Control & Tax Cannabis California 2010

[brick]

www.taxcannabis.org Tax Cannabis 2010. Sponsored by S.K. Seymour LLC, a Medical Cannabis Provider, dba Oaksterdam University, a Cannabis Educator. 1776 Broadway, Oakland, CA 94612, FPPC 1318272 CONTROL&TAX

 

The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 Title and Summary: Changes California Law to Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be Regulated and Taxed. Initiative Statute. Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. Permits local governments to regulate and tax commercial production and sale of marijuana to people 21 years old or older. Prohibits people from possessing marijuana on school grounds, using it in public, smoking it while minors are present, or providing it to anyone under 21 years old. Maintains current prohibitions against driving while impaired. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Savings of up to several tens of millions of dollars annually to state and local governments on the costs of incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. Unknown but potentially major tax, fee, and benefit assessment revenues to state and local government related to the production and sale of marijuana products. Section 1: Name This Act shall be known as the “Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010.”

Section 2: Findings, Intent and Purposes This Act, adopted by the People of the State of California, makes the following Findings and Statement of Intent and Purpose: A. Findings 1. California’s laws criminalizing cannabis (marijuana) have failed and need to be reformed. Despite spending decades arresting millions of non-violent cannabis consumers, we have failed to control cannabis or reduce its availability. 2. According to surveys, roughly 100 million Americans (around 1/3 of the country’s population) acknowledge that they have used cannabis, 15 million of those Americans having consumed cannabis in the last month. Cannabis consumption is simply a fact of life for a large percentage of Americans. 3. Despite having some of the strictest cannabis laws in the world, the United States has the largest number of cannabis consumers. The percentage of our citizens who consume cannabis is double that of the percentage of people who consume cannabis in the Netherlands, a country where the selling and adult possession of cannabis is allowed. 4. According to The National Research Council’s recent study of the 11 U.S. states where cannabis is currently decriminalized, there is little apparent relationship between severity of sanctions and the rate of consumption. 5. Cannabis has fewer harmful effects than either alcohol or cigarettes, which are both legal for adult consumption. Cannabis is not physically addictive, does not have long term toxic effects on the body, and does not cause its consumers to become violent. 6. There is an estimated $15 billion in illegal cannabis transactions in California each year. Taxing and regulating cannabis, like we do with alcohol and cigarettes, will generate billions of dollars in annual revenues for California to fund what matters most to Californians: jobs, health care, schools and libraries, roads, and more. 7. California wastes millions of dollars a year targeting, arresting, trying, convicting, and imprisoning non-violent citizens for cannabis related offenses. This money would be better used to combat violent crimes and gangs. 8. The illegality of cannabis enables for the continuation of an out-of-control criminal market, which in turn spawns other illegal and often violent activities. Establishing legal, regulated sales outlets would put dangerous street dealers out of business. www.taxcannabis.org Tax Cannabis 2010. Sponsored by S.K. Seymour LLC, a Medical Cannabis Provider, dba Oaksterdam University, a Cannabis Educator. 1776 Broadway, Oakland, CA 94612, FPPC 1318272 CONTROL&TAX

B. Purposes 1. Reform California’s cannabis laws in a way that will benefit our state. 2. Regulate cannabis like we do alcohol: Allow adults to possess and consume small amounts of cannabis. 3. Implement a legal regulatory framework to give California more control over the cultivation, processing, transportation, distribution, and sales of cannabis. 4. Implement a legal regulatory framework to better police and prevent access to and consumption of cannabis by minors in California. 5. Put dangerous, underground street dealers out of business, so their influence in our communities will fade. 6. Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes. 7. Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city’s limits remain illegal, but that the city’s citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9. 8. Ensure that if a city decides it does want to tax and regulate the buying and selling of cannabis (to and from adults only), that a strictly controlled legal system is implemented to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales, and that the city will have control over how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9. 9. Tax and regulate cannabis to generate billions of dollars for our state and local governments to fund what matters most: jobs, healthcare, schools and libraries, parks, roads, transportation, and more. 10. Stop arresting thousands of non-violent cannabis consumers, freeing up police resources and saving millions of dollars each year, which could be used for apprehending truly dangerous criminals and keeping them locked up, and for other essential state needs that lack funding. 11. Allow the Legislature to adopt a statewide regulatory system for a commercial cannabis industry. 12. Make cannabis available for scientific, medical, industrial, and research purposes. 13. Permit California to fulfill the state’s obligations under the United States Constitution to enact laws concerning health, morals, public welfare and safety within the State. 14. Permit the cultivation of small amounts of cannabis for personal consumption. C. Intent 1. This Act is intended to limit the application and enforcement of state and local laws relating to possession, transportation, cultivation, consumption and sale of cannabis, including but not limited to the following, whether now existing or adopted in the future: Health and Safety Code sections 11014.5 and 11364.5 [relating to drug paraphernalia]; 11054 [relating to cannabis or tetrahydrocannabinols]; 11357 [relating to possession]; 11358 [relating to cultivation]; 11359 [possession for sale]; 11360 [relating to transportation and sales]; 11366 [relating to maintenance of places]; 11366.5 [relating to use of property]; 11370 [relating to punishment]; 11470 [relating to forfeiture]; 11479 [relating to seizure and destruction]; 11703 [relating to definitions regarding illegal substances]; 11705 [actions for use of illegal controlled substance]; Vehicle Code sections 23222 and 40000.15 [relating to possession]. 2. This Act is not intended to affect the application or enforcement of the following state laws relating to public health and safety or protection of children and others: Health and Safety Code sections 11357 [relating to possession on school grounds]; 11361 [relating to minors as amended herein]; 11379.6 [relating to chemical production]; 11532 [relating to loitering to commit a crime or acts not authorized by law]; Vehicle Code section 23152 [relating to driving while under the influence]; Penal Code section 272 [relating to contributing to the delinquency of a minor]; nor any law prohibiting use of controlled substances in the workplace or by specific persons whose jobs involve public safety. www.taxcannabis.org Tax Cannabis 2010. Sponsored by S.K. Seymour LLC, a Medical Cannabis Provider, dba Oaksterdam University, a Cannabis Educator. 1776 Broadway, Oakland, CA 94612, FPPC 1318272 CONTROL&TAX

Section 3: Lawful Activities Article 5 of Chapter 5 of Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code, commencing with section 11300 is added to read: Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to: (i) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual’s personal consumption, and not for sale. (ii) Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel. Cultivation on leased or rented property may be subject to approval from the owner of the property. Provided that, nothing in this section shall permit unlawful or unlicensed cultivation of cannabis on any public lands. (iii) Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of any harvest and processing of plants lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii), for personal consumption. (iv) Possess objects, items, tools, equipment, products and materials associated with activities permitted under this subsection. ( “Personal consumption” shall include but is not limited to possession and consumption, in any form, of cannabis in a residence or other non-public place, and shall include licensed premises open to the public authorized to permit on-premises consumption of cannabis by a local government pursuant to section 11301. © “Personal consumption” shall not include, and nothing in this Act shall permit cannabis: (i) possession for sale regardless of amount, except by a person who is licensed or permitted to do so under the terms of an ordinance adopted pursuant to section 11301; (ii) consumption in public or in a public place; (iii) consumption by the operator of any vehicle, boat or aircraft while it is being operated, or that impairs the operator; (iv) smoking cannabis in any space while minors are present.

Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following: (a) cultivation, processing, distribution, the safe and secure transportation, sale and possession for sale of cannabis, but only by persons and in amounts lawfully authorized; ( retail sale of not more than one ounce per transaction, in licensed premises, to persons 21 years or older, for personal consumption and not for resale; © appropriate controls on cultivation, transportation, sales, and consumption of cannabis to strictly prohibit access to cannabis by persons under the age of 21; (d) age limits and controls to ensure that all persons present in, employed by, or in any way involved in the operation of, any such licensed premises are 21 or older; (e) consumption of cannabis within licensed premises; (f) safe and secure transportation of cannabis from a licensed premises for cultivation or processing, to a licensed premises for sale or on-premises consumption of cannabis; (g) prohibit and punish through civil fines or other remedies the possession, sale, possession for sale, cultivation, processing, or transportation of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully from a person pursuant to this section or section 11300; www.taxcannabis.org Tax Cannabis 2010. Sponsored by S.K. Seymour LLC, a Medical Cannabis Provider, dba Oaksterdam University, a Cannabis Educator. 1776 Broadway, Oakland, CA 94612, FPPC 1318272 CONTROL&TAX

(h) appropriate controls on licensed premises for sale, cultivation, processing, or sale and on-premises consumption, of cannabis, including limits on zoning and land use, locations, size, hours of operation, occupancy, protection of adjoining and nearby properties and persons from unwanted exposure, advertising, signs and displays, and other controls necessary for protection of the public health and welfare; (i) appropriate environmental and public health controls to ensure that any licensed premises minimizes any harm to the environment, adjoining and nearby landowners, and persons passing by; (j) appropriate controls to restrict public displays, or public consumption of cannabis; (k) appropriate taxes or fees pursuant to section 11302; (l) such larger amounts as the local authority deems appropriate and proper under local circumstances, than those established under section 11300(a) for personal possession and cultivation, or under this section for commercial cultivation, processing, transportation and sale by persons authorized to do so under this section; (m) any other appropriate controls necessary for protection of the public health and welfare. Section 11302: Imposition and Collection of Taxes and Fees (a) Any ordinance, regulation or other act adopted pursuant to section 11301 may include imposition of appropriate general, special or excise, transfer or transaction taxes, benefit assessments, or fees, on any activity authorized pursuant to such enactment, in order to permit the local government to raise revenue, or to recoup any direct or indirect costs associated with the authorized activity, or the permitting or licensing scheme, including without limitation: administration; applications and issuance of licenses or permits; inspection of licensed premises and other enforcement of ordinances adopted under section 11301, including enforcement against unauthorized activities. ( Any licensed premises shall be responsible for paying all federal, state and local taxes, fees, fines, penalties or other financial responsibility imposed on all or similarly situated businesses, facilities or premises, including without limitation income taxes, business taxes, license fees, and property taxes, without regard to or identification of the business or items or services sold. Section 11303: Seizure (a) Notwithstanding sections 11470 and 11479 of the Health and Safety Code or any other provision of law, no state or local law enforcement agency or official shall attempt to, threaten to, or in fact seize or destroy any cannabis plant, cannabis seeds or cannabis that is lawfully cultivated, processed, transported, possessed, possessed for sale, sold or used in compliance with this Act or any local government ordinance, law or regulation adopted pursuant to this Act.

Section 11304: Effect of Act and Definitions (a) This Act shall not be construed to affect, limit or amend any statute that forbids impairment while engaging in dangerous activities such as driving, or that penalizes bringing cannabis to a school enrolling pupils in any grade from kindergarten through 12, inclusive. ( Nothing in this Act shall be construed or interpreted to permit interstate or international transportation of cannabis. This Act shall be construed to permit a person to transport cannabis in a safe and secure manner from a licensed premises in one city or county to a licensed premises in another city or county pursuant to any ordinances adopted in such cities or counties, notwithstanding any other state law or the lack of any such ordinance in the intervening cities or counties. © No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this Act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301 of this Act. Provided however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected. www.taxcannabis.org Tax Cannabis 2010. Sponsored by S.K. Seymour LLC, a Medical Cannabis Provider, dba Oaksterdam University, a Cannabis Educator. 1776 Broadway, Oakland, CA 94612, FPPC 1318272 CONTROL&TAX

(d) Definitions For purposes of this Act: (i) “Marijuana” and “cannabis” are interchangeable terms that mean all parts of the plant Genus Cannabis, whether growing or not; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; concentrated cannabis; edible products containing same; and every active compound, manufacture, derivative, or preparation of the plant, or resin. (ii) “One ounce” means 28.5 grams. (iii) For purposes of section 11300(a)(ii) “cannabis plant” means all parts of a living Cannabis plant. (iv) In determining whether an amount of cannabis is or is not in excess of the amounts permitted by this Act, the following shall apply: (a) only the active amount of the cannabis in an edible cannabis product shall be included; ( living and harvested cannabis plants shall be assessed by square footage, not by weight in determining the amounts set forth in section 11300(a); © in a criminal proceeding a person accused of violating a limitation in this Act shall have the right to an affirmative defense that the cannabis was reasonably related to his or her personal consumption. (v) “residence” means a dwelling or structure, whether permanent or temporary, on private or public property, intended for occupation by a person or persons for residential purposes, and includes that portion of any structure intended for both commercial and residential purposes. (vi) “local government” means a city, county, or city and county. (vii) “licensed premises” is any commercial business, facility, building, land or area that has a license, permit or is otherwise authorized to cultivate, process, transport, sell, or permit on-premises consumption, of cannabis pursuant to any ordinance or regulation adopted by a local government pursuant to section 11301, or any subsequently enacted state statute or regulation. Section 4: Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors Section 11361 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read: Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors (a) Every person 18 years of age or over who hires, employs, or uses a minor in transporting, carrying, selling, giving away, preparing for sale, or peddling any marijuana, who unlawfully sells, or offers to sell, any marijuana to a minor, or who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give any marijuana to a minor under 14 years of age, or who induces a minor to use marijuana in violation of law shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, five, or seven years. ( Every person 18 years of age or over who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give, any marijuana to a minor 14 years of age or older shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, four, or five years. © Every person 21 years of age or over who knowingly furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer or give, any marijuana to a person aged 18 years or older, but younger than 21 years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of up to six months and be fined up to $1,000 for each offense. (d) In addition to the penalties above, any person who is licensed, permitted or authorized to perform any act pursuant to Section 11301, who while so licensed, permitted or authorized, negligently furnishes, administers, gives or sells, or offers to furnish, administer, give or sell, any marijuana to any person younger than 21 years of age shall not be permitted to own, operate, be employed by, assist or enter any licensed premises authorized under Section 11301 for a period of one year. www.taxcannabis.org Tax Cannabis 2010. Sponsored by S.K. Seymour LLC, a Medical Cannabis Provider, dba Oaksterdam University, a Cannabis Educator. 1776 Broadway, Oakland, CA 94612, FPPC 1318272 CONTROL&TAX

