Pot measure qualifies for Nov. ballot

[garbon]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/24/BADI1CHAMR.DTL

California voters will decide this November whether to legalize and regulate adult recreational use of marijuana as the Secretary of State today certified that a Bay Area-based effort to put the issue on the ballot has collected enough signatures to do so.

If passed, California would have the most comprehensive laws on legal marijuana in the entire world, marijuana reform advocates say. Opponents are confident they will easily defeat the measure.

The vote will be the second time in nearly 40 years that people in the Golden State will decide the issue of legalization, though the legal framework and cultural attitudes surrounding marijuana have changed significantly the past four decades. If Californians pass the measure, it would be the first in the nation to do so as similar efforts in other states all have failed.

Backers needed to collect at least 433,971 valid signatures of registered voters and the Secretary of State said they met that threshold.

If voters approve the ballot measure, it will become legal for Californians 21 and older to grow and possess up to an ounce of marijuana under state law. Local jurisdictions could tax and regulate it, or decide not to participate. Marijuana would continue to be banned outright by federal law.

Current state law allows a person, with a doctor's approval, to possess an amount of marijuana that is reasonably related to the patient's current medical needs. People also can obtain cards identifying themselves as a patient, which helps in interactions with law enforcement.

"There is no state that currently allows adults to grow marijuana for personal (recreational) use, but what is totally different and will be a game-changer internationally is this would allow authorized sales to adults as determined by a local authority," said Stephen Gutwillig, California State Director of the Drug Policy Alliance Network, an organization advocating for changes in drug laws.

The major backers of the initiative - the founder of an Oakland-based marijuana trade school, a retired Orange County judge and various drug law reform organizations - are planning to oversee a $10 million campaign to push the measure.

Allen St. Pierre, the executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said the organization will focus its efforts to pass the proposition and said the California effort is notable because it likely will be funded by the marijuana industry.

"This is being launched at a time not only of mass nationwide zeitgeist around marijuana, but acutely in California," he said. "Almost all other (marijuana) initiatives were poorly funded and what funding there has been ... was purely philanthropic."

But opponents, which likely will include a large coalition of public safety associations, said that once voters understand the implications of the measure it will be handily defeated.

"The overarching issue is given all the social problems caused by alcohol abuse, all the social and public safety problems caused by pharmaceutical abuse and the fact that tobacco kills - given all those realities, what on Earth is the social good that's going to be served by adding another mind-altering substance to the array," said John Lovell, a lobbyist for a number of statewide police and public safety associations.

Additionally, he said, employers and government entities receive federal money may not be able to meet federal standards for drug-free workplaces if the measure passes, putting billions of federal dollars in jeopardy.

"It's terrible drafting ... that will cause the state of California significant fiscal problems," he said, adding that when these issues are presented to voters the measure will "sink like a rock in the North Atlantic."

Attitudes of voters in California have increasingly moved in favor of full legalization of marijuana. Californians passed Prop. 215 in 1996 to legalize marijuana for medical use. A bill in the Legislature would also legalize adult recreational use and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said it is an idea that should be debated, though he personally opposes it.

A Field Poll taken last April found 56 percent of voters backed the idea of legalization and taxation of marijuana. The measure will add to an already crowded November ballot, with an expensive gubernatorial race looming along with other statewide offices.

Prominent candidates running for higher office, including Democratic Attorney General Jerry Brown who is seeking the governorship and San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, a Democrat who is running for attorney general, have said they oppose the initiative. Don Perata, former Senate President Pro Tem and candidate for Oakland mayor, supports the initiative.

The major Republican candidates oppose the measure.

Richard Lee, the founder of Oaksterdam University, has spearheaded the effort and said he is not concerned about prominent political opposition to the plan, noting the similar lack of support for Prop. 215.

"I think the voters lead the politicians on this issue and they realize that," Lee said.

[Strix]

Maybe we can sell California to Mexico? It would solve a whole lot of problems.

[Fate]

Maybe we can sell California to Mexico? It would solve a whole lot of problems.

What an original idea.

[sbr]

I know nothing about the specific bill but  support the idea in general.

