The Push to Legalize Marijuana: It's Real

You may have heard there's a push to legalize marijuana in California. You may not have heard that it's for real.

Voting ballots in California this November will contain an initiative to legalize, tax, and regulate the sale of marijuana to adults 21 and older, and while this may sound like something that has no chance, whatsoever, of ever becoming law, the thing is: it actually might.

The organized campaign around this initiative is called Tax Cannabis, and it's the brainchild of marijuana entrepreneur Richard Lee. "Marijuana entrepreneur" sounds highly illegal, but, in California, where medical pot is sold unobstructed by the feds, it's not: Lee founded Oaksterdam University, a school that teaches how to grow marijuana and run a marijuana business, as chronicled by Josh Green in The Atlantic last April.

This was not, mind you, originally an effort of the national marijuana policy establishment, per se. According to conventional wisdom on initiatives like this one, 2012 would be a better year to dedicate resources to a marijuana legalization campaign: it's a presidential election year, and younger and marginal voters--voters who could be more sympathetic to legalizing pot--will come out to vote, whereas fewer people vote in the midterms. People who vote in midterms are more engaged in the process--if pollsters label respondents as "likely voters," then the midterm turnout is made up of are even likelier voters than the electorate in presidential years--the type of people who might not, typically, support an initiative like this one. So, much like in California's gay-marriage movement, there was some hesitation over whether 2010 was the right year to do this.

But Lee went ahead anyway, putting up money from Oaksterdam and another of his groups, marijuana provider S.K. Seymore, LLC, to obtain the 849,000 signatures needed to get on the November 2 ballot, with his donations comprising most of the roughly $1.3 million spent in 2009 on the petition drive.

Lee now has a a team of pros working for him as campaign consultants.

It includes Chris Lehane, the former Bill Clinton communications adviser and press secretary for Al Gore, both as VP and in the 2000 campaign; Dan Newman, whose firm SCN Strategies consults for Sen. Barbara Boxer's (D) reelection campaign and is heading up communications for Level the Playing Field 2010, the independent-expenditure campaign against multimillionaire GOP gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman; and Doug Linney of The Next Generation, a firm that has worked for state and local candidate campaigns, as well as major issue-advocacy drives and marijuana decriminalization/law-enforcement-prioritization efforts in California.

In short, this will be a legitimate campaign operation. Tax Cannabis is already airing a radio ad in the state's largest and most expensive media markets, L.A. and San Francisco, featuring a former law enforcement official.

"This isn't some...whim of a couple of hippies," said SCN's Dan Newman, who is handling communications for Tax Cannabis. "It's a serious, well crafted, well funded campaign that was put together very carefully and professionally run and hopes to win."

The campaign will do "everything that a winning campaign does," Newman said. That would mean radio ads, TV ads, volunteer and/or robo- phone calls, door-to-door canvasses, and direct mail. Newman would not specifically say which of those Tax Cannabis will do.

Messaging will focus heavily on invoking the support of former law enforcement officials, plus the argument that has driven so much media coverage around this push: estimates that legalizing and taxing marijuana could help California's crippled state budget to the tune of $1 billion, including tax revenue and less spending on law enforcement.

Where will the money come from to fund this campaign? Lee infused it with cash to get the signatures, but according to state financial disclosures, Tax Cannabis has only $32,000 in the bank. The only state-registered opposition group, called "Opposition to the California Marijuana Legalization Initiative (2010)," has not filed disclosure paperwork, so it is unclear how much money Tax Cannabis is up against.

The campaign is reaching out to a broad coalition of donors, Newman said, including an online fundraising operation and traditional political donors.

But the elephant in the room is this: Tax Cannabis has the support of the Drug Policy Alliance, one of several major, national-level drug-policy reform groups. On its board sits liberal super-donor George Soros.

Given how expensive it is to buy air time in the Golden State--L.A. is one of the nation's most expensive media markets--it's not uncommon for political campaigns to wait until a few weeks before Election Day to blast the radio and TV airwaves with a major media buy. And, because California places no limits on donations and spending on ballot initiatives, it is conceivable that if things look close down the stretch, and he felt so inclined, Soros could inject millions of dollars into this initiative.