Section 5: Amendment Pursuant to Article 2, section 10© of the California Constitution, this Act may be amended either by a subsequent measure submitted to a vote of the People at a statewide election; or by statute validly passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, but only to further the purposes of the Act. Such permitted amendments include but are not limited to: (a) Amendments to the limitations in section 11300, which limitations are minimum thresholds and the Legislature may adopt less restrictive limitations. ( Statutes and authorize regulations to further the purposes of the Act to establish a statewide regulatory system for a commercial cannabis industry that addresses some or all of the items referenced in Sections 11301 and 11302. © Laws to authorize the production of hemp or non-active cannabis for horticultural and industrial purposes. Section 6: Severability If any provision of this measure or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the measure that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this measure are severable.

[itsMoeyy]

I've been following that law since the start of the year and I'm hoping that it will pass this November.

Im very excited to whether if this will pass or not and if it does, im talking a holiday to Cali next year

 

All I can say is vote yes on prop 19

[cybergenesis]

Yes legalization in California could spark worldwide change...

 

I think eventually some level of legalization is likely, even if its for medical purposes.

 

But Australia is so backwards, it is no where near on the political agenda here.

 

If only they would allow doctors to prescribe it for whatever medical condition they feel it would benefit, and allowed patients to grow a generous amount for self-usage. Licenced outlets to sell weed to medical users would be great also, as well as perhaps patient restricted cannabis cafe's.

 

I could get in that door. I'd be satisfied enough if that were the case, so long as some doctor would prescribe it to me for my anxiety and depression, which its great for.

[Syb3 rm3nt41_%20]

I'm surprised more cannabis freedom fighters have'nt spoken up already .........

 

 

If we want this drug war on cannabis to end this is important. As the market booms in cali others will notice, when there is no damage caused by its legalisation other countries will begin to question their own laws and regulations on cannabis and whether or not it is a viable option for increasing revenue. Its all about the $$$. What I love so much about the thought of total global decriminalisation (Probably a while away yet..) .... is the genetic manipulation of cannabis.... total global decriminalisation means an astounding array of strains with different genetic makeup. Amazing new hybrids will be popping up much more rapidly than currently which is not necessarily a good thing for cannabis. This is why companies such as greenhouse seed company who hunt for rare landraces are doing cannabis, the plant, an honour at preserving mostly native stock. Stock that is diminishing in this day and age.

 

Just a mornin' ramble',

 

Take it easy ...... but ... TAKE IT !

 

 

***The Universe is may NOT be as strange as we suppose... it may just be STRANGER than we CAN suppose.***

[snooch]

whether or not it is a viable option for increasing revenue. Its all about the $$$.

 

 

In find this the most interesting aspect of the whole legalisation debate. Not sure if anyone caught Four Corners this week, but if you didn't well worth a watch. Basically saying the US, indeed the world, is spiralling towards a great depression unless drastic action is taken, due to the fact the governments the world over (ours included) have used a stimulus bubble to overcome the credit/real estate bubble, spent billions on bailing out banks and other industries, that once that bubble bursts (sooner rather than later), we're all in deep shit.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/series/four%20corners

 

So whether other governments the world over see the potential revenue windfall from legalising cannabis, given this current environment...it'll just be interesting to see how things progress in the next couple of years.

 

I still believe if the walls are to come down, they have to come all the way down. People need to be free to grow and use their own cannabis, for whatever their need happens to be. There are too many people opposing Prop 19 who really shouldn't be ie. medical cannabis clinics. Take this woman for example...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8wDVus16PA...e=youtube_gdata

 

"We are not going to support a vice, we are going to support a medicine," she says.

 

So what exactly does that mean? Apart from the obvious argument that she potentially could lose revenue as a result of legalisation - which I would dispute anyway, just because someone is allowed to grow doesn't necessarily mean they have the means or ability to do so, there will always be a market for those who need the medicine who can't grow their own - I also cannot understand the moral undertone of a comment like hers.

So she's saying it's ok, if you're sick, to access cannabis for medicine, but if you happen to be "healthy" you are not allowed to use cannabis just to feel better, to enhance your life or experience, to help you relax, hell, if nothing else just to have a good time? If you harm no one in the process, why not?

[snooch]

more here about the medical pot industry opposing prop 19, for those interested..

 

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/08/25/2980741/pot-prop-19.html

 

Medical pot industry split on Prop. 19

By Peter Hecht

phecht@sacbee.com

Published: Wednesday, Aug. 25, 2010 - 12:00 am | Page 1A

The Canna Care medical marijuana dispensary has a truck driving around Sacramento with a sign telling people to vote "no" on the state ballot initiative that would legalize pot for recreational use.

George Mull, a lawyer for several Northern California pot shops, is fighting Proposition 19 on claims it threatens protections put in place for medical pot users with the 1996 passage of California's medical marijuana law.

And a Humboldt County dispensary operator complains that the new pot measure simply isn't needed. "They say they're legalizing marijuana," said Stephen Gasparas, who runs the iCenter pot dispensary in Arcata. "It's already legal. All they're doing is taxing it."

California's landmark initiative to legalize marijuana use for adults over 21 and permit local governments to tax retail pot sales is backed – and bankrolled – by leaders in California's medical cannabis movement.

And yet some of its more stubborn opposition comes from a vocal segment of the same community who worry their dispensary operations may be negatively affected.

"I'm against this because I feel patients have been sold a bill of goods that is going to take their freedom away," said Lanette Davies, who runs Canna Care.

Another opponent, Don Johnson, who operates the Unity Non-Profit Collective in Sacramento, said he worries about contradictions between California's medical marijuana law and Proposition 19.

For example, Johnson's marijuana store can legally serve an 18-year-old who has a physician's recommendation. He wonders how that squares with Proposition 19, which restricts recreational pot use to people over 21.

"It seems to me there will be a double rule on the books," Johnson said. "It's mass confusion."

Proposition 19 supporters say they are puzzled over the opposition and argue the initiative will protect tens of thousands of Californians from arrest and generate a windfall in taxes.

In Sacramento, for example, voters will consider a companion measure to Proposition 19 that would levy a 2 to 4 percent gross receipts tax on existing medical pot dispensaries and a 5 to 10 percent tax on new retail pot outlets.

"Proposition 19 will have zero, zilch, nada impact on the current legal rights granted to patients, caregivers, doctors, collectives and cooperatives under California's existing medical cannabis laws," said Dan Newman, a spokesman for the Yes on 19 campaign.

But Mull, a Sacramento attorney, said he believes the initiative will undercut ongoing legal fights in numerous cities on behalf of pot shops.

Some 140 California cities ban marijuana dispensaries. Pot shops argue they have a right to operate under the state's 1996 medical marijuana law and follow-up legislation from the state. Mull says Proposition 19 provisions that authorize cities to tax, regulate – and also ban – retail pot shops could empower cities to target medical pot outlets.

"They (cities) basically are expressly given a right they are claiming – that local governments can control things within their borders, notwithstanding Proposition 215," Mull claimed. "All of the things that I have been arguing for in court, I lose."

The nation's leading medical marijuana advocacy group, Americans for Safe Access, is taking no position on Proposition 19. But Don Duncan, the organization's California director, said the group does not think the initiative would undercut the rights of medical users.

Proposition 19 has been funded largely by Oakland marijuana entrepreneur Richard Lee, operator of the city's Coffee Shop Blue Sky dispensary and a marijuana trade school, Oaksterdam University.

It also has gotten financial support from a major Bay Area dispensary, Berkeley Patient's Group Inc., and political backing from Steve DeAngelo, executive director of Harborside Health Center, an Oakland outlet billed as the largest dispensary in the world. DeAngelo, who initially thought this was the wrong year to put the measure on the ballot, now strongly advocates its passage.

"If it wins, you're going to see a major shift in the political dynamic for cannabis," DeAngelo said. "And I think politicians who thought there was a downside to supporting cannabis will receive a wake-up call."

Harborside, a nonprofit network that handles $26 million in marijuana transactions annually, may be well-equipped to convert into a retail operation that serves both medical and recreational users.

"I don't think there is any reason we wouldn't be able to serve any qualified person who wants to purchase cannabis providing the city of Oakland licenses us to do so," DeAngelo said.

Still, Yamileth Bolanos, a cancer survivor who runs the Purelife Alternative Wellness Center in Los Angeles, has mixed feelings.

Bolanos plans to vote "yes" on 19. But she worries legalizing recreational pot could create shortages of high quality marijuana for medical needs and stir a frenzy in cities trying to figure out the new law.

"They can't even get medical marijuana right," Bolanos said. "How are they going to open up these places for recreational use? Is it just going to be bedlam?"

[Buddy McBud]

food for thought....

 

http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/20...e-2010-tax.html

 

Saturday, July 10, 2010

WHY PRO-POT ACTIVISTS OPPOSE PROP. 19: 19 REASONS TO VOTE KNOW

“People think it’s legalization, it’s being sold as legalization—even though it’s the opposite of legalization.” - Dennis Peron, author of Prop. 215 that legalized medical marijuana in California

 

 

Dragonfly De La Luz

 

 

When most marijuana activists, growers and consumers first heard about an initiative that would legalize cannabis in California, they thought it was a pipe dream come true. To many, legalization implied that it would no longer be a crime to possess, consume or distribute marijuana. Cannabis consumers rejoiced at the idea of being able to buy from their neighbors or at parties—just as they already do—with no legal retribution. Small-time growers envisioned being free to sell their product to those who sought them out, with no legal repercussions. Marijuana activists thought it meant that people would stop getting arrested for pot, and that the drug war would finally be over. But now that the initiative is headed to ballot, many pro-legalization supporters are coming out against it. Why?

 

Simply put, the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative does not reflect most people’s ideas of what legalization would be. The media often incorrectly reports that this initiative calls for “full legalization” of marijuana. It does not. In fact, it reverses many of the freedoms marijuana consumers currently enjoy, pushes growers out of the commercial market, paves the way for the corporatization of cannabis, and creates new prohibitions where there are none now. Apparently, to be pro-legalization and pro-initiative are two different things entirely.

 

The late-Jack Herer, legendary marijuana activist known as the father of the legalization movement, vehemently opposed the initiative. In the last words of his impassioned final speech, moments before the heart attack that would eventually claim his life, he urged people not to support it.[1] Proposition 215 author, Dennis Peron, likewise denounced the initiative, saying it is not legalization, but “thinly-veiled prohibition.”[2]

 

Compared to the present status of cannabis in California, many marijuana activists see this initiative as a giant leap backward. Ironically, it appears that marijuana is more “legal” in California today than it would be if this initiative were to pass.

 

The initiative itself is a hazy maze of regulations and controls, some of which are ambiguous and confusing even for those well-versed in marijuana law. Understandably, many who have entered the discussion seem to have bypassed the initiative altogether and gone straight to their own assumptions of what an initiative that claims to legalize marijuana might entail, injecting the debate with as many misconceptions as facts. But for an issue that would have such a direct and unprecedented impact on our daily lives, it’s crucial to decide your vote based on knowledge, rather than assumption.

 

To clarify a few of the most glaring myths about the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative, I have compiled this guide to help you VOTE KNOW!

 

 

Myth #1: The initiative will end the War on Drugs and substantially reduce marijuana arrests, saving millions in prison costs.

Fact: Hardly. The federal drug war will continue to drone on, of course, and growing or possessing any amount of marijuana would still be illegal under federal law. Anyone growing or possessing cannabis without a doctor’s recommendation would still be subject to arrest and seizure by the federal police—although on the bright side, the Obama administration recently announced it will no longer raid individuals who are operating in compliance with medical marijuana law.[3]

 

Contrary to popular assumption, the drug war in California will not end, nor will it be impacted much by the initiative. This is because the initiative doesn’t call for full legalization; it proposes to legalize possession of only up to one ounce. And in California, there is no “drug war” being fought against possession of up to one ounce, because marijuana is already decriminalized.

 

The penalty for carrying an ounce is a mere citation and maximum $100 fine.[4] Moreover, possession of one ounce is on its way to being downgraded from a misdemeanor to an infraction, because the state Senate voted in June to reclassify its status. [5] No one goes to jail for having an ounce or less in California, and no one gets arrested, because it is not an arrestable offense.

 

One often-quoted statistic in the initiative debate is that misdemeanor marijuana possession arrests reached 61,388 in 2008.[6] However, it is important to note that this statistic does not refer to any arrest demographic that the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative would affect. This statistic refers only to possession of more than one ounce, possession by minors and possession on school grounds­—offenses which the initiative will not legalize. It does not refer to nor does it include marijuana arrests for possession of one ounce or less, because this is not an arrestable offense. Therefore, the initiative would have no impact on reducing these arrests rates.

 

Statistically, the demographic that accounts for nearly one-quarter of total arrests for marijuana possession in California happens to be those in the 18-20 age group. But because the initiative explicitly makes it illegal for even adults age 18-20 to possess marijuana, these arrests will not decrease, and the drug war against young adults will rage on.

 

Furthermore, since the initiative would keep possession of amounts greater than one ounce illegal and likewise maintain the illegality of private sales of any amount, the overall impact that the initiative would have on ending the drug war, reducing arrest rates and saving on prison costs would be negligible, at best.

 

As an example of how highly misunderstood this initiative and its potential impact on the drug war is, the California NAACP recently pledged their support for the initiative based on the belief that it will put an end to the disproportionately high number of African-American youth going to jail “over a joint.” [7] But in reality, the initiative will have no impact on this phenomenon whatsoever. As it is now, the State of California does not jail people for having a joint; it is not an arrestable offense. And, as mentioned above, possession of up to one ounce is on its way to being reclassified from a misdemeanor to an infraction—which carries no criminal-record stigma. The state does, however, incarcerate people for selling small amounts of marijuana. And since this initiative keeps private marijuana sales illegal, no matter the quantity, there will be no decrease in the number of African Americans—or anyone else—arrested for selling a joint.

 

Not only does the initiative do little or nothing to end the drug war, but ironically, it could in fact expand the drug war, because it imposes new prohibitions against marijuana that do not exist currently.

 

Contrary to the belief that it will keep people out of jail for marijuana, this initiative actually creates new demographics of people to incarcerate. (See Fact #2 and Fact #3) It is difficult to see how the government would save on court and imprisonment costs if the initiative merely shifts arrests from one demographic to another.

 

Myth #2: The initiative will keep young adults out of jail for using marijuana.

Fact: This initiative would put more young people in jail for pot. If it becomes law, any adult 21 or over who passes a joint to another adult aged 18-20 would face six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. [8] (NORML's Web site reports that the current penalty for a gift of marijuana of 1 oz. or less is a $100 fine.[9])

 

Myth #3: You'll be able to light up freely in the privacy of your home.

Fact: That depends. Under the initiative, even adults consuming marijuana in the privacy of their homes could face arrest if there are minors present (not something one would expect from an initiative that claims to treat marijuana like alcohol and tobacco)[10]. Current marijuana law contains no such restrictions. Thanks to Prop. 215, which legalized marijuana for medicinal use, cannabis consumers have been legally free to smoke in the privacy of their homes since 1997. This initiative seeks to undermine that freedom, making it absolutely illegal to smoke marijuana if there are minors present. (The initiative is ambiguous with regard to whether “present” means being in the same room as the consumer, the same house, the same apartment building, or within wafting distance—apparently leaving this up to the interpretation of judges.) There is no exception for medical marijuana patients or for parents consuming in the presence of their own children.

 

Myth #4: Under the initiative, anyone 21 or over will be allowed to grow marijuana in a 5’x5’ space.

Fact: Not quite. This allotment is per property, not per person. If you share a residence with other people, you’ll be sharing a 5’x5’ grow space, as well. Even if you own multiple acres that many people live on, if it is considered one parcel, the space restriction of 5’x5’ (3-6 plants) will still apply. [11] Plus, if you rent, you will be required to obtain permission from your landlord—which they may be unwilling to grant since doing so will subject them to forfeiture by the federal government.

 

Myth #5: Adults 21 and over will be able to possess up to one ounce of marijuana without penalty.

Fact: Perhaps the most ironic piece of the puzzle is that the initiative to legalize marijuana actually makes it illegal to possess marijuana if it was purchased anywhere other than the very few licensed dispensaries in the state.[12] So if this initiative passes, better not get caught carrying marijuana you bought off your neighbor, your current dealer, or at a party; you could get arrested. And if you do buy from a licensed dispensary, better keep your receipts, because the burden of proof will be on you. Not only is this inconvenient, but it sets the industry up to be monopolized.

 

What’s more, if your city decides not to tax cannabis, then buying and selling marijuana in the city limits would remain illegal. You would be permitted to possess and consume marijuana, but you would be required to travel to another city that taxes cannabis to buy it.[13] This is a move towards decreased, not increased, access. And since the initiative is so ambiguous that cities are destined to be tied up in a legal quagmire over how to interpret it, many local governments might find it simpler just to opt-out and send its citizens elsewhere. Indeed, 129 cities did just that with medical marijuana, banning it outright, while still others have established moratoriums against dispensaries. In fact, of the entire state, only the city of Oakland has endorsed the initiative. A vote for the initiative will therefore not ensure local access to purchase marijuana legally.

 

Myth #6: The initiative will free up cops to focus on bigger crimes.

Fact: Decriminalization has already achieved this. The California Police Chiefs Association publicly admits that they do not waste their time on cases involving an ounce or less.[14] Moreover, many cities have already passed measures that require law enforcement to make marijuana possession their lowest priority.

 

What the initiative would do is create new prohibitions where there were none before, obligating police officers to spend valuable time enforcing them. The cases cops presently de-prioritize are minor offenses, like simple possession. But the initiative takes minor offenses and reclassifies them as more serious crimes (e.g., passing a joint to an adult 18-20). Law enforcement’s time is freed up by the elimination of prohibition, not by exchanging old prohibitions for new ones.

 

Myth #7: Marijuana tax revenue will go toward education and health care.

Fact: As it is now, state budget cuts have resulted in the closing of state parks, and health care for impoverished children has been revoked, not to mention thousands of government lay-offs. But marijuana taxes will not be earmarked for health care, public education, the re-opening of state parks, or rehiring of laid-off government employees. Instead, the initiative specifically states that any marijuana tax revenue can be used toward enforcing the new prohibitions that the initiative enacts.[15] In this regard, not only does the initiative not end the drug war, it apparently taxes the drug to fund the drug war.

 

Myth #8: Marijuana growers will be able to sell cannabis legally.

Fact: Currently, marijuana growers in California who have a medical recommendation can and do grow and provide marijuana legally. Entire economies in Northern California exist on this industry. However, the initiative would make it illegal for anyone to sell marijuana, unless they own a licensed dispensary.[16] (See Fact #9)

 

Many have suggested that growers could open marijuana-tasting venues, similar to wine-tasting at vineyards. A grower might have a chance of opening such a place, but only if he gave his product away for free, because selling it would be illegal unless he successfully navigated the notoriously difficult and prohibitively expensive process of obtaining licensure.

 

Myth #9: Anyone can obtain a license to legally sell cannabis and compete in the market.

Fact: Few people will be able to compete in the multibillion-dollar marijuana market if the initiative passes. This is because the licensing process, engineered in Oakland, is exceptionally restrictive. Of the more than a thousand dispensaries operating in California until a recent L.A. crackdown, only a handful were licensed. (Conveniently, Richard Lee, the millionaire behind the initiative, owns one of them). In Oakland, the city that’s setting the precedent in the tax cannabis push, a license costs $30,000. Per year. Not to mention the rigorous application process, in which even well-established, law-abiding dispensaries have been denied.

 

Furthermore, Oakland has started a trend of capping the number of licensed dispensaries allowed to operate (in Oakland, that number is four). This all but guarantees that the average, small-time marijuana grower will be shut out of this multibillion-dollar industry, concentrating the profits of the potential economic boon in the hands of a small minority of wealthy entrepreneurs who are already making moves to monopolize the industry. Under this initiative, the marijuana industry will not be a free market in which everyone has a chance to compete. Instead, the initiative could mark the beginning of the corporatization of marijuana. (See also Fact #15)

 

Myth #10: Medical marijuana patients would be exempt from the initiative.

Fact: This is not exactly true. While amendments were made ostensibly to prevent the initiative from affecting current medical marijuana law, a careful reading of the initiative reveals that this is not, in fact, the case. Certain medical marijuana laws are exempt from the prohibitions the initiative would enact, while others are glaringly absent.

 

Cultivation is one such law that is noticeably non-exempt.[17] In spite of the fact that the tax cannabis Web site says otherwise, the only medical marijuana exemptions that the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative actually makes are with regard to possession, consumption and purchase limits, which only ensure that patients would still be allowed to buy medicine at dispensaries. The word “cultivate” is conspicuously absent. Whereas today a person with a doctor’s recommendation has the right to grow up to an unlimited number of plants, the initiative would drastically reduce that number to whatever can fit in a 5’x5’ footprint (around 3-6 plants—per property, not per person). This will force many patients to resort to buying instead of growing their own medicine, because of the inconvenience caused by producing multiple grows a year rather than growing a year’s supply of medicine at one time, as many patients currently do outdoors. And growing indoors—which typically requires special grow lights, an increase in hydro use, and a lot of time and attention—is a comparatively expensive endeavor.

 

The initiative would further impact medical marijuana patients by banning medicating in the privacy of their own homes if there are minors present, as well as in public (currently perfectly legal[18])—an invaluable liberty to those with painful diseases who would otherwise have to suffer until they got home to relieve their pain.

 

Finally, the medical marijuana laws that are exempted from this initiative apparently only apply to cities. For medical marijuana patients who live in an area that has county or local government jurisdiction, according to a strict reading of the initiative, medical marijuana laws are not exempt.[19]

 

Myth #11: Marijuana smokers will be free to smoke cannabis wherever cigarette smoking is allowed.

Fact: Actually, that's the way it is now in California. There is no law prohibiting medical marijuana from being smoked wherever cigarette smoking is permitted.[20] Young adults taking bong hits in Golden Gate Park on a Sunday afternoon is just part of the San Francisco scenery. However, if this initiative passes, that freedom would disappear and we could see cops policing smoking areas to enforce this law.[21]

 

Myth #12: Currently imprisoned non-violent marijuana offenders would be released.

Fact: The initiative makes no call to release prisoners who are behind bars for any marijuana offense, no matter how minor. In fact, because it introduces new prohibitions where none exist now, the initiative could potentially be responsible for locking even more people up for marijuana.

 

Myth #13: Counties in which marijuana cultivation currently thrives will experience increased economic growth.

Fact: Entire economies could collapse in counties that currently rely on cultivating marijuana. Right now, the multibillion-dollar marijuana industry is legally subsidizing thousands of incomes in areas where unemployment is skyrocketing. For example, Mendocino County, the biggest pot-producing county in the U.S., reports that a full two-thirds of its economy is dependent on marijuana.[22] Much of this is due to current state medical marijuana laws, which allow people to legally cultivate plants and provide them to marijuana pharmacies. But this economy supports more than just farmers.

 

Many local store owners report that without marijuana farmers patronizing their businesses with cash, they would go out of business. Moreover, legitimate medical marijuana growers employ tens of thousands of seasonal workers, mostly young adults, who have managed to eke out a living in a region where none other exists, and who otherwise would have few local options to support themselves. The more humble among them are able to make a living that sustains them modestly throughout much of the year. Thousands more are able to subsidize low-paying jobs, make up for shortages in their college funding, and start creative projects such as fashion design, music production, or art. But because the initiative would limit the number of plants one could grow from up to an unlimited amount to about six, thousands of small-time medical marijuana farmers and the young adults they employ would face economic displacement and hardship, or join the ranks of the unemployed. (For more on this, see Fact #15.)

 

Myth #14: The initiative will create an employment boon similar to California’s wine industry.

Fact: Comparisons with the wine industry are no true basis for determining the potential revenue recreational marijuana could create, because the wine industry does not operate under the same restrictions the marijuana industry would face. Namely, there’s no cap on how many wineries can operate in California, or how many grapes each vineyard can grow. There are currently almost 3,000 vineyards in the state, whereas since the April crackdown in L.A., there are fewer than 300 dispensaries (of which only a few are licensed). Moreover, if cities continue to follow the trend set by Oakland and cap the number of licensed dispensaries allowed to operate, then the thousands of people currently legally employed by dispensaries would dwindle drastically.

