cannabisnews.com: Pot Initiative Splits Backers of Legalization
function share_this(num) {
 tit=encodeURIComponent('Pot Initiative Splits Backers of Legalization');
 url=encodeURIComponent('http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/25/thread25669.shtml');
 site = new Array(5);
 site[0]='http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u='+url+'&title='+tit;
 site[1]='http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit.php?url='+url+'&title='+tit;
 site[2]='http://digg.com/submit?topic=political_opinion&media=video&url='+url+'&title='+tit;
 site[3]='http://reddit.com/submit?url='+url+'&title='+tit;
 site[4]='http://del.icio.us/post?v=4&noui&jump=close&url='+url+'&title='+tit;
 window.open(site[num],'sharer','toolbar=0,status=0,width=620,height=500');
 return false;
}






Pot Initiative Splits Backers of Legalization
Posted by CN Staff on May 17, 2010 at 04:49:36 PT
By Wes Woods II, Staff Writer
Source: Daily Bulletin
California -- Any assumption that all of the state's marijuana backers are in support of this fall's ballot initiative to legalize cannabis would be incorrect."My position is that I am for legalization but against this particular bill," wrote Los Angeles attorney Jennifer Soares in an e-mail. "From an attorney's perspective, I cannot endorse a bill that I feel is poorly written, even if I am pro-legalization."
Steve Bloom, publisher of celebstoner.com and co-author of the 2008 book "Pot Culture: The A-Z Guide to Stoner Language and Life" favors the law despite its flaws. "I just think its an important step to have legalization in the state - like how California started the medical marijuana movement by legalizing it in 1996," Bloom said. "Now 13 states (have) medical marijuana due to California getting the ball rolling. No matter whatever pros and cons about the wording of the bill, the way it's perceived nationally would be that California legalized marijuana. The purpose of that panel was to open up debate. My point of view, living in New York, is it would be a lightning rod for the rest of the country (to legalize it)." Richard Lee, founder of Oaksterdam University, a marijuana industry training facility, has spent $1.3 million to qualify the November initiative. Soares wrote, "A poorly written law leads to bad case law. And bad case law can ruin this industry. Do we really want to leave the future of legalization in the hands of a judge who may or may not agree with the interpretation of the laypeople that are promoting Tax Cannabis 2010? Let us not forget the trouble we have already had in the court system with the medical marijuana laws. How many different judges have come to different conclusions on the same law? How many cases have made precedence that negatively affect the medical patients that the laws were meant to protect?" Bloom disagreed with Soares but admitted there was a consistency problem with medical marijuana. "I wish that it would be consistent throughout the state," Bloom said. "Look at how medical marijuana is from town to town and county to county. In places where it's a little more conservative they're less inclined for it to proceed. It's not clear now on how medical marijuana will be available ... it should be a level playing field. But again, it's out of my control." Soares concluded, "Because this bill allows the individual municipalities to determine the commercial aspects of recreational use, it is highly likely that cultivation and distribution commercially will be banned in most cities and counties in California. Politicians must only take the path of least resistance - do nothing - and the commercial aspect of recreational cannabis will be banned in their municipality. There are currently over 120 cities in California that are banning medical marijuana distribution. How likely is it that these cities will be convinced to allow recreational distribution? Los Angeles took five years to pass a medical marijuana ordinance. Many cities still have not finalized a medical marijuana ordinance." Ultimately, Bloom said, the bigger picture of marijuana legalization should trump all. "Our community will try to debate this and determine what's the best language, but ultimately the real negative is from police organizations and prison guards who are always against bills and spend a lot of money to stop it," Bloom said.Source: Inland Valley Daily Bulletin (Ontario, CA)Author: Wes Woods II, Staff WriterPublished: May 16, 2010Copyright: 2010 Los Angeles Newspaper GroupContact: letters dailybulletin.comWebsite: http://www.dailybulletin.com/URL: http://www.dailybulletin.com/ci_15100629CannabisNews -- Cannabis Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help 
     