Right now, the campaign is working to secure endorsements, and the language of the ballot initiative was crafted, Newman said, with an eye toward garnering a broad base of support. It does not simply legalize pot outright: it allows individual counties to regulate the sale and possession to adults over 21, which would likely create a similar effect as "dry counties," where alcohol can't be sold. It does not legalize possession of marijuana on school grounds, or driving while impaired. The entire proposition is posted here.

Reformers claim legalization is popular. A major public poll hasn't been conducted since April 2009, when Field showed 56% support out of 901 Californians polled. Newman says Tax Cannabis has conducted internal polls that show legalization polling in the mid-50s.

November is a long way off. Marijuana legalization gained significant traction in 2009, mostly because of California's budget crisis, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's suggestion that it be seriously discussed, the drug war happening in Mexico, and the finding of the Field poll.

Although Tax Cannabis is airing a radio ad, a public messaging campaign has yet to ramp up against legalizing pot. When it does--when both sides are conducting this fight in public--look for opinion to congeal either for the ballot initiative or against it.

Until then, legalized pot remains a possible outcome in November 2010.


NewsHawk: Ganjarden: 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: The Atlantic
Author: Chris Good
Contact: The Atlantic
Copyright: 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group
Website: The Push to Legalize Marijuana: It's Real
 
Yep it`s a real scam by Richard Lee to make money from peeps. Real bad law people! We can do better! I will not be voting for this scammer`s idea of `Legalizing Marijuana`! I won`t be taxed,controlled,or regulated! Free the Weed! Don`t get dooped Brothers and Sisters! Vote this krap law down in November!
 
It isn`t free now.You ether have to work to grow it and buy any nutes or whatever you need to grow with or buy it.The difference is who you pay if you buy it.Rich Mr.Lee or a hard working local grower. Then there is the tax thing. Right now if you don`t have a doctors recomendation you can get a fine for an oz. If this law passes you will always pay unknown amounts of tax on every oz. you buy.There are no limits to added local taxes. You will still be able to grow a 5x5(window box) garden.But will that be enough? I don`t think so considering how long it takes to grow from seed or clone.So where do you get the rest? Yep you go down and through your hard earned money down in one of Rich Richard Lee`s planned Ganja huts that will spring up everywhere almost over night. All suplyed by comercial growers with expencive permits and finianced by the banks and wall Street Gang who put Cali in this mess in the first place and are taking people`s homes away and now want to tax,control,and regulate your Marijuana use.No F*CKING WAY! You can pull my bong from my cold dead hands!
 
I wasn't sure how to reply to you Markcastle because you seem like one of those people who take an issue that you don't agree with, ie: cannabis legalization, and because you know you can't win on the merits of intelligent debate, you attack it from a different direction and make it seem that it is us against the government.
Now I could be wrong and you might be a hard core cannabis user and you just hate this Mr. Lee so then you have to stop and think about it rationally and then you would realize that you already pay a huge tax on the products that you smoke in your bong.
Where do you think the billions of dollars come from that pay for the infrastructure that is always trying to put you and your friends in jail?
Your tax dollars.
And when those finite dollars go to cops and such then there isn't any left to go to the hundreds of other services that help you and your fellow citizens and make your life easier.
And what about when you do get caught and you have to pay hundreds and thousands of dollars in bail, lawyers fees, fines and then maybe even jail time?
Is that not a huge tax payed by the user?
You need to look at the big picture on this one.
The first thing that will happen when this thing passes is that people will stop going to jail for reasonable consumption. People will stop losing jobs for getting caught using.
People will gain their rights and respect back.
Just think how good it will feel to sit with your friends and smoke some fine skunk and know that no matter how much it stinks that nobody is going to come busting through your door with guns drawn and treat you like the piece of shit that they think you are for smoking cannabis.
Can you see now why we might be willing to pay a little tax?
 
