prop 19

By. Paul Armentano, NORML

 

Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske, along with five previous drug czars (including former 'high roller' William Bennett), recently penned an op/ed in the Los Angeles Times condemning California’s Proposition 19 , The Regulate, Control & Tax Cannabis Initiative of 2010. It is no surprise that America's present and former drug czars oppose the passage of Prop. 19. After all, the drug czar is required by law "to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance that is listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act." In other words, it would actually be illegal for President Obama's drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, to voice an opinion that didn't publicly condemn the measure. Predictably, the czars' opposition is out of step with voter sentiment on the issue -- which according to the latest polltracker.com data shows Californians supporting the measure 51 percent to 37 percent.

 

So just what would Prop. 19 do? Read more »

By. Norm Stamper, Huffington Post

 

Imagine it. Grownup Californians making a choice that should never have been denied them in the first place.

 

Proposition 19, the Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 would allow adults in that state to possess up to an ounce of marijuana for personal consumption; to use marijuana in a non-public place; and to grow the weed at a private residence in an area not to exceed 25 square feet.

 

Whether you live in New Jersey or Tennessee, Texas or Oregon, there are compelling reasons for you and residents of all the other states to actively support this campaign in California.

 

Who should favor, and therefore work for the passage of Proposition 19? An abbreviated list, including both overlapping and contradictory stakeholders:

 

Law enforcement whose members face on the one hand the prospect of sudden, violent death at the hands of drug cartels and street gangs, and on the other the hostility they encounter when enforcing draconian, everybody-loses prohibition laws; Read more »

By. Russ Belville, Opposing Views

 

At Seattle Hempfest, the joint-to-ounce ratio is closer to 1:1

 

The Christian Science Monitor features a “one minute debate” between our own Paul Armentano and legendary prohibitionist Calvina Fay, executive director of the Drug Free America Foundation. I have a question: what kind of pinners does Calvina Fay roll?

 

Legalizing marijuana use would substantially increase its already formidable costs to society. That’s because the initiative would allow individuals to possess up to about 120 joints and cultivate 25 square feet of plants, capable of yielding up to 240,000 joints. Read more »

By Paul Armentano

 

Last week I posted a brief response to the Los Angeles Times commentary authored by Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske (along with five previous drug czars) condemning California’s Prop. 19.

 

Today the Los Angeles Times has posted my full rebuttal, which I’ve excerpted below.

 

Some marijuana tax revenue is better than none

via The Los Angeles Times

 

… Kerlikowske’s opposition to Proposition 19 … is a fairly common one. Kerlikowske et al argue that, if legalized, marijuana’s perceived social costs would outweigh the economic benefits reaped by regulation. They base this allegation largely on the premise that present taxes on alcohol and cigarettes fail to adequately pay for the societal costs associated with those drugs’ use and abuse. True enough, but here’s why this sound bite is irrelevant to the present marijuana debate. Read more »

By. Christian Science Monitor

 

During this midterm election season, the Monitor will feature a series of "one-minute debates" on top political issues.

Yes: State regulation of adult use makes sense

 

California voters this November will decide on Proposition 19, which seeks to control and regulate the adult use of marijuana. Critics claim that cannabis is not harmless. Yet it is precisely because marijuana is a psychoactive substance that it ought to be legalized and controlled accordingly.

 

After all, we don’t tax and regulate alcohol – which poses far greater risks – because it’s innocuous. We do so because we recognize that booze temporarily alters mood and behavior and thus should be regulated appropriately, along with controls regarding who can legally produce it, distribute it, consume it, and under what circumstances its use is lawfully permitted. These same principles ought to apply to cannabis. Read more »

By. Steve Elliot, Toke of the Town

 

First, there was Facebook's censorship of marijuana leaves in legalization ads on its social network. Then came Google's decision to accept and run nearly identical ads. Now, an announcement from social news site Reddit's corporate owner, Conde Nast, to Just Say Now that it will not run any display advertising relating to marijuana legalization has resulted in an near-insurrection among the site's users -- and administrators, who said they were "blindsided" by the move.

 

That decision, unlike Facebook's, pertains not just to images of marijuana leaves, but to any ads supporting legalization of marijuana, according to the "corporate offices" of Reddit's parent company, Conde Nast. Read more »

By. Kirk Tousaw

 

Much of the article "California's Proposition 19 will supersede or amend its medical marijuana laws" from The Examiner (which appears to be a blending of other posts including one written by an anti-prop 19 advocate and published in the Sacramento Bee newspaper per the link at the bottom) proceeds from the assumption that Prop 19 supersedes Prop 215. But that assumption is far from certain.

 

One thing is certain: Prop 19, if it passes, will lead to litigation just like Prop 215 has been the subject of litigation since it passed more than a decade ago. The end result of that litigation will tell the tale. Another thing is certain: if Prop 19 does not pass the headlines the day after the vote will be "California says no to marijuana legalization" not "California medical marijuana users saved".

 

Let's examine the primary assumption: That Prop 19 supersedes Prop 215. Note that anything said on this topic is a personal opinion, not a legal opinion upon which any individual person may or should rely. I am not licensed in California, and the following should not be taken as legal advice. Read more »

By. Steve Elliot, Toke of the Town

 

What do you get when you put six Drug Czars together? Same old bullshit, except more of it.

 

It was probably inevitable, but that doesn't make it any less deplorable. Obama Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske has joined forces with five past directors of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, including czars who served under Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George H.W. Bush, against California's marijuana legalization voter initiative, Proposition 19.

 

You would think that six so-called "drug experts" working together could come up with better-reasoned arguments against Prop 19 than these tired old talking points by tired old bureaucrats.

 

Not that anybody's surprised that Kerlikowske, and by extension, the Obama Administration, opposes pot legalization. Gil's already helpfully let us know that legalization isn't in his vocabulary. Read more »

By: Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director

 

Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske, along with five previous drug czars (including gambling addict William Bennett), have an op/ed in today’s Los Angeles Times condemning California’s Prop. 19.

 

Given that the Drug Czar is required by law to oppose any and all efforts that would seek to legalize marijuana — including “any study … relating to the legalization (for a medical use or any other use) of” cannabis — his vitriol should not come as a surprise. Nevertheless, his commentary clearly begs the question: How is it appropriate for Californians to pay taxes to cover the salary of a federal official who spends a significant part of his time telling these same taxpayers how to vote on a statewide ballot measure?

 

As far as Kerlikowske’s specific allegations against Prop. 19, suffice to say that you’ve heard them all before — including this whopper, “Law enforcement officers do not currently focus much effort on arresting adults whose only crime is possessing small amounts of marijuana.” (Really? Then how do you explain this? Or this? Or this?) Read more »

By. SF Bay Guardian Online

 

With polls showing that California voters are probably poised to approve Proposition 19 in November and finally fully legalize marijuana, this should be a historic moment for jubilant celebration among those who have long argued for an end to the government's costly war on the state's biggest cash crop. But instead, many longtime cannabis advocates — particularly those in the medical marijuana business — are voicing only cautious optimism mixed with fear of an uncertain future.

  Read more »