     
     
     




Comment #10 posted by BGreen on May 18, 2010 at 12:14:43 PT
Yes We Can, Storm Crow
We can and we will!The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by FoM on May 18, 2010 at 12:13:13 PT
Article On Oregon from KATU
Pharmacy Board To Vote on Pot ClassificationMay 18, 2010URL: http://www.katu.com/news/medicalalert/94112894.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Storm Crow on May 18, 2010 at 11:56:56 PT
I don't like all of it either, 
But I will vote for it! Half a loaf is better than none- and then I'll work on getting the rest of that loaf! Cannabis needs to be equal with St. Johns Wort! And the psychological and political impact will be huge if both Washington and California both "legalize". Oregon also appears to have a petition circulating to get legalization on the ballot. Think about it! The WHOLE WEST COAST!Remember how they used to say "If you don't like the law, change it"? Well........... WE CAN DO IT!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by Paint with light on May 17, 2010 at 21:34:47 PT
advances
Our side is getting a lot of media attention and a lot of the myths are being discussed...finally.Each time we gain a few more newly educated individuals.For a long time an answer to a typical myth was in the others side's favor.An example is one that is just now in a state of change.The driving impairment issue has always been an almost universal reason for a negative response.Recently the best revealing of the truth, in the fewest words is...."..even at your most intense impairment with cannabis you are still below the level of impairment with a .08 alcohol.You can use two words for impairment if you wish.Fubared comes to mind for a single word.The one who is quickest and most concise, with the most truth, wins.Legal like alcohol..or dirt.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by FoM on May 17, 2010 at 18:12:47 PT
Just My Thoughts
I am not good at details but when Prop 215 passed it made National news. Everyone heard about it. It isn't the actually law that will matter but the talking points legalizing marijuana in California would mean to the whole USA. People will question why it can't be done everywhere. That would be opening a big door for us.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Hope on May 17, 2010 at 17:51:17 PT
B4daylight and John Tyler
I agree. It may not be the one, if we had more choices, we would have chosen... but it's the choice and it's absolutely great compared to nothing.Even if we're not Californians, this is so important, I think, to all of us. So important. I hope it passes.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by John Tyler on May 17, 2010 at 17:29:28 PT
game changer
The law could better and it could be worse. Richard Lee and his associates put down some serious money to get this done. I think they did the best they could do. When this passes, and I think and hope it will, the message that will rock the world is that “California legalized cannabis”. The details will not be that important. This will be a game changer.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by b4daylight on May 17, 2010 at 16:21:17 PT
Getting it Done
So the lawmakers refuse to do the right thing and pass a sensible law. So the people dealing with the problems with illegal cannabis go out and try to make it legal correcting the problems. Then the leaders who want to sit on their hands, tell us its not good enough. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Hope on May 17, 2010 at 14:30:55 PT
EAH
"...insufferably triumphant."Aaargh. They would, wouldn't they? Well they're already insufferable... but they'd be so much more insufferable. Aaaargh and double aargh. Just the thought makes me grimace.We'll be nice about it though if the initiative passes.:0)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by EAH on May 17, 2010 at 13:42:05 PT:
True
It's true, it's a terrible, very poor legalization initiative. It was an attempt to create the LEAST objectionable legalization possible. The people who crafted it
bent over backwards to make as acceptable as possible to average citizens.What should have happened is that once this was clearly going to make it onto the ballot, the legislature should have stepped in and enacted real legalization legislation. What Ammiano has put together is way better than this.The only hope is that if it passes the legislature can make it better. Initiatives can be altered by the legislation as long as the legislation "furthers the intent" of the initiative.Unfortunately the other initiative did not have the same financial backing as this one. IT was way better. IF this passes, people will still be getting arrested for violations of the cramped narrow legalization this creates. Politically this is loaded with great symbolism even if it is weak. If it fails,
it could really set us back. The prohibs will become insufferably triumphant.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment