Cannabis News Marijuana Policy Project
  CA Voters Getting Chance To Legalize Marijuana
Posted by CN Staff on May 04, 2016 at 05:07:44 PT
By Patrick McGreevy, Reporter 
Source: Los Angeles Times 

cannabis California -- A Measure to legalize marijuana for recreational use in California appears headed for the Nov. 8 ballot. A coalition that includes former Facebook President Sean Parker on Tuesday said it has collected 600,000 signatures, more than enough to qualify the initiative.

Democratic Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and other supporters of the measure plan to kick off a campaign for voter approval of the Adult Use of Marijuana Act on Wednesday in San Francisco.

The measure would allow adults ages 21 and older to possess, transport and use up to an ounce of marijuana for recreational purposes and would allow individuals to grow as many as six plants.

"This November, California voters will finally have the opportunity to pass smart marijuana policy that is built on the best practices of other states, includes the strictest child protections in the nation and pays for itself while raising billions for the state,” Newsom said in a statement.

The coalition, which includes some law enforcement and civil rights leaders, needed to collect 365,880 signatures of registered voters to qualify the initiative, which would also place a 15% tax on retail sales of the drug.

The use of marijuana in public and while driving would remain illegal. Parker, a billionaire who also co-founded the file-sharing service Napster, donated more than $1 million to the campaign to collect signatures and qualify the initiative.

If elections officials verify that the signatures turned in Wednesday are sufficient and voters approve the initiative, California would join Colorado, Washington, Alaska and Oregon as states that allow recreational use of marijuana.

Opposition is already organizing behind groups such as Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana, which formed to defeat a 2010 legalization initiative that was rejected by 53% of voters.

"Marijuana is a very dangerous drug," said Scott Chipman, a San Diego businessman who is the Southern California chairman of the group. "The state has not proven it has the capacity or the will to properly regulate marijuana and so they won't."

The measure is also opposed by the California Police Chiefs Assn., in part, because of problems that have arisen in Colorado.

Ventura Police Chief Ken Corney, president of the association, said extremely potent marijuana is being sold in Colorado that he fears will lead to high addiction rates and high incidents of psychosis.

“This is bad for our communities. This is bad for our youth and it’s a broad commercialization [of drugs], a for-profit, money-making model,” Corney said.

More than 55% of California voters allowed the use of marijuana for medical purposes in 1996 when they approved Proposition 215.

Despite the defeat of a 2010 legalization initiative, a poll last year by the Public Policy Institute of California found that 55% of likely voters in California favor full legalization.

“I’m excited to be a part of one of the largest coalitions of cannabis and non-cannabis organizations to come together to push this initiative forward,” said Nate Bradley, executive director of the California Cannabis Industry Assn.

Bradley, who backed the failed 2010 initiative, said voters have since "seen how well [legalizing recreational use] has worked in other states."

Newsom, who is running for governor in 2018, formed a blue ribbon commission on marijuana policy that made recommendations, many of which were incorporated into the initiative.

The measure is supported by the Drug Policy Alliance, Marijuana Policy Project, California Cannabis Industry Assn., California Medical Assn. California NAACP, and the national Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

The medical association said in a statement that it supports the measure because "the most effective way to protect the public health is to tightly control, track and regulate marijuana and to comprehensively research and educate the public on its health impacts, not through ineffective prohibition."

Supporters hope to build on the momentum from the Legislature’s action last year to set up regulations for the medical marijuana industry in California. The new initiative would expand on that, renaming the state Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation as the Bureau of Marijuana Control.

Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Author: Patrick McGreevy, Reporter
Published: May 3, 2016
Copyright: 2016 Los Angeles Times
Contact: letters@latimes.com
Website: http://www.latimes.com/
URL: http://drugsense.org/url/p3qhVDEQ

CannabisNews -- Cannabis Archives
http://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml


Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help    Share on Facebook Share on stumbleupon digg it Share on reddit Share on del.icio.us

 
Comment #23 posted by afterburner on May 18, 2016 at 15:30:34 PT
FoM
You have mail at greendale!

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #22 posted by Had Enough on May 18, 2016 at 01:51:51 PT
Tunes...

Thanks FoM...I love it too...

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #21 posted by FoM on May 15, 2016 at 18:25:41 PT
Had Enough
I love that song!