 

Myth #15: The initiative will limit the viability of Mexican drug cartels.

Fact: Mexican drug cartels are already being undermined tremendously thanks to the legions of small-time farmers growing in California. The Washington Post reported on October 7, 2009:

 

“Almost all of the marijuana consumed in the multibillion-dollar U.S. market once came from Mexico or Colombia. Now as much as half is produced domestically, often by small-scale operators who painstakingly tend greenhouses and indoor gardens to produce the more potent… product that consumers now demand, according to authorities and marijuana dealers on both sides of the border. … Stiff competition from thousands of mom-and-pop marijuana farmers in the United States threatens the bottom line for powerful Mexican drug organizations in a way that decades of arrests and seizures have not, according to law enforcement officials and pot growers in the United States and Mexico.”[23]

 

These mom-and-pop growers don’t fit the stereotype of the gang-war era drug pusher or Mexican drug cartel growing marijuana irresponsibly and setting forests on fire. Many of them are law-abiding citizens, legally growing medical marijuana under Prop. 215. They’re the people you see at your local organic health food store, or shopping in the community, putting much-needed cash directly into the local economy while the national economy flounders in recession. These small-time marijuana farmers use the money they earn from providing medicine to finance their kids’ education, help out their laid-off parents and put themselves through school. In some cases, entire communities depend on them.

 

However, if this initiative passes, these growers that are single-handedly undercutting the Mexican drug cartels would no longer be able to legally operate and the face of the marijuana industry could change from the local one we recognize to an impersonal corporate entity, leaving a spate of displaced marijuana farmers in its wake.

 

One corporation that is poised to take the place of the mom-and-pop growers is AgraMed. While Oakland’s city council prepares to consider a proposal in July to license four commercial indoor marijuana farms in the city, AgraMed has plans to build a 100,000-sq.-ft. marijuana mega-farm near Oakland International Airport that, “according to projections, could generate 58 pounds of pot a day and $59 million a year in revenue.” The company’s president, Jeff Wilcox—a member of the steering committee of the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative—reportedly hopes to “bring a degree of corporate structure to the marijuana industry.”[24]

 

The language that backers of the initiative use itself is cause for concern among pro-marijuana supporters. Instead of speaking out against the injustice of jailing people over a plant that is widely known not only to be harmless, but beneficial, these multimillionaire supporters of the initiative speak only of their intentions to corporatize marijuana. The owner of one leading marijuana dispensary—that already earns well over $20 million a year—was quoted in the New York Times as having aspirations to become the “McDonald’s of marijuana.”[25] The proprietors of Oakland’s new i-Grow hydroponics store want it to be known as the “Wal-Mart” of grow stores.[26] Meanwhile, Marijuana, Inc., a multimillion-dollar corporation, has plans to build cannabis resorts in the Northern California counties that currently survive off the medical marijuana industry.[27] They intend to create golf resorts with acres of marijuana gardens featuring hundreds of strains. (Apparently, under this initiative, corporations would be permitted to grow quite large quantities of cannabis, while cultivation would be restricted to 5’ x 5’ plots for everyone else.)

 

The accusations that medical marijuana growers oppose the initiative out of greed are clearly grossly unfounded. It is obvious who has intentions of increasing their bottom line. Small-time marijuana farmers simply want to continue making a humble living off the land. They are the ones who built the marijuana industry, but this initiative seeks to allow corporations to take their hard work and turn it into profits for themselves, locking farmers out of the industry entirely.

 

We have seen this trend before in the United States. Our history is replete with small farmers being taken over by huge corporations. Hundreds of thousands of mom-and-pop businesses have been forced out of business by conglomerates like Wal-Mart, Starbucks, and Monsanto, which those who benefit from such takeovers have justified by calling it “progress.” But is it? And is this the sort of “progress” we want to see take over the marijuana industry? Is this the world Peter Tosh had in mind when he implored us to “legalize it?”

 

Marijuana may well be the final bastion of farmer-owned, worker-owned, business autonomy in this country. Will we allow it, too, to go the way of nearly every other homegrown industry in the history of the United States? We all hope for legalization. But must we have such a drastic, Faustian trade-off for this freedom? And is it really freedom if we must lose our autonomy to gain it?

 

One farmer’s response to the news of Marijuana Inc.’s resort aspirations poignantly sums up the pending reality should the initiative pass:

 

“Marijuana, Inc., has big plans to invade the Emerald Triangle and surrounding counties to really capitalize on marijuana tourism. Maybe that sounds like fun to people that aren’t from around here, but it is really going to take away a lot of opportunity from the locals who make this place what it is. I feel that the people here who created this industry are going to be left in the dust for the most part… There is just too much money at stake and that is what these guys are all about. This is the equivalent of the giant hotels popping up on the Hawaiian Islands and the locals being told, ‘You can still work at the resort. We’ll need maids and groundskeepers who’ll work for minimum wage...’”[28]

 

What is currently a small-time, largely organic industry—on which entire economies survive, and without which entire economies would collapse—could soon become dominated by corporations if this initiative passes. The days of “knowing your dealer” and what goes into your pot could soon be over, and marijuana, a sacrament to many, could become corporatized. Are corporations inherently evil? No. But if we have the option to keep millions of dollars in our own communities, spread out over hundreds of thousands of people, it hardly seems sensible to outsource this employment to corporations and into the hands of a few.

 

Is it possible to have marijuana legalization without legalizing corporate takeover of the industry? Absolutely. Will those who are passionate about marijuana live to regret voting in an initiative that treats marijuana as a publicly-traded commodity and turns it into something as abhorrent as Wal-Mart and McDonald’s? Absolutely. Do we have to settle for this? Absolutely not.

 

Myth #16: The price of marijuana will drop.

Fact: The value of marijuana might decrease if it becomes more commercially available and more people grow their own, but the price of a product depends less on its value and more on the degree of competition that exists with regard to selling it. Since your options for purchasing marijuana would be among only a handful of licensed dispensaries in the state, there is no guarantee of a decrease in price. Less competition means higher prices.

 

Indeed, by AgraMed’s own estimation, in order to make $59 million a year off 58 pounds per day, they would have to charge $175 per ounce wholesale (roughly $2,800 per pound)—and that’s if they produced 58 pounds 365 days a year. If they managed to produce that output only 5 days a week, that price would leap to $245 an ounce (about $3900 per pound). With shelf-prices at dispensaries often set at double the wholesale purchase price—not to mention the compulsory tax added onto every ounce (which Richard Lee stated in an interview was "recommended" to be $50)—the price of marijuana could potentially be higher than it is in our current market, in which the price of a pound has already fallen to $2,000, according to a recent National Public Radio report; a direct result of healthy competition, not its opposite.[29]

 

Myth #17: We can vote in the initiative and fix the tangles as they come up.