[Barrister]

Fucking potheads.

[Queequeg]

Fucking potheads.

Fail to see how wasting billions on attempting to quash relatively harmless intoxicant does anyone but some DEA officials and some drug lords any good. 

BTW, when this starts spreading across North America, I fully expect you to pull an Elliot Ness. 

[viper37]

Fail to see how wasting billions on attempting to quash relatively harmless intoxicant does anyone but some DEA officials and some drug lords any good. 

BTW, when this starts spreading across North America, I fully expect you to pull an Elliot Ness. 

yeah, because we all know drug dealers only deal in one sort of drug.  There are distinct dealers & supplier chains for marijuana, cocaine, pot, hash, acid, speeds, etc.

[Iormlund]

Fail to see how wasting billions on attempting to quash relatively harmless intoxicant does anyone but some DEA officials and some drug lords any good. 

BTW, when this starts spreading across North America, I fully expect you to pull an Elliot Ness. 

yeah, because we all know drug dealers only deal in one sort of drug.  There are distinct dealers & supplier chains for marijuana, cocaine, pot, hash, acid, speeds, etc.

It will reduce their benefits and bring some tax money in. I don't quite see the downside. It's not like people are not using it already.

[grumbler]

yeah, because we all know drug dealers only deal in one sort of drug.  There are distinct dealers & supplier chains for marijuana, cocaine, pot, hash, acid, speeds, etc.

Yeah, because we know that all sellers of legal products also sell all illegal products. 

[Malthus]

Fucking potheads.

Only if they are cute.

[Josquius]

Good move.
Keeps people out of reach of the sort of dodgy characters which could lead them into harder stuff too.

[ulmont]

yeah, because we all know drug dealers only deal in one sort of drug.  There are distinct dealers & supplier chains for marijuana, cocaine, pot, hash, acid, speeds, etc.

And yet there are distinct dealers & supplier chains for alcohol as opposed to "marijuana, cocaine, pot, hash, acid, speeds, etc."  Why might that be?

[Malthus]

yeah, because we all know drug dealers only deal in one sort of drug.  There are distinct dealers & supplier chains for marijuana, cocaine, pot, hash, acid, speeds, etc.

And yet there are distinct dealers & supplier chains for alcohol as opposed to "marijuana, cocaine, pot, hash, acid, speeds, etc."  Why might that be?

Didn't used to be that way - in the Prohibition era, it was Mob all the way.

lots of Canadians made cash that way. 

My great-uncle (the one the family doesn't talk about much) was in the Jewish Mafia, booze-running. He wasn't very good at it, or was unlucky - some rivals shot him so many times, they had to sweep up what was left and bury him in a bag.

[grumbler]

I wonder when the tide will turn, and the puritans will have to justify government interference in people's lives, rather than the liberals (old-school anti-authoritarian, that is) having to justify why government should not be interfering in peoples' lives.

Pot laws are practically the poster children for the puritan nanny state.

[viper37]

It will reduce their benefits and bring some tax money in. I don't quite see the downside. It's not like people are not using it already.

tobacco companies are so poor

Look at the reality:

• pot is a dangerous drugs known to cause mental illness on regular smokers, later on in their life.  I have an entire family to prove this, if medical evidences aren't enough   Best case scenario, heavy pot users become lawyer.  I don't wich is worst
  
• pot is as dangerous as tobacco when it comes to lung, throat, tongue and other types of cancer
  
• if you legalize it, you make it as normal as tobacco, while we are trying to reduce the consumption of this drug too.
  
• Once legalized, its content will be controlled.  THC content will be limited to X%, just like alcohol needs to be limited&controlled.
  
• Some people won't like it that their pot doesn't stone them as much as before.  They will either turn to black market pot (stronger for the same price) or other, stronger drugs (something many of them already do once the initinal "wow" of pot is gone)
  
• If you tax it, you will make it more expansive than illegal pot, and many consumers will turn to black market.  There's already a lot of contraband with cigarettes and alcohol going on, where we can get stronger cigarettes and stronger alcohol for cheaper than it costs in stores