I wasn't sure how to reply to you Markcastle because you seem like one of those people who take an issue that you don't agree with, ie: cannabis legalization, and because you know you can't win on the merits of intelligent debate, you attack it from a different direction and make it seem that it is us against the government.
Now I could be wrong and you might be a hard core cannabis user and you just hate this Mr. Lee so then you have to stop and think about it rationally and then you would realize that you already pay a huge tax on the products that you smoke in your bong.
Where do you think the billions of dollars come from that pay for the infrastructure that is always trying to put you and your friends in jail?
Your tax dollars.
And when those finite dollars go to cops and such then there isn't any left to go to the hundreds of other services that help you and your fellow citizens and make your life easier.
And what about when you do get caught and you have to pay hundreds and thousands of dollars in bail, lawyers fees, fines and then maybe even jail time?
Is that not a huge tax payed by the user?
You need to look at the big picture on this one.
The first thing that will happen when this thing passes is that people will stop going to jail for reasonable consumption. People will stop losing jobs for getting caught using.
People will gain their rights and respect back.
Just think how good it will feel to sit with your friends and smoke some fine skunk and know that no matter how much it stinks that nobody is going to come busting through your door with guns drawn and treat you like the piece of shit that they think you are for smoking cannabis.
Can you see now why we might be willing to pay a little tax?

I have been growing and smoking marijuana for almost 45 years.I have a doctors recomedation for three oz of marijuana a week.Is that hard core? I don`t hate Mr.Lee and I`m not against medical despenceries as a whole,they have there place.I see no value to anyone in the so called legalization bill.No one is going to be arrested for an infraction of one oz or less of marijuana under California law as it stands today! And no police can get a search warrant for an infraction of the state penal code.Not going to happen! Now you can get time in the state pin for larger amounts,sales,and growing if you don`t have a doctors recomendation.So just go get one! This law as it is written offers nothing and gives up so much. It does allow people 21 and over an oz. but it charges so much in taxes that the amount in fines one might get if you don`t have a recomendation is nothing compared to the large amount of taxes one would pay.It would still be a crime to have over an oz. It would make it a crime to smoke in front of persons 18-20 years old(children acording to the wording of the law) ever if these persons are in the military and vets of war! Also they would be criminals if they had/ smoked marijuana themselfs.Old enough to fight and die for our country but not old enough to make dessions for there selfs about marijuana? and as for workers being fired it doesn`t at all protect employees from being fired at work for even smoking on there own time away from work.And they have no protection now ether. This law does nothing but give money to the rich and money to the state for? something you should have ,did have the right to do before they took this right away.The present medical laws are much better to live with than these changes are.I do agree we need change just not this!
 
The DuPonts and Monsanto do not want this as they cannot patent or control it! It got it's evil status from the DuPonts in the late 20's as they had invented NYLON! See the picture! And now they are pushing their perverted man made chemicals the can control, patent, and makes tons of filthy lucre instead of letting God's children medicate and scrament with His naturally growing HERB! It is all about Power, Control, And Money!!!!!! They will pay at the Great White Thrown Judgement!
 
The most tax I`d go for would be normal sales tax and then only for non-medical marijuana.If they want a boost then maybe they should look at cutting the costs involved in courts,law enforcement and corrections for being total dicks in the first place.
 
what about spirits, they were illegal then became taxed and regulated. This makes the bulk of the users happy. You still have those who break the law and make their own, same applies to this, most people will be happy with being able to legally access cannabis, some will still decide to grow their own illegally but they would be no worse off if the law passes then they are today.
 
what about spirits, they were illegal then became taxed and regulated. This makes the bulk of the users happy. You still have those who break the law and make their own, same applies to this, most people will be happy with being able to legally access cannabis, some will still decide to grow their own illegally but they would be no worse off if the law passes then they are today.