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #20 posted by Had Enough on May 15, 2016 at 04:28:46 PT
Another Hit...maybe..
Quicksilver Messenger Service - Fresh Air

***

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUHlxBZMiqw&list=RDvUHlxBZMiqw#t=66

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #19 posted by Had Enough on May 15, 2016 at 04:26:56 PT
Another Hit...maybe...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUHlxBZMiqw&list=RDvUHlxBZMiqw#t=66

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #18 posted by keninsj on May 13, 2016 at 22:38:40 PT:

Cannot get behind the AUMA
The working in this bill is horrible, it will bring down the great medical system we have in place now. I hope another bill gets enough signatures to be put on the ballet.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #17 posted by Hope on May 12, 2016 at 20:20:24 PT
Thank you, Storm Crow!
I'm so glad to hear there's a better choice.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #16 posted by Storm Crow on May 11, 2016 at 21:37:26 PT
I prefer the MCLR
I think that the Marijuana Control, Legalization & Revenue Act Initiative is a better deal- ONE page, with clear and simple language. It got enough signatures to get on the ballot, but all I hear about in the news lately is AUMA!

And FYI- Ed Rosenthal doesn't like the AUMA, either. He's even done a few articles against it.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #15 posted by Hope on May 10, 2016 at 12:27:09 PT
What I'm wondering is why no one came up
With a good one.

Where were our organizations?

Is there still time to get a good inititiative written and on the ballot?

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #14 posted by Treeanna on May 08, 2016 at 21:04:40 PT
AUMA flaws
You are quite right - it has a lot of problems. Worse, it will probably not be able to deliver even the few crumbs of benefits that Sean Parker and his buddies threw us.

I found an interesting analysis on a legal blog by a guy with no dog in the fight whatever:

http://www.mikedonaldsonlaw.com/blog/2015/12/12/adult-use-marijuana-act

I will certainly vote against this in order to encourage the money people to realize we wont allow bad laws for their profit.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #13 posted by keninsj on May 07, 2016 at 18:47:08 PT:

AUMA
I don't think I could vote for this. Too many restrictions. I did not vote for the 2010 bill due to some really bad language. If we are to have proper legalization here in California, we need to wait for a bill that makes sense, and send a message to the politicians that we wont stand for this type of blatant abuse of our existing laws. Anyone who is medical in this state should vote against this bill, and I think the industry should be speaking out about it. Surprisingly they have been silent thus far. Corporations have been taking over every aspect of our lives, and we need to push back. I am tired of the way workers are treated here, especially in the tech industry. Made to work long hours and weekends without compensation beyond their salaries. Which is illegal, but ignored. Better stop now, getting a bit peeved.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #12 posted by Had Enough on May 07, 2016 at 18:42:36 PT
These Guys too...

Of course we have to have this worn out tactic...

Sad how people can be naïve enough to even listen to this anymore...

""The measure is also opposed by the California Police Chiefs Assn., in part, because of problems that have arisen in Colorado.

Ventura Police Chief Ken Corney, president of the association, said extremely potent marijuana is being sold in Colorado that he fears will lead to high addiction rates and high incidents of psychosis.

“This is bad for our communities. This is bad for our youth and it’s a broad commercialization [of drugs], a for-profit, money-making model,” Corney said.""

Buzz words just in those few sentences... potent... addiction... psychosis...

Sheeze...

It just keeps going on and on...meanwhile many others pay a heavy dues because of it...

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #11 posted by Hope on May 07, 2016 at 16:13:49 PT
I have trouble seeing any cannabis measure fail
That seems to restore more and more of mankind's natural human rights and dignity concerning the plant and that protects common citizens from over reaching goverment. But there, no doubt, can be serious flaws and fails in some legislation ideas. Why is this not broader legalization than 215?

The longer it's not legal to have and use the more harm is done to more people.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #10 posted by Had Enough on May 07, 2016 at 15:50:11 PT
De'javu...
Well I hope it wins...I remember the last time this was happening...I also remember some smart ass Californian posting here who had a "medical card"...running his mouth about how he has his and likes it the just way it is...and too bad for everyone else...Even suggested that if we didn't like the laws where we live to move to California...instead of California leading the way for the rest of the states...hard to believe that there are people with that mindset...and then there are the people who are making huge profits that will campaign against it also...Humboldt County maybe...we will deal with it again...However I still have hope that "cooler heads" will prevail this time...

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #9 posted by Hope on May 07, 2016 at 11:11:50 PT
Alright.
In your reasoned and reasonable stance, I see that this might be a good time to not accept something way less than perfect.

Our movement has,for so long now, had to accept barely incremental steps into getting the beast to back off. Apparently, many Californians like it like it is there now. They are in a position to know far better than I, and they are in a good place to wait it out.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #8 posted by Sam Adams on May 06, 2016 at 10:03:18 PT
the chances of victory
From the initial opposition I've seen in the last week I would say AUMA is not going to pass.

