cannabisnews.com: Santa Monica: Live Free or High Santa Monica: Live Free or High Posted by CN Staff on November 16, 2006 at 12:38:50 PT By Steve Stajich, Mirror Contributing Writer Source: Santa Monica Mirror Santa Monica, CA -- Okay, maybe we won’t be fighting New Hampshire in court over use of that motto. But you can bet that as soon as the post-election punditry settles down and the news channels start looking for “Hey, Martha!”- type topics, our town will draw attention for having passed Measure Y, which reduces the enforcement priority on adult personal use of marijuana in Santa Monica. I voted in favor of the measure, and obviously so did a lot of other Santa Monica voters. Now that we’ve spoken, saying, I think, that we don’t want law enforcement resources distracted with “busting” adults for deploying joints (with exceptions for minors, sale of marijuana, use on public property and driving under the influence) when there’s a world of other things they could be doing… what else have we said with the passing of Y?Certainly one is left with the feeling that marijuana use is here to stay. So are we, as a city, striking that off our list of targets in any kind of “war on drugs?” Are we tacitly approving marijuana’s integration into our (what do we say here?) culture of pleasure? Certainly continued purchase and use of the drug is no secret anymore in just about every corner of America.Discussions about pot inevitably wander, perhaps because users are often having those discussions. It’s difficult to start out talking about pot’s place in contemporary society and not have the conversation skid all over the map of drugs, alcohol, substance use in general and legalization in specific. Assuming that millions turn to this column for leadership on the big issues, here are some thoughts on marijuana post-Measure Y from a middle-aged dude who’s had too much coffee.While we need to quit wasting time busting medical marijuana outlets and provide those people the comfort they deserve, we should think at least twice about legalizing pot. Not because of anything specific about the drug, but because America’s experiments in legalizing the recreational drugs alcohol and nicotine (delivered by tobacco) have had mixed results to say the least. Add up deaths from lung cancer, alcohol abuse, drunk driving, death and injury related to alcohol-fueled violence, and you have a hard time selling me a “more drugs, please” agenda. Forget the relative mellowness of pot and ask a schoolteacher about making it easier to obtain intoxicants.We need to widen our definition of a “drug” and begin teaching a larger framework of consciousness and non-consciousness. It’s not enough to provide kids with drug “information.” We need to inculcate awareness of human potential and how its power can be diminished not only by traditional “drugs” and alcohol but also by such things as a costly and often distracting obsession with fashion and brands. Ideally, your kid would get off the sofa and get a summer job. Having done so, does he use the money for new jeans made overseas by exploited workers or does he buy a book about global economics? Or maybe he just scores some weed.It would help next generations if we learned to be as “out” about our weaknesses as we are now about sexuality and politics. While celebrities have learned to capitalize on rehab experiences, regular folks like us might do well to confess, “I’m fat because I drink too much beer and have a bad diet. Pizza is a kind of drug for me. I eat to relax and not because I’m hungry…etc.” We need the awareness, and the kids around us could learn from it as well.So pot use is a weakness? To properly answer that, I’d have to tell you exactly how much wine I drink every week. But I drink that wine in many different locations all over the city, without having that act pull law enforcement away from something more important. Now that things are officially more relaxed, maybe we should get together and talk more about why we do the things we do. Source: Santa Monica Mirror (CA)Author: Steve Stajich, Mirror Contributing Writer Published: November 16 - 22, 2006 Copyright: 2006 Santa Monica MirrorContact: omhome smmirror.comWebsite: http://www.smmirror.com/CannabisNews -- Cannabis Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #18 posted by FoM on November 17, 2006 at 09:27:13 PT Toker00 One of the things I dislike about this Republican administration is the lack of substance concerning issues and instead they look at people as a commodity to make their own lives more pleasant. I want a government that is by the people and for the people. Republicans blew it now maybe before we see serious corruption embed in the Democratic Party we need to get this done and get the laws changed and get on with our lives. We just watched CNN International. They had a detailed piece on Cannabis use in Israel. They are having trouble getting it from Lebanon so they are starting to grow it in Israel. They said it helps them live with the stress they must endure. Cannabis is universal and the Green Leaf Party was represented very well. [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by Toker00 on November 17, 2006 at 09:11:58 PT FoM It sounds like MPP is trying to turn Pot into Politics. Inevitable, I suppose, since the word is imperative to the spelling of POliTics. Although it doesn't surprise me at all that the majority of anti's are Republican. They just seem to be a rather heartless lot. We could try to spell Cannabis Legislation POTilics, I