Fact: Initiatives create permanent statutes. Once an initiative is voted into law, it cannot be reversed. It remains law forever. It is worth noting that this initiative makes some unusual provisions with regard to amendments. For starters, it allows the legislature (traditionally hostile toward marijuana legislation) to amend the initiative without voter approval. Furthermore, it allows amendments, but “only to further the purposes of the Act.”[30] Under a monopolized, corporate-controlled distribution process, the “purposes” might become more narrowly defined.

 

Many of the issues that pro-legalization supporters have with the initiative could be easily rectifiable with a few sentences and an amendment-submission to the Attorney General’s office. It would have required very little on the part of the initiative authors to remove the vagueness from the wording that bans smoking cannabis in any “space” where minors are “present,” for example, or to add an exemption for medical marijuana patients and parents consuming in the presence of their own children. It would have required very little to write into the initiative a line that would exempt medical marijuana patients from the public smoking ban and protect their right to grow medicine in amounts sufficient for their individual needs. After all, these are items which should not be considered luxuries under legalized marijuana; they should be rights. And we should settle for nothing less.

 

Unfortunately, the deadline to make changes to the initiative before the November elections has already passed, and to achieve these changes via subsequent voter referendums would be a complicated and drawn-out process that could take years. Making the initiative acceptable before voting it into law is therefore essential.

 

Myth #18: This is our only chance to take a step in the direction of legalization.

Fact: This is only our first chance—and it is NOT our only choice. This November, volunteers for the California Hemp and Health Initiative (CCHHI)—the initiative Jack Herer supported so much he lent his legendary name to it—will be collecting signatures to be placed on the CCHHI on the ballot in 2012. Some highlights of this alternative to Prop. 19 include:

 

--The freedom to grow up to 99 plants—per adult, 21 years of age and older (not per residence as under Prop. 19)—for personal use.

 

--Cannabis taxes shall not exceed $10.00 per ounce.

 

--The freedom to distribute cannabis among adults without a license. (Prop. 19 forbids distributing cannabis except for those who manage to obtain a prohibitively expensive license.)

 

--The cost of a commercial license shall not exceed $1,000. (The cost for a commercial cannabis vending license in Oakland is $60,000 per year. A commercial grow license is a whopping $211,000 per year.)

 

--No cannabis tax revenue will be allowed to assist law enforcement. (Prop. 19 specifically allows for marijuana tax revenue to fund law enforcement.)

 

For those who have doubts about supporting Prop. 19 or the motives behind it, CCHHI is a viable alternative. (For more on CCHHI, visit http://www.jackherer.com/initiative and http://youthfederation.com/cchhi2012.html).

 

Myth #19: We can vote in Prop. 19, then vote in a better initiative later.

Likelihood: Although 2012 will offer us a brilliant alternative with the CCHHI/Jack Herer Initiative, the more likely scenario is that by that time, big cannabis corporations will have all the money, power, and influence they need to thwart any challenge to their monopoly. What do you suppose are the chances of voting in an initiative like CCHHI--that emphasizes personal freedom over corporations and seeks to fully legalize possession, cultivation, and distribution of marijuana--after the cannabis corporations just spent two years multiplying their millions legally under the monopoly Prop. 19 creates, keeping everyone else out of the market, and making it illegal for you to buy your weed from anyone but them? There IS no chance. For this reason, WE CANNOT VOTE FOR PROP. 19 NOW AND THEN VOTE FOR CCHHI IN 2012 TO REPLACE IT. Because if Prop. 19 gets voted in, then once it's in, big cannabis corporations will make sure it stays in, and that it continues to serve them and not the people.

 

This is not our only chance to vote yes to legalization, but it may be our only chance to vote no to the corporatization of cannabis.

 

What now?

 

The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative is not the only path to legalization. We have come so far, and are now so close—it is imperative that we let the next step be the right one. Legalized marijuana is within reach, yet the movement could be set back with such a problematic initiative at the helm. Instead of rushing to pass a measure that prohibits marijuana under the guise of legalization, we can choose an initiative that calls for true legalization and that has the full support of marijuana law reform organizations and leaders of the movement.

 

The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative is rife with ambiguity, expands the War on Drugs, undermines the medical marijuana movement, arrests more people for marijuana, offers no protection for small farmers and insufficient protection for medical marijuana users, has a high potential for monopolization, provides no regulations to prevent corporate takeover of the industry, cartelizes the economy, and divides our community into poor, unlicensed, mom-and-pop gardener versus rich, licensed, corporate farmer. And since the one thing that’s clear about the initiative is that it’s vague, it could very easily prove to be a Pandora’s box of unintended consequences. Beyond its vagueness, which itself is problematic, these side effects are inherently socially dangerous. The impact that such a failed legalization initiative could have on the movement nation-wide could be disastrous.

 

This is not a question of whether to legalize or not to legalize. Legalization is the goal and it is inevitable. The question is whether we want to rush in and settle for an initiative that is so poorly-worded as to be ambiguous, and so vague as to be open to vast interpretation from judges—or choose a better option, like the Jack Herer Initiative, in 2012. If we hold out for a perfect initiative we will wait forever. But if we at least hold out for an initiative that is direct, unambiguous, well-defined and clearly written, we will have an unprecedented opportunity to inspire the world to join the movement to legalize marijuana.

 

Many pro-legalization activists are rallying behind the idea of taking the time to choose an initiative that will be a clear step up from the current cannabis situation of in California and will result in increased access—not its opposite. Both NORML and the MPP, the foremost cannabis law reform organizations in the country, have suggested we wait and make another attempt at legalization during the 2012 elections. Dale Gieringer, Director of California’s NORML, said, “I do think it’s going to take a few more years for us to develop a proposal that voters will be comfortable with.”[32] Likewise, Bruce Mirken, MPP’s Director of Communications, was quoted as saying, “In our opinion, we should wait and build our forces and aim at 2012.”[33]

 

Ultimately, the decision is not up to any organization; it’s up to YOU. How will you vote? Read the initiative for yourself and just VOTE KNOW!

 

 

“I hope people find the hope and inspiration to broadcast this, understand (the initiative), read it, and know that it's a step backwards. And we can do better. We will do better.” - Dennis Peron

 

footnotes and references on the blog

Edited August 26, 2010 by Buddy McBud