Yep right and spirits have genetics? You want to trust the future of marijuana genetic research to corperations? All they care about is there bottem line and seldom look ahead only to the next stock holders report. Take a look at the last posted clips on Urban Grower where they show the corperation grown contractor`s marijuana for medical use in Canada. You want to smoke that shit? That`s the future of marijuana in Cali if this law passes.Hell I wouldn`t make brownies out of that stuff grown by corperate contractors! Beleave me the only people who will be happy in the end if this law passes is Rich Mr.Richard Lee with all his new found piles of your cash! As for the state getting more money from taxes.I remember when the lotto was first started and they said how much it would help out our schools and look at them now! Much poorer than before!
 
So you are telling me that the current system in place, of it being illegal (other then for medical use) is better then what they propose. It wont effect the medical setup currently in place and wont effect those growing their own illegally any differently, the only negative I can think this will place is on those growing and selling illegally as their proffits will drop.
 
It only makes having one oz.legal.It greatly increases the cost by means of taxes.Right now it is only an infraction of the Health and safety code to have an oz.A fine if you get caught(without a recomendation for medical use).A large tax to be legal,Um just what good is that? And who will be growing all this legal weed? Em corperations who care only about there bottem line,not quality.So how is that any good? And what about all those people who grow a little extra to pay there large power bills for there medical grows? Um just out of luck....and out of medication! Who wins here? Lets see the State and local Goverments...Yep the ones who been putting marijuana growers in jail all these years,and well the despenceries...who by the way are paying the costs to push this bill on us! And what does the average person get? Regulations,controled,and as stated, taxes on top of overpriced despenceries who now have the only Pot for sale in Cali! yep sounds like a win,win to me!(a win for goverment control and a win for despenceries that is)
 
I think for now I might have to agree with markscastle for the most part. I can see exactly where he's coming from. You have to keep in mind that no matter what the bill actually says, it is sometimes more important what it's not saying. How many questions does it create if it passes? The more doors that are left open in this bill, the more potential we have for getting screwed as usual in the end. I want it legalized in the worst way but we have to be careful not to just jump at any chance simply because it is finally there. It is imperative to the future of medical users and recreational users alike that the laws that are put in place are worded correctly to avoid ending up where we are now...again...because we just let it happen without understanding all sides. I know it is so complex that it is difficult to really do that but we must at least try. I think this bill should be thoroughly examined by several lawyers who can understand exactly what the wording is saying (or not saying) and how that might be interpreted in any situation that can be thought of. What are the far reaching implications of the wording? I can't understand all of these bills sometimes. How do I know what they are really saying? I don't. I only know what I'm reading and based on that, I have to say that if markscastle's concerns are founded then you should at least take another look at it with a new eye and be ABSOLUTELY sure you know what your signing up for. In the mean time, keep up the good fight, we will prevail. Smoke smart and stay safe.


P.S. I'm not from California, true, but I think we're all in this together and what happens there will definitely have an impact on the rest of us. You will be setting the stage for the rest of the country. Kudos for that, you should be proud of such forward thinking. However, Please, please be careful how you set that stage, the rest of us will be affected by it in the end, so we're kinda counting on you guys to get it as close to right as you can. If the bill is indeed a good thing then I hope it passes, but if it's not then I pray that it doesn't because no change is better than the wrong change.
 
The DuPonts and Monsanto do not want this as they cannot patent or control it! It got it's evil status from the DuPonts in the late 20's as they had invented NYLON! See the picture! And now they are pushing their perverted man made chemicals the can control, patent, and makes tons of filthy lucre instead of letting God's children medicate and scrament with His naturally growing HERB! It is all about Power, Control, And Money!!!!!! They will pay at the Great White Thrown Judgement!