suppose.Toke. [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by whig on November 16, 2006 at 15:11:13 PT Taylor121 If you want to pass a ballot measure ending cannabis prohibition, don't throw in treats for the prohibitionists and the police. Don't do it because you will NEVER get their support, and you will LOSE support from the public. [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by Taylor121 on November 16, 2006 at 14:12:57 PT Republicans Only 31% of Republicans voted yes for the initiative53% of Democrats voted for it 54% of Independent voted for it [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by Taylor121 on November 16, 2006 at 14:06:22 PT Don't get me wrong I understand where you are coming from, I just don't think it's enough for me to vote no on something that would prevent more people from being punished for an activity that harms no one but themselves.I don't fault you. You are a principled person, we just have different principles. I would vote for the measure because it would reduce the harm of the laws, namely the marijuana prohibition laws. You disagree and that's fine. I was just merely pointing out that most Democrats voted for the measure. [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by FoM on November 16, 2006 at 14:05:34 PT Taylor121 I took a look at it and women which I am saw thru it a little better. It doesn't appear to be Dems or Repub. [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by FoM on November 16, 2006 at 14:01:02 PT Taylor121 I really don't care. I am trying to make a good dinner and to argue on this is a waste of time. 21 year olds are still a very young person. Maybe not a child but young and to have their life wrecked because of a youthful indiscretion isn't something I would vote on. [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by Taylor121 on November 16, 2006 at 13:44:55 PT The Majority of Democrats voted for the initiative "It's possible then Democrats in Nevada read what they were trying to do and didn't vote for it. I wouldn't have voted for it because of the increased penalty they were trying to put on the young people."The initiative would have punished adults who would give or sell marijuana to children, not punish children harsher. So the adult would be the one punished more, not the child.As for Democrats not voting for it, the Democrats voted for it by and large because they want marijuana legalized. If what you are saying is true, then it should have passed in 2002 when it did not have the provision, but as we all know it did worse with only 39% of the vote. Check out this break down of how people voted. It's Republicans that caused the initiative to fail, not Democrats, although we should keep in mind that some Republicans voted for it:Check this link out: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006//pages/results/states/NV/I/02/epolls.0.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by FoM on November 16, 2006 at 13:42:51 PT Taylor121 I don't know anything about Nevada. It seems like a greedy state. People deal with gambling addictions so our state knows that and we don't want the poor who are the ones that usually get caught up in it to be hurt more then our government hurts them already. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by Taylor121 on November 16, 2006 at 13:37:19 PT Its difference illustrates free thought Its difference portrays Nevadans as willing to think things out differently than other states do. Perhaps that's why they are so supportive of legalizing marijuana compared to other states. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by FoM on November 16, 2006 at 13:36:42 PT Taylor121 It's possible then Democrats in Nevada read what they were trying to do and didn't vote for it. I wouldn't have voted for it because of the increased penalty they were trying to put on the young people. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by FoM on November 16, 2006 at 13:32:36 PT Taylor121 Nevada is a state that is different to me then most states. It's nothing like my state. We voted down slot machines. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by Taylor121 on November 16, 2006 at 13:31:18 PT What is important I think what is important for all of us is not to give up and continue supporting at least someone with our resources and time, whether it be NORML, MPP, DPA, or SAFER. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by Taylor121 on November 16, 2006 at 13:28:30 PT Oh I see what you were saying now but I don't think the MPP likes that Republicans turned out in force. They actually wanted Democrats to, but he is saying that the fact of the matter the Democratic governor and senator only received around 41-44% of the vote. The Republicans had a better showing in Nevada this year for some reason, not that anyone here likes it. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by FoM on November 16, 2006 at 13:27:33 PT Taylor121 Somethings scramble my mind and MPP does that to me. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by Taylor121 on November 16, 2006 at 13:26:08 PT I know FoM We don't all agree with how to change marijuana policy, but we all agree that it needs to be changed. To be fair, I think Mr. Kampia was saying that even if the Democratic turn out had been strong, it would have failed since not all Democrats support legalizing marijuana. I don't know what you think he was suggesting, but I can understand you losing interest. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by FoM on November 16, 2006 at 13:21:49 PT Why Does This Matter? They must be Republicans at MPP is all I can think. I have no interested in this organization. I gave up on MPP over the last year or so.Excerpt: The poor Democratic showing and impressive Republican showing made it virtually impossible for MPP’s initiative to pass. That said, had the Democratic/Republican turnout been reversed, our initiative would have come close to passing, but it probably would have still fallen short ... with perhaps 48% or so of the vote. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Taylor121 on November 16, 2006 at 13:13:30 PT Rob Kampia offers explanation for Nevada Loss I’d like to share my analysis of last week’s 44% to 56% defeat of the Marijuana Policy Project’s ballot initiative to end marijuana prohibition in Nevada.And, if you were one of the thousands of supporters who donated money and/or volunteer time to the campaign, I want to extend my most sincere appreciation to you. Thank you.By all accounts — including those of Nevada opinion leaders who were opposed to our initiative — we ran a solid campaign. Our TV ads and radio ads and mail pieces were widely acclaimed; the Interfaith Drug Policy Initiative spearheaded an effort to build the first-ever coalition of religious leaders to call for an end to marijuana prohibition (which generated a huge amount of positive news coverage five weeks before Election Day); our initiative received three out of six newspaper endorsements, including an endorsement from the Las Vegas Review-Journal , which is by far the largest newspaper in the state; the overall news coverage was balanced; we had no campaign scandals; our Get-Out-The-Vote (GOTV) operation (which included targeted mail pieces, live phone calls, prerecorded auto-calls, and door-to-door canvassing) was executed flawlessly; and — thanks to our funders — our campaign was able to lock in good advertising rates early on. Yet we fell six percentage points short on Election Day.Back in 2002, the loss of MPP's first Nevada initiative was attributed to (1) the initiative's attempt to "legalize" three ounces of marijuana instead of one ounce, (2) the White House drug czar's taxpayer-funded TV ad campaign, which ran a markedly higher volume of ads in Nevada during the seven weeks before Election Day, (3) three high-profile vehicular manslaughter tragedies that were blamed on drivers being under the influence of marijuana, and (4) a low Democratic turnout and enormously effective Republican GOTV program.This year, only the last point of the four points above was true. For example, our initiative received 44.1% of the vote — which was more than the 43.9% that the Democratic candidate for governor received, and more than the 41.0% that the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate received. The Democratic wave that rocked most of the country did not rock Nevada; frankly, this was because the campaigns for all top-of-the-ticket Democratic races in Nevada were poorly run, with no visible GOTV programs.The poor Democratic showing and impressive Republican showing made it virtually impossible for MPP’s initiative to pass. That said, had the Democratic/Republican turnout been reversed, our initiative would have come close to passing, but it probably would have still fallen short ... with perhaps 48% or so of the vote.So where does that leave us for the future? Because public support for marijuana "legalization" is increasing at the rate of about 1% per year nationally, we have a strong shot at victory in Nevada in 2010.MPP will maintain an on-the-ground organizer in Nevada over the next four years, working to educate the public and build coalitions of supportive individuals and organizations across the state ... and we will then try again to end marijuana prohibition in Nevada in November 2010.(For every 100 people who voted, we need to persuade only six out of every 56 who voted "no" to switch their votes to "yes" the next time around. In other words, we need to hold our base of 44% and, additionally, to persuade about 1 out of every 10 "no" votes to change their vote. This is eminently doable.)You might be wondering, "Why is MPP so determined to pass a ballot initiative in Nevada?"To achieve our ultimate goal of regulating marijuana like alcohol across the nation, we need to (1) change state laws through ballot initiatives and state legislatures, and (2) change federal law to give states the right to craft their own marijuana policies.To succeed with this two-pronged strategy, we must first pass a ballot initiative ... somewhere. (Because legislators in the 50 states and in Congress aren't exactly bold, it will be the people — not legislators — who will be the first to end marijuana prohibition.)Only 23 states even have the ballot initiative process. Of those that do, the two states that are the most supportive of ending marijuana prohibition are Alaska and Nevada. These two states also happen to have small populations and are therefore affordable for us to campaign in.MPP already has a strong presence in Nevada, so we're choosing Nevada as the state that will most likely be the first to bow out of marijuana prohibition. And then we'll move on to Alaska and other states — including Vermont, where we already have a bill pending to end marijuana prohibition.I want to thank our 21,000 dues-paying members who have brought us this far. Your support is what makes our work possible.Sincerely,Rob Kampia Executive Director Marijuana Policy Project Washington, D.C. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment