the American Journal of Public Health "do not support claims that criminalization reduces cannabis use and that decriminalization increases cannabis use."

Adults consume marijuana in huge numbers regardless of its illegality, and American high school students consistently report marijuana is actually easier to buy than alcohol or tobacco. Nearly three times as many American teens under 15 have tried marijuana as teens in the Netherlands, where marijuana is openly sold to adults in coffee shops. Marijuana regulation lowers youth access, separates marijuana from harder drugs, and helps "make marijuana boring" to kids.

3. Regulation will make marijuana safer than ever.

Get ready for "Reefer Madness" 2.0 as drug warriors try to confuse an increasingly savvy electorate about the harms of marijuana. Since it's now so widely consumed, many people understand that marijuana is safer than alcohol or cigarettes and are increasingly skeptical of laws that treat them so differently. Science backs them up. Marijuana is far less addictive and typically consumed in much smaller amounts. It's impossible to die of a marijuana overdose. Crucially, marijuana lacks alcohol's noxious association with violence, accidents and reckless sexual behavior.

Reports that today's marijuana is more potent are often wildly exaggerated, and potency isn't even related to addiction or other health impacts. Nevertheless, the issue of what's in marijuana argues for regulation not against. Marijuana is consumed by nearly one in ten Californians annually. What they're consuming is of widely varying quality and may contain pesticides, contaminants, and unsafe adulterants. Regulation would provide a framework to control potency, provide for labeling and prohibit dangerous additives. Not only does prohibition provide no such protections, it drives consumers underground where the buyer must truly beware.

Advocates of a mythical "drug free" world may want to put the genie back in the bottle, but we simply can't pretend, ignore or arrest our way out of today's realities. As this country learned by banning alcohol sales in the 1920s and '30s, prohibition of a widely popular commodity will never work. Marijuana prohibition causes more social harm than good in the form of mass arrests, wasted criminal justice resources, out-of-control youth access, and unregulated products consumed by millions. It's time to regulate adult use of marijuana once and for all.





America does not have a marijuana problem,we can find marijuana in any town in America.

Ca: Pot Backers Launch Ad Campaign Norml/

CA: POT BACKERS LAUNCH AD CAMPAIGN
NORML/by John Hoeffe/30 Mar 2010


The Radio Spot Features an Ex-L.A. County Sheriff's Deputy Who Says That the Fight Against the Drug Has Led to Cartels

The campaign to legalize marijuana in California kicked off this week, just days after the initiative made the ballot, with a radio ad saying many law enforcement professionals know marijuana laws have failed and calling the measure "a common sense solution."

The ad features Jeffrey Studdard, a former school district police officer and reserve L.A. County sheriff's deputy. Studdard says that he has "seen firsthand that the current approach on cannabis is simply not working," explaining that the fight against marijuana has led to "violent drug cartels" and "dealers in our schools and our streets" without reducing consumption.

He concludes by saying the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act, which would allow cities and counties to authorize pot sales and tax them, would raise billions and allow police to focus on violent crime.

Kim Raney, chief of the Covina Police Department and a spokesman for the California Police Chiefs Assn., called the ad "completely false and misleading."

He predicted that law enforcement groups would line up against the initiative. "This is really the first attempt to legalize drugs," he said. "This is just a Trojan horse. The first of an incremental strategic attempt."

Previewing the coming debate, he took issue with Studdard's contention that marijuana prohibition has spawned cartels and the implication that legalization would undercut them. "It's obviously naive to think that Mexican drug cartels and Asian drug cartels are not going to be involved, with all the money at stake," Raney said.

The spot, which lasts about a minute, will run for at least a week in the Bay Area and Los Angeles, but the campaign hopes to raise the money to keep it on the air and plans to add other radio and television spots featuring police officers, judges, doctors, teachers and parents. The commercial concludes by soliciting support.

Dale Sky Clare, a spokeswoman for the campaign, said, "The common theme has always been cops versus hippies, but the reality is that many law enforcement officers agree that prohibition has failed."

In the ad, Studdard says police officers support the measure, but campaign officials could name only two former officers in California, including Studdard, as well as a few former California prosecutors and judges. Studdard is identified in the ad as a former sheriff's deputy. He said he worked full-time for the Walnut Valley Unified School District and volunteered as a reserve deputy between 1990 and 2001.

Studdard, who taught drug education in the schools and made marijuana arrests, said he was severely disabled by a back injury in 2003 and tried pot.

He said it allowed him to give up painkillers, stimulated his appetite and changed his views on prohibition.

"It's not going to go away," he said. "It's been here for 7,000 years."

America does not have a marijuana,problem,we can find marijuana in any town in America.

CA: ABC News Coverage of Calif. Marijuana Brings Out "Reefer Madness"

CA: ABC News Coverage of Calif. Marijuana Brings Out "Reefer Madness"
OpposimgViews/By "Radical" Russ Belville/03,30,2010


(ABC News) Pastor Ron Allen of Sacramento is one of the leaders of a coalition of cops and clergy who say legalizing marijuana will lead to the use of harder drugs and only cause more problems for society.

For Allen, this is also a personal crusade. He was a crack cocaine addict for seven years, and he says it all started with marijuana.

So, Pastor Allen, you have to admit that marijuana and crack being illegal did absolutely nothing to stop you from trying them, right?

And you’d have to admit that using marijuana put you into contact with people who sold crack, right?

I’m curious, Pastor Allen, if you have ever had an alcoholic drink, and if so, why you aren’t campaigning to reinstate alcohol prohibition?

""Passage “would devastate California to the fullest extent. … This is the worst thing that California could ever try to do,” Allen said.

“To legalize marijuana with our kids, we are going to see more dropouts, we are going to see more crime, we are going to see more thefts, and we are going to see our kids just hanging out on the corner,” he said.""

Boy, it’s a good thing that we’re not proposing to legalize marijuana for our kids, huh? This is a proposal for adults 21 and over, Pastor. What we have now is dropouts, crime, thefts, and kids hanging out on the corner, kids that say year after year that marijuana is easier for them to get than alcohol

Pastor Ron ought to look at the data regarding California’s experience with limited medical legalization. From 1999-2006, teen past month use of marijuana dropped by -1.19%, from the #22 state and above national average in teen use in 1999 to the #32 state and below the national average in 2006.

Advocates say taxing marijuana could generate $1.4 billion in revenue for California every year, and save the state tens if not hundreds of millions dollars more in enforcement costs.

But any tax revenue derived from legalizing marijuana would be “blood money,” Allen said.

“They would have to have new smokers and new smokers would be our youth and our next generation,” Allen said.

“And the money that they are talking about gaining on taxes, they are not telling us on how much more the parents will spend on funerals, on how much more the kids are going to spend in the emergency room,” he said. “It will exceed those taxes.”

So somehow, there is going to be more than $1.4 billion in funerals and medical costs due to people smoking legal marijuana. These numbers are very easy to calculate. All you need to do is take all the cannabis smokers in California now, some 2.3 million people who use annually, divide that by the money they and their families spent on medical bills and funerals due to the marijuana smoking, and you have the base number that a California marijuana smoker costs per year. Then divide $1.4 billion by that base to project how many more new pot smokers there would have to be to eat up all the tax revenues.

Hmm, that’s a problem, because marijuana is non-toxic and causes few medical bills and no funerals (not counting people shot over marijuana because it is illegal). Division by zero is impossible. We’ll have to think of this another way.

Let’s suppose that the same 2.3 million Californians smoke pot after legalization as before. Let’s pretend that those 2.3 million somehow eat up the $1.4 billion in tax revenues. That works out to $608 that each pot smoker would have to cost California per year in funerals and medical costs (and lost productivity, crime, and whatever other crazy non-marijuana-related causes you’d like to add) in order to make pot legalization revenue-neutral.

But that’s not really fair, because if we make these assumptions, then we’d have to assume the pot smokers are costing $608 each now as we’re bringing in $0 tax dollars and spending $426 per smoker in law enforcement costs. So realistically, there would have to be an increase in the number of pot smokers in order for a net loss to be realized.

Let’s say pot smoking goes up by half following re-legalization – quite a stretch, because that means for every two pot smokers now, there’s one who really wants to but won’t until it is legal. The current 2.3 million smokers allegedly cost $608 each, but we’re saving $426 each by not arresting them, so the current smokers will cost a net $182 each. That’s $418 million. Then the new 1.15 million pot smokers will cost the full $608, so that’s $699 million. So in this insane scenario of Pastor Allen’s, even with pot smoking increasing by half, we’ve only used up $1.117 billion of the $2.1 billion in taxes (since the tax revenues would go up by half, too.)

So even with a completely wild-ass guess of $608 in health costs per cannabis user and the well-documented $426 in law enforcement costs per cannabis user and an implausible 50% increase in cannabis users, California still comes out about a billion dollars ahead. California comes out even farther ahead when realistic estimates of health costs are used, like Canada’s recent study that showed a cannabis user cost Canada $20 each per year, not anywhere close to $608.

"Marijuana will get you thru times of no money better than money will get you thru times of no marijuana." Furry Freak Bothers

Ca: Highs, Lows Of Cannabis Act

CA: HIGHS, LOWS OF CANNABIS ACT
NORML/by August Walsh/03,31,2010


Proposed Bill Could Generate $1.3 Billion, but Possible Risks Still Have Some Uneasy
The Bill

The heated debate about marijuana use will be tested this November when California voters go to the polls.

The Tax, Regulate and Control Cannabis Act of 2010 will allow Californians to decide if marijuana should be legalized for recreational use, according to the bill. The initiative intends to allow only people 21 and over to use it recreationally, unless a minor is using it for medical purposes.

The state Legislature would also be expected to pass laws to license, control and tax commercial cannabis, according to the bill.

Local governments would also be in charge of "ordinances, the rules and regulations of licensed businesses, appropriate zoning, permits, licenses, safety and environmental laws to protect the general health and welfare of the public," according to the initiative.

The minimum amount that the California government will tax is at least $50 per ounce. All of the revenue generated would be used for public education, public works, health care, environmental programs, public works and state parks. The revenue from any violations of the act would go toward the same organizations.

Such violations include the sale of cannabis outside of California, prohibiting stores and businesses from selling marijuana, minors using cannabis and operating a vehicle under the influence.

All people convicted of a marijuana-related offense before the initiative passes would have their charges dropped. All state laws regarding marijuana sales, possession, production and transportation would be thrown out if the bill passes.

Smoking marijuana within 500 feet of a school or youth center, not including a university or college, would be prohibited unless it is used within a residence.

The initiative would also prohibit discrimination against those who use marijuana.

No person shall be discriminated against regarding, but not limited to, health care, education, employment, retirement and insurance, for conduct by this act," according to the bill.

Marijuana would also be made available for scientific, medical, industrial and research purposes.

If the initiative passes and marijuana becomes legal in California, the federal government would still consider it illegal under the Controlled Substances Act, said Willis Geer, a Chico State political science professor. The attorney general could prosecute where they see fit, while local enforcement would not be able to.

"It would be a huge courtroom battle," he said.

Arguments for Marijuana Legalization

Legalizing marijuana has a lot of benefits for the state, said freshman Gabe Adley, vice president of the Chico State Republicans. By taxing the drug, California would generate an estimated $1.3 billion. The federal government spends about $14 billion combating drugs when they could reduce spending if marijuana is legalized in California.

"By legalizing marijuana, it would create jobs, pump money into the economy and destroy the cartels," he said. "The money would be great, but there need to be restrictions as well. People shouldn't be able to just walk into a Kmart and buy a pack."

The Chico State Student Democratic Club also supports the initiative, said senior Dylan Shelters, president of the club.

"We support the citizens' right to choose how marijuana should be regulated," he said.

Though many may view the revenue given toward education and health care as "drug money," taxing marijuana is a necessary evil, Adley said. California has the opportunity to get out of debt in possibly less than 10 years.

In Nevada, school systems aren't impacted by furlough days because their state taxes casinos and prostitution," he said. "There aren't any furloughs because of the millions of dollars that the state makes."

There are other drugs besides marijuana that are taxed and the money is given to many organizations, Shelters said.

There is prescription drugs, herbal medicine, tobacco, alcohol, all of which don't necessarily have a negative connotation," he said. "Many people in society don't quite view them as bad as marijuana."

One great part of the initiative is that it allows various localities to engage in economics, Shelters said. It doesn't force communities to follow strict guidelines and may provide relief in other areas.

Since about 80 percent of marijuana-related arrests are non-violent, California would have the opportunity to free up some of the overcrowded prisons, Adley said.

"California would definitely benefit if the prisons were less cramped as long as the prisoners go through the proper channels," he said.

Though alcohol laws require individuals to be 21 years old to drink, people still find a way to get their hands on it anyway, Adley said. Since many have been able to obtain marijuana even though it's illegal, it should be legalized in order to have the opportunity to tax it. Tobacco and alcohol are much more deadly than marijuana because for marijuana, it's nearly impossible to overdose.

Arguments Against Legalizing Marijuana

Despite the possible help to the economy, there are some negative aspects of the bill, Adley said.

The bill should have included more restrictions on marijuana use in public places, he said. It should have also increased the penalties for people who grow and distribute illegally in order to dodge taxes.

"It didn't include smoking in or around churches, daycares, parks or municipalities," Adley said.

Smoking marijuana also has possible health risks, including reduced sperm count and cancer, said senior Chris Thornton, a liberal studies major.

"There can be negative side effects with sexual reproduction and memory loss," he said. "While it might not have as much as an immediate side effect as alcohol, marijuana can be worse in the long run."

Ethics also plays a big role in the initiative, Thornton said.

"Many people view marijuana as just wrong," he said.

In a sense, the initiative can be viewed as promoting drug use, Shelters said. However, it's tough to actually find out if there will be an increase in drug use.

"It's a very hard subject to study and to quantify," he said.

More information on this topic can be found at the Chico Great Debate on April 29 in the City Council Chambers.


And if we just leave marijuana illegal,the criminals can continue controlling it as they do now and selling it to our young people,as they do now,and the cartels can continue taking billions of untaxed dollars out of our economy,as they do now.

"The minimum amount that the California government will tax is at least $50 per ounce. All of the revenue generated would be used for public education, public works, health care, environmental programs, public works and state parks. The revenue from any violations of the act would go toward the same organizations."

Is there any other product on the market that supports that much tax. That is $800 a pound in taxes. I can buy it for less than that now. They will just underwrite the existence of the cartels and the illegal market with their greed.

If grown outside at the cost of $30 a pound and sold illegally for under $800 a pound,that is enugh profit margin to have your grandmother growing it to sell.