MAPTalk-Digest Tuesday, November 3 2009 Volume 09 : Number 112
001 US CA: Golden State's Green Future
From: Richard Lake <>
002 Re: MAP: LEAP: Don't Let Congress Censor Discussion of Legalization
From: Tom Suther <>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: 001 US CA: Golden State's Green Future
From: Richard Lake <>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 07:13:37 -0800
Newshawk: Jay Bergstrom
Pubdate: Sun, 1 Nov 2009
Source: Contra Costa Times (CA)
Page: 1, Front Page
Copyright: 2009 Bay Area News Group
Contact:
Website: http://www.contracostatimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/96
Author: Josh Richman, Oakland Tribune
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Richard+Lee
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Jeff+Jones
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?115 (Cannabis - California)
GOLDEN STATE'S GREEN FUTURE
Just in from Stockton, Mary parks her car and enters the downtown
Oakland coffeehouse -- but she hasn't come all this way for a cup of joe.
Instead, she peruses a menu of dozens of strains and preparations of
marijuana, all grown in California, all taxed, all legal. Producing a
wad of cash and proof of her age -- but no doctor's note -- for a
fragrant ounce of "purple kush," she departs a satisfied customer,
perhaps grabbing a snack at a nearby restaurant before hitting the highway.
This could be California's near future, what with three
marijuana-legalization initiatives in circulation for the November
2010 ballot. A legislative bill is pending as well, although it's
being revamped by its author.
Groups such as the National Association for the Reform of Marijuana
Laws and the Marijuana Policy Project favored waiting at least until
2012, when a presidential vote might mobilize a younger, more
progressive electorate. But these measures' proponents believe
shifting attitudes and the economic crisis make 2010 the time to act.
They say legalization makes fiscal sense as well as moral sense --
ending the centurylong practice of criminalizing a widely used
substance that's less harmful than alcohol, America's legal drug of
choice. They tout an immediate, massive savings in state and local
law enforcement and corrections costs, and perhaps significant new
revenue; a state Board of Equalization study found California could
reap $1.3 billion a year from licensing and taxing what's already its
biggest -- albeit off-the-books -- cash crop, if the federal ban on
marijuana is lifted.
But many in law enforcement contend whatever money is saved and made
wouldn't be worth the harm done to communities.
Measure of Movement
Of the three ballot measures seeking petition signatures, the one
with the most money and buzz behind it would legalize personal
cultivation and use but would let local governments choose whether to
allow commercial cultivation and retail sales of up to an ounce at a
time, creating a patchwork of "wet" and "dry" cities and counties.
"It's up to the local jurisdictions for what works best, just as we
have alcohol laws," said co-proponent and Oaksterdam University
President Richard Lee, who could see his business -- providing
"quality training for the cannabis industry" -- grow exponentially if
his measure passes.
Co-proponent Jeff Jones directed the now-defunct Oakland Cannabis
Buyers Cooperative and now runs its successor, the Patient ID Center,
in Oakland and Los Angeles. They've hired a professional petition
drive management firm, and went in expecting to spend about $1 per signature.
"We got 206,000 in the first three weeks, so that's about 32 percent
in 14 percent of the time," Lee said. "We think we'll be done maybe a
little after Thanksgiving at the rate we're going. People have been
ripping the petition blanks out of our hands, they're so eager to sign them."
But would marijuana be sold in coffeehouses, in dedicated stores, in
liquor stores or in a neighborhood drugstore? Where and when could
one smoke? What kind of advertising would be permitted? Could
California employees of national companies be fired for testing
positive for cannabis? All these questions and many more would be
left up to state and local lawmakers.
Lee hopes places that choose to allow, regulate and tax commercial
sales -- most likely the more liberal, coastal areas at first --
would adopt a "coffeehouse" model like Amsterdam's, which
proliferated for a while in Oakland under California's medical
marijuana law. Such businesses balance sensitivity to the community
with knowledgeable customer service, better than impersonal
mass-market retail sales, he said.
Nation vs. States
The wild card is federal law, which still bans all cannabis
cultivation, use and sale. The Obama administration advised federal
prosecutors last month not to pursue medical marijuana patients and
providers adhering to their states' laws. But while health is often
constitutionally considered to be within states' purview, interstate
commerce and control of dangerous drugs has been federal territory,
and there's no telling whether the first county to authorize a big,
commercial farm growing marijuana for recreational use would see it
immediately busted by the Drug Enforcement Administration.
