Proposition 64 When Will States Vote on Marijuana Again

Getty

On November 5 thursday , 1996, California voters approved Suggestion 215 with 55.6% of the vote. CA became the first state to legalize medical marijuana and Prop. 215 ushered in a new era in cannabis law reform.

Xx years later California voters again stand poised to make history as they volition be voting on Suggestion 64 this Election 24-hour interval. From Ballotpedia : " Proffer 64 would legalize the recreational use of marijuana for adults aged 21 years or older. Smoking would be permitted in a private home or at a business concern licensed for on-site marijuana consumption. Smoking would remain illegal while driving a vehicle, anywhere smoking tobacco is, and in all public places. Upwardly to 28.5 grams of marijuana and eight grams of concentrated marijuana would be legal to possess. Even so, possession on the grounds of a school, 24-hour interval care middle, or youth heart while children are present would remain illegal. An individual would be permitted to grow upwardly to six plants within a individual dwelling, every bit long equally the area is locked and non visible from a public place ."

Too the normal opposition a measure like this would confront, Prop. 64 is facing a massive backlash from many in the Prop. 215 community – much the way Prop. 19 did in 2010.

"Prop. 64 reduces well-nigh every penalty for cannabis possession, use, cultivation and transportation," Amanda Reiman , Manager of Marijuana Law and Policy at the Drug Policy Alliance, told The Marijuana Times . "Information technology also removes criminal penalties for marijuana activities committed by minors, instead giving them counseling and drug education, with their records being destroyed at historic period 18."

Nautical chart:Current California Penalties vs. Prop 64: Developed Apply of Marijuana Human action

Amanda is an ardent supporter of Prop. 64 and thinks opponents are pushing misconceptions about the measure on the public. "I [misconception] is that Prop. 64 impacts medical cannabis," she said. "Prop. 64 protects the rights given to patients nether Prop. 215, which is a defence force in court if yous have a recommendation. Our new medical cannabis regulations got rid of the collective defense, so regardless of whether Prop. 64 passes, patient collectives volition have to obtain licenses to operate. The other is that Prop. 64 creates a monopoly and is bad for modest business concern. Prop. 64 creates a microbusiness license that allows minor players to vertically integrate under ane license (think microbrew), something that is not bachelor to those with bigger businesses. It also eliminates the requirement of a mandatory independent benefactor in betwixt each level of production every bit is required in our medical cannabis regulations. Instead, a business tin can be its ain benefactor, taking its wares to market."

The Opposition from Within

One of the authors of Prop. 215, Dennis Peron, has been a song opponent of Prop. 64.

"They made up recreational to demonize and trivialize the people who use marijuana. People who utilise cannabis for medicinal uses aren't getting high, they're getting normal from the handling," Peron said . "Prop. 64 is a misrepresentation of what marijuana is primarily for, and this kind of legislation volition injure a lot of people, especially modest growers and businesses who are trying to provide to their clients but tin't afford to because of the excess regulations and taxation on their products."

"I want the voters to be aware of the state of affairs at paw," Peron connected. "Prop. 64 is not legalization. If it were legalizing that would imply that marijuana is illegal and it's non. This police force would mean the displacement of cannabis farms in Humboldt. It essentially empowers profit instead of people."

Peron is far from alone in his opposition; he is joined past many in the CA medical marijuana/grower community and he is also joined past the usual suspects when it comes to keeping marijuana prohibition in place.

The Opposition from Without

Leading the charge for the prohibitionists is Kevin Sabet of Project SAM (Smart Approaches to Marijuana).

"What this is nearly is not adults smoking a joint in the privacy of their own home," Sabet said of Prop. 64. "This is well-nigh the mass commercialization of marijuana by for-profit companies.

"Medical marijuana is already an industry generating huge profits…nearly iii billion dollars in California final twelvemonth."

Co-ordinate to Sabet, for-profit marijuana volition lead to big companies who lie and scheme to keep people addicted to their dangerous production. "If they desire to abound a plant, if they want to get it from a friend, I don't care, if they want to get it as a gift from somebody, I don't intendance," he said. "The bespeak is. I don't recollect the sales should be legal, because I think what that brings is another tobacco industry."

Of course Sabet ignores the fact that cannabis is a far safer product than tobacco and has been shown to cause less dependence than caffeine. He uses the specter of "Large Tobacco" to try and scare parents away from voting on legalization fifty-fifty though cannabis is a completely different substance.

Sabet himself seems to be involved in some shadiness likewise. Diane Goldstein , a spokesperson for the group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (Spring) and a retired Lieutenant Commander from the Redondo Beach (CA) Police Section, recently penned an article detailing the results of a long investigation she undertook into the dealings of Sabet and his "not-profit."

"SAM has yet to file a Federal 990 tax render since it started operating in Jan 2013 as a charitable nonprofit," Goldstein writes. "There is no record of an IRS ruling granting them their 501(c)(3) nonprofit status in either Guidestar or according to the IRS.

"In April 2015 SAM Action filed for 501(c)(four) status, which was just granted in July of 2016 (EIN 47-368846). Information technology's no surprise that they also formed a political action committee and, specifically in California, they also formed a election measure commission named 'A Committee Confronting Proposition 64 with Aid from Citizens' (FPPC ID 1387789) that has been making active donations to the opposition entrada."

SAM receives donations from Californians for Drug Gratis Youth (CADFY), a charitable non-turn a profit. "The fact that SAM Activeness is a 501(c)(4) means that its funders cannot accept a charitable taxation deduction—and though CADFY is permitted to donate to SAM, that donation must be restricted to a charitable purpose just."

The problem is, advocating against a election measure is not a charitable effort. "In August 2015, I read with interest how CADFY, had sponsored a poll that indicated that Coloradans were experiencing buyer'south remorse. I wondered why a California organisation was interested in Colorado," Goldstein writes.

"Again, Kevin Sabet used this poll to push a bulletin of a marijuana industry run amok—neglecting to reveal that CADFY is a fiduciary agent or financial sponsor of SAM, and in 2014 raised over $234,398 for his arrangement."

Overcoming the Opposition

This is a lot for Prop.64 to overcome and it should come up every bit no surprise that those who wish to continue prohibition in place are willing to become to whatsoever lengths to be successful, including the usual fear-mongering nearly the dangers legalization poses to children. But will they exist successful and block Prop. 64?

Recent polls have shown solid majority support for Prop. 64, but polls said the same thing nearly Prop. 19 back in 2010 and that legalization measure ultimately went down in defeat.

"I call up the chances are practiced [that Prop. 64 will laissez passer]," Amanda Reiman told u.s.. "The public does not believe that cannabis should proceed to be criminalized. However, nosotros tin can't banking company on success. Anybody who feels that it is fourth dimension to end cannabis prohibition needs to bear witness up and vote!"

Prop. 64 has earned a ton of endorsements from the likes of Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom and multiple Congressional representatives, plus groups like the ACLU of California, the California Medical Association, the California Nurses Association and the California NAACP.

"I continue to be cautiously optimistic equally the endorsements reflect its broad bipartisan back up among not only politicians but among the general public," Diane Goldstein told The Marijuana Times . "Nosotros have current and former elected officials, community leaders, community organizations including public health, public prophylactic, environmental, faith based institutions and ceremonious society organizations that joined together with sixteen newspapers that endorsed the campaign who recognize the failure of the drug war and in specific the state of war on marijuana.

"Merely I worry also. As an example an article that I've written volition be published in The Influence (linked in a higher place) on government resources and how opponents of legalization use taxpayer funded monies to oppose reform. In my research I found this slide bear witness . This slide show presentation was created by the demand reduction coordinator for California High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (Expanse) who vehemently opposes marijuana legalization. This slide reflected how activists voted against their own self-involvement during the Proposition xix campaign and today they go along to talk almost Proposition 64 in the same fashion. Russ Belville over at WeedNews shares my opinion and has written extensively on why they are wrong. Information technology's disconcerting that the aptly named #stonersagainstlegalization continue to mischaracterize data no different than the cops have done for years."

Time grows curt in the state that is the biggest prize in the cannabis law reform movement.

Read Part 2 here.

tylerduard1959.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.marijuanatimes.org/a-closer-look-at-prop-64-in-california-part-1/

Share this post