PayPal
BitCoin
Facebook
Twitter
Amazon
RSS
iTunes

DoseNation Podcast

Weekly news, talk, and interviews. More »

SUGGEST A STORY  |   CREATE AN ACCOUNT  |  
DoseNation.com

Strange bedfellows in CA pot initiative

An initiative to legalize marijuana in California will appear on the November ballot and both sides of the debate are wasting no time trying to smoke out the opposition.

But in an interesting wrinkle, California's pro-pot proponents are gaining support from some unlikely allies.

"We're definitely getting more support every day from people who haven't supported us in the past," says Richard Lee, the businessman and activist who led the effort that collected 690,000 signatures to get the initiative on the ballot.

A new nationwide poll by Pew Research Center suggests that opponents of legalized pot still comprise the majority (52 percent), and include the usual suspects: older Americans, conservatives and mothers of teenagers. In California, the state Republican party and the California Police Chiefs Association are just saying No to the ballot initiative.

Supporters of the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act (note the careful omission of language such as "legalize" and "marijuana") say that this could be one way to help solve the state's crushing budget problems. The initiative would make it legal for anyone 21 and older to possess an ounce of marijuana and/or grow whatever can fit in a 5-by-5-foot plot. It would permit cities and counties to decide whether to allow sales and tax the proceeds.

This detail has won over surprising bedfellows, including members of the organized labor community, the state's chapter of the NAACP and some in the law enforcement community.

Lee credits the economy -- California's debt is up to 37 percent of its economic output, according to one calculation -- with providing a boost to his campaign. "It's history repeating itself," he tells ABC News. "Like [the repeal of] alcohol prohibition during the Great Depression, we now have the Great Recession."

Posted By jamesk at 2010-04-05 11:30:56 permalink | comments
Facebook it! Twitter it! Digg it! Reddit! StumbleUpon It! Google Bookmark del.icio.us technorati Furl Yahoo! Bookmark
» More ways to bookmark this page


dante. : 2010-04-13 14:50:28
Everyone needs to read this initiative and realize that it raises more questions than it answers. You can go to prison for 3-5-7 years if you're under 21 and caught with marijuana. How does this help our prison situation? It doesn't. It's just more people to throw into the prison industrial complex. Why limit grow space? Hmmm think long hard and deep about this part. If you grow tomatoes, would you allow the government to tell you how much of a space you can grow them in? Whatever the name is Monsanto, GrowOne, PhattieGrow...it's all the same. They will be taking over. I hear Obama is finally looking into Monsanto's practices. Well, better late than never. Are we going to trade corn out for pot. It looks like we're headed in that direction. Don't give your freedom away...stand your ground and demand free growing. Marijuana's lesson to us all?
Beishe : 2010-04-10 12:20:41
Yes, the voter turnout will be high, literally. I'm registering to vote solely to express my support for regulated Cannabis. Many young people should/will do the same.
biff. : 2010-04-07 09:18:22
Voter turnout is gunna be high.
Anonymous. : 2010-04-06 13:26:46
Well, it's hard to imagine things getting worse...
g.g.g.. : 2010-04-06 06:49:15
I've read that this bill is pretty lame over all. The restrictions it places on users are still severe. No open consumption; 21 yrs of age instead of 18. (The old argument: we can send kids off to die with the u.s. armed forces at 18 but not smoke pot etc.) The whole thing financed by a pot entrepreneur in Oakland with the primary objective in making his empire more successful. Weird grow regulations.
Let's see what develops from all this.
Anonymous. : 2010-04-05 16:33:06
"Anyway, I'll quit before I make myself sound anymore foolish."

You don't sound foolish, and from a philosophical perspective you're right: to say that the government has the "right" to say what we can and cannot do with out bodies, and then to say that other voters have this right...well, that's ceding the battle before it has begun. It's a deck stacked against sanity.

Many people don't get this; they "believe" in democracy to such an extent that they think other people do have that right. Other people get this, but they throw up their hands at the situation and say "maybe we can make things a little more just anyway, even if we're still living under so many layers of control."

Honestly, I'm not going to throw any rocks around, tell people the best way of approaching the issue. I feel pretty strongly that ultimately the battle is lost as long as we confer the status of master to any other human (or humans), and I worry that by drinking too much of the "let's organize and change things!" cool-aid we run the risk of loosing sight of that (hell, most people have already lost sight of it--they're just trading one Master ("the man") for another ("the people")). But who is really wise enough to say what the best way of getting to the correct place is? I have my opinions--and they're strongly held--but I don't have the wisdom to think that spending a lot of time trying to convince others how they should act is really very justified.

primordialstu : 2010-04-05 16:15:00
Actually, this is quite constitutional. The constitutions dictates what the Federal govt can and cannot do. Under the 10th amendment, the power to regulate such things as drugs (basically, all other things not covered by the federal document) falls to the individual states.
Nick. : 2010-04-05 13:00:21
Trying not to sound ignorant but isn't putting it on the ballot a risky maneuver? If this thing doesn't go through it will give the prohibitionists more ammo than ever. I know that voting is how we do things under our system but putting it up for vote is like saying that (yet again) another man has the right to tell another man what he can or can't put in his own body. Of course I'm sounding like an idealist but I guess I've always felt that getting high is protected under the constitution. They knew that drinking was protected so they had to fiddle with the constitution to enable prohibition. The drug laws never went through that process. Anyway, I'll quit before I make myself sound anymore foolish.

The comments posted here do not reflect the views of the owners of this site.

HOME
COMMENTS
NEWS
ARCHIVE
EDITORS
REVIEW POLICY
SUGGEST A STORY
CREATE AN ACCOUNT
RSS | TWITTER | FACEBOOK
DIGG | REDDIT | SHARE