All the measures' proponents hope legalization in California -- a
state comprising about 12 percent of the nation's population, and a
higher percentage of its agriculture and commerce -- would lead other
states and eventually the federal government to do the same. Until
then, California once again would be a trailblazer, with all the
potential headaches accompanying that distinction.
Those headaches would include increased drug abuse and its
accompanying crime, according to law enforcement officials who
testified at an Assembly Public Safety Committee hearing Wednesday in
Sacramento.
Committee chairman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, in February
introduced a bill that would legalize marijuana cultivation, sales,
possession and use by adults, regulating it somewhat like alcohol;
Wednesday's hearing was to gather input as he rewrites the bill to
address concerns raised this year.
Officials from various law enforcement agencies and associations
testified that legalization under any scheme could lead to more, not
less, use by children; more people driving under the influence,
causing more injuries and deaths; decreased worker productivity that
could hurt the economy; and the continuance of a thriving black
market. California Peace Officers' Association President John
Standish said there's "no way marijuana legalization could protect or
promote society -- in fact, it radically diminishes it."
After the hearing, Sally Fairchild -- deputy director of the Northern
California High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, who had testified on
behalf of the California Narcotic Officers Association -- said a
wet-and-dry county scenario like that envisioned by Lee and Jones'
measure would be "unenforceable" as a practical matter. Any county
choosing to regulate commercial cultivation and sale will become "the
dope dealer for that region," fueling rampant black market operations.
Cops Aren't Only Critics
Some say Lee and Jones' measure doesn't go far enough. Dennis Peron,
a proponent of 1996's successful medical marijuana ballot measure,
Proposition 215, recently likened limits set by Lee and Jones'
measure to a hypothetical law allowing only one bottle of wine in a
home: "These limits guarantee confusion, harassment and black
marketeering forevermore."
There's no exception from the prohibition on "smoking cannabis in any
space while minors are present" for parents in their homes, he noted
in a recent statement. "We don't lock up parents for having a glass
of wine with dinner, and we certainly don't tell the kids to leave
the house for the purpose of consuming any other substance, so why
start with cannabis?"
And taxation would maintain cannabis "as the most expensive,
blatantly overpriced product on the market thus forcing most people
to choose cheaper, more dangerous drugs," Peron wrote. "Surely we can
do better than this. How about just legalizing it?"
Alternative Views
Another proposed ballot measure seems closer to that scenario. One of
its proponents, San Francisco attorney James Clark, was helping Lee
and Jones draft their measure when he hit upon what he believes is a
better plan.
Lee and Jones' limits on personal cultivation and use encourages
"very much a commercial model, very much keeping prohibition alive,"
Clark said, while his proposal seeks to "make this like soybeans" so
anyone can grow and use as much as they want for themselves, which he
believes will actually reduce demand in the long run. Commercial
cultivation and sales would be licensed and taxed; Clark envisions
big farms furnishing cannabis products to retail outlets -- perhaps
liquor stores, perhaps drugstores.
Clark said his measure "was never meant to be a really viable
petition," lacking funding and full-time staff members, but "we're
really starting to get traction. "... If our growth continues to be
exponential, it's possible we'll make the ballot." He acknowledges,
however, that Lee and Jones' measure is more likely to qualify.
John Donohue, 84, of Long Beach -- a marijuana user since 1946,
embittered by his five arrests for the drug -- offers another
measure, co-authored with longtime marijuana and Peace and Freedom
Party activist Casey Peters, of Los Angeles. Donohue said they tried
to keep it simple -- specifics of taxation and regulation would "just
have to be worked out in the process" -- and hoped people would get
behind it, but their petition drive has stalled as Lee and Jones'
measure gets most of the exposure.
"(We are) giving various interviews and telling people what our
position is and hoping we can start a movement," he said. "The main
point is: Stop arresting people for a non-crime. I have bumper
stickers that say, 'Show me the crime.'"%"
The Next Budweiser?
Ultimately, any legalized marijuana scenario will have pluses and
minuses, says Mark Kleiman, professor of public policy and director
of the Drug Policy Analysis Program at the UCLA.
"How much different does it look than today? You don't have to get a
phony doctor's recommendation," he said. "How much bigger would the
market be than it is today? There's no way to tell."