Some people in this movement don't understand politics. If you want to win, you don't start by alienating your base. If you have to start apologizing to the cannabis community for your proposal, how do you expect to win? The Ohio referendum was crushed by 30%.

I don't blame people in CA for voting no either. With a cheap doctor's recommednation you can do anything you want under Prop. 215. I'd vote no for every bad law that comes up. Eventually a good law will get placed on the ballot.

This law is far worse for the cannabis community than Prop. 19 was a few years ago. And Prop. 19 failed.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #7 posted by Sam Adams on May 06, 2016 at 09:58:44 PT
Cali
I see a big problem with assuming the law will inevitably get better later. Once the legal industry gets going, they'll be in control of lobbying the legislature and driving the political process. The industry is never going to want to see home growing. They won't spend one penny of lobbying dollars on that.

Prop. 215 was the best MJ law ever passed IMO. People can grow it. People can sell it to each other. That's legalization.

Every year since '96 the movement has been more and more corrupted by big money from the ruling elite. This California law looks like something written by Target and Walgreens and a police dept.

We should be able to grow cannabis and pay $25 for a day stall at the local farm market to sell it to each other. Anything else is police state IMO, not a free market.



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #6 posted by Hope on May 06, 2016 at 09:48:43 PT
Some activist even, seem to like
It just like it is in California.

If people are still getting their hands bound behind their backs by government rules over this herb... it needs to be MORE legal than it is. A lot more.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #5 posted by The GCW on May 06, 2016 at 08:06:30 PT
Treeanna,
That's a lot... Started reading it, no time for it all, right now but this is some of My thought.

California seems to have fractured support for RE-legalizing cannabis. -So many different groups with different interests... that there will never be consensus. (Cal failed twice partly due to it)

That said, it is never going to be perfect. But that's just the beginning. Do it and make the INEVITABLE changes later. California legalizing cannabis could completely blow cannabis prohibition off the face of earth.

At least help significantly end it in the U.S.

For that, I (not a Californian of course) hope California and America wins.

A loss here a 3rd time will not be a charm. For California to lose a 3rd time, -well, let's not go there.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #4 posted by Treeanna on May 06, 2016 at 06:40:45 PT:

The AUMA is very bad news
Unfortunately, the AUMA really wont do the things it is claimed it will do, and it it looking a lot like CA needs to pull an Ohio on this one (which is actually backed by big money makers, and not patients or their advocates). The big thing for me is it allows the outdoor grow bans to continue, and makes the 6 plants indoors subject to local control via "reasonable regulations".

Here's an analysis by a lawyer:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiS2Z7c-8DMAhUUHGMKHfhgDj4QFghZMAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcaliforniacannabiscoalition.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F02%2Fauma-exposed.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGOUjWwijMNRab22xMqDI0VEHcakw&bvm=bv.121099550,d.cGc

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #3 posted by Canis420 on May 04, 2016 at 23:45:17 PT:

OT: 46th Annual May 4th Commemoration
This occurred today on the campus of Kent State University

https://www.boxcast.com/show/#/46th-annual-may-4th-commemoration-525282

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #2 posted by Sam Adams on May 04, 2016 at 07:55:24 PT
Cali
Total taxes on cannabis with this law will be 30% once everything is inlcluded. Black market is probably going to continue.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #1 posted by HempWorld on May 04, 2016 at 06:16:31 PT
Legalize It!
IF marijuana is dangerous, which it is not! It is actually safer then water, or H2O, as Cannabis/Marijuana is 100% non-toxic.

Ok, but, for the sake of argument, if it (= Cannabis/Marijuana or say paint thinner) were dangerous, that would then be yet another very important reason to legalize it in order to minimize harm.

But, as you study this subject, you will find that 'anti-legalizers' as we shall call them, actually do want to harm and lock people up over a dried flower!?

Go figure, please read my essay here:

[ Post Comment ]

  Post Comment
Name:        Password:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comment:   [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]

Link URL:
Link Title:


Return to Main Menu


So everyone may enjoy this service and to keep it running, here are some guidelines: NO spamming, NO commercial advertising, NO flamming, NO illegal activity, and NO sexually explicit materials. Lastly, we reserve the right to remove any message for any reason!

This web page and related elements are for informative purposes only and thus the use of any of this information is at your risk! We do not own nor are responsible for visitor comments. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 and The Berne Convention on Literary and Artistic Works, Article 10, news clippings on this site are made available without profit for research and educational purposes. Any trademarks, trade names, service marks, or service names used on this site are the property of their respective owners. Page updated on May 04, 2016 at 05:07:44