But Kleiman predicts it would be bigger, especially if commercial
advertising -- print, online, radio and television ads, billboards,
catchy jingles -- becomes commonplace.
"Do we get brand names? You can imagine this becoming like the liquor
industry," he said. "I don't think it's the end of the world. But if
we go the whole commercial route, I think you will have more drug abuse."
If a million more Californians take up marijuana use, "we'll have
another 100,000 pretty screwed up on it. Being screwed up on
marijuana might not be as bad as being screwed up on alcohol, but
it's still bad enough," Kleiman said. "Unlike some people, I don't
think the stuff's harmless."
Yet, with careful regulation and steps to avoid commercialization,
California could do far worse, he said. "Do I believe the state could
get half a billion out of this (in taxes)? Yeah I do. Do I think it
could also save a couple of hundred million (on law enforcement)?
Yes, probably."
[sidebar]
THE PLANS TO LEGALIZE POT
. Assembly Bill 390: Introduced in February by Assemblyman Tom
Ammiano, D-San Francisco, it would legalize marijuana cultivation,
sales, possession and use by people 21 and older, regulating it
somewhat like alcohol. A license to grow for sale would cost $5,000
to start and then $2,500 to renew each year, and a $50-per-ounce tax
would be placed on retail sales. Ammiano said he hopes this would
bring upward of $1.4 billion per year for drug abuse prevention
efforts. No taxation would occur unless the federal marijuana ban is
lifted; otherwise, the bill's only effect would be legalization of
personal cultivation and use. Ammiano held the bill in committee this
year, and is now rewriting it to put it forth again in January.
. The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010: Proposed by
Oakland marijuana activists Richard Lee and Jeff Jones, it would
legalize personal possession of up to an ounce of cannabis and up to
25 square feet of cultivation per home. It also would give local
governments the option of whether to permit, regulate and tax
commercial sales, a system akin to show alcohol is or isn't sold in
"wet" and "dry" counties in some states. This seems to be the measure
to watch; the proponents say their petition drive is surging, and its
endorsements include that of Oakland mayoral candidate and former
state Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata. For details, go to
www.taxcannabis2010.org.
. The Tax, Regulate and Control Cannabis Act of 2010: Advanced by
proponents Joe Rogoway, Omar Figueroa and James Clark, all of San
Francisco, it would legalize personal cultivation and use without
limits, but would require -- not just allow -- state and local
governments to regulate and tax commercial marijuana cultivation and
sales. Tax revenues would have to be spent on education, health care,
environmental programs, public works and state parks. For details, go
to www.californiacannabisinitiative.org.
. The Common Sense Act of 2010: Advanced by proponent John Donohue,
of Long Beach, it would require the Legislature to adopt laws
regulating and taxing marijuana within one year, but would let local
governments choose whether to also tax marijuana's cultivation, sale,
and use. For details, go to www.grasstax.org.
------------------------------
Subj: 002 Re: MAP: LEAP: Don't Let Congress Censor Discussion of Legalization
From: Tom Suther <>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:08:53 -0800
Not sure if this is really a problem or reality. this is the same thing Biden put into the ONDCP charter.
They lie anyhow so what the heck.
Who cares about free speech certainly Grassley does not.
- -----Original Message-----
>From: Leroy Casterline <>
>Sent: Nov 3, 2009 1:49 PM
>To:
>Cc: MAP talk <>
>Subject: MAP: LEAP: Don't Let Congress Censor Discussion of Legalization
>
>Take action here:
>http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5663/t/5525/campaign.jsp?campaign_
>
>As soon as this Thursday, November 5, the U.S. Senate Judiciary
>Committee could vote on an amendment that will legally prevent some of
>the government's top advisers from even discussing the idea of
>legalizing or decriminalizing drugs as a solution to the failed "war on
>drugs."
>
>Yes, you read that right. The Senate just might censor its own policy
>advisers from giving science-based advice.
>
>The censorship amendment's author, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), is
>trying to attach the speech prohibition onto an otherwise positive bill
>that will create a blue ribbon commission to study our nation's failed
>criminal justice and drug policies. The commission is supposed to make
>recommendations for ways to improve the system, but how can they do that
>with the blindfold that Sen. Grassley wants to put on them? Please take
>action below and tell your senators to oppose the censorship amendment!
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Attachment: http://mapinc.org/temp/29wJCGioAWh_s.html
------------------------------
End of MAPTalk-Digest V09 #112
******************************
|