Apparently you dont know this, But the government of the United states holds a patent on cannabis based products..:roorrip:
 
One thing we must do is get rid of the druggie lingo they created in the 1920's! Start calling it by it's correct name of cannabis and refer to either you are medicating, or using it as a religious sacrament. If you speak and act like a King you will be looked at and treated as a king. If you speak like a un educated whatever you will be looked at as so! Hemp is ok as it's cousin in farming and products made there. I am constantly reminding people of this as they do the same with my American Staffordshire Terriers. They right away because of their ignorance and the paid for seccular media want to call them pitt bulls! It is like calling a black American a n***er! Plain and simple. Let us all show them what we know and stand for by better speach and actions! I am a Minister called by God, but if I try to win someone to Christ and constantly use profanity, will they percieve me as changed? No, of course not as that is evidence that the Holy Spirit is not in me and I am just another hypocrite blowing smoke! Research the real truths and use proper terminology! Also it is not a DRUG! It is a God created naturally growing herb/plant that contains NATURAL compounds that agree with our bodies! Chemicals are natural compounds and elements combined through a perverted act by man to create something God did not intend! They are DRUGS! We need to shake off the wrong lingo so we stand more WITH the whole TRUTH.
 
Mid-terms or NOT, I stand on the grounds THAT NOTHING IN THIS WORLD, OUR PLANET, AS HUMANS, NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE. IF YOU BELIEVE AND GET THE WORD AND WORDS OUT, PEOPLE WILL COME.

Send the right positive message, not messed up ways of the few people whom lke to screw it over, and people will see the long term direction as good over the evil of this push.

FREE THE WEED IS HOW I PUSH THE WORD. "FREE THE WEED" VOTE 2010.
:cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:

You may have heard there's a push to legalize marijuana in California. You may not have heard that it's for real.

Voting ballots in California this November will contain an initiative to legalize, tax, and regulate the sale of marijuana to adults 21 and older, and while this may sound like something that has no chance, whatsoever, of ever becoming law, the thing is: it actually might.

The organized campaign around this initiative is called Tax Cannabis, and it's the brainchild of marijuana entrepreneur Richard Lee. "Marijuana entrepreneur" sounds highly illegal, but, in California, where medical pot is sold unobstructed by the feds, it's not: Lee founded Oaksterdam University, a school that teaches how to grow marijuana and run a marijuana business, as chronicled by Josh Green in The Atlantic last April.

This was not, mind you, originally an effort of the national marijuana policy establishment, per se. According to conventional wisdom on initiatives like this one, 2012 would be a better year to dedicate resources to a marijuana legalization campaign: it's a presidential election year, and younger and marginal voters--voters who could be more sympathetic to legalizing pot--will come out to vote, whereas fewer people vote in the midterms. People who vote in midterms are more engaged in the process--if pollsters label respondents as "likely voters," then the midterm turnout is made up of are even likelier voters than the electorate in presidential years--the type of people who might not, typically, support an initiative like this one. So, much like in California's gay-marriage movement, there was some hesitation over whether 2010 was the right year to do this.

But Lee went ahead anyway, putting up money from Oaksterdam and another of his groups, marijuana provider S.K. Seymore, LLC, to obtain the 849,000 signatures needed to get on the November 2 ballot, with his donations comprising most of the roughly $1.3 million spent in 2009 on the petition drive.

Lee now has a a team of pros working for him as campaign consultants.

It includes Chris Lehane, the former Bill Clinton communications adviser and press secretary for Al Gore, both as VP and in the 2000 campaign; Dan Newman, whose firm SCN Strategies consults for Sen. Barbara Boxer's (D) reelection campaign and is heading up communications for Level the Playing Field 2010, the independent-expenditure campaign against multimillionaire GOP gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman; and Doug Linney of The Next Generation, a firm that has worked for state and local candidate campaigns, as well as major issue-advocacy drives and marijuana decriminalization/law-enforcement-prioritization efforts in California.

In short, this will be a legitimate campaign operation. Tax Cannabis is already airing a radio ad in the state's largest and most expensive media markets, L.A. and San Francisco, featuring a former law enforcement official.

"This isn't some...whim of a couple of hippies," said SCN's Dan Newman, who is handling communications for Tax Cannabis. "It's a serious, well crafted, well funded campaign that was put together very carefully and professionally run and hopes to win."

The campaign will do "everything that a winning campaign does," Newman said. That would mean radio ads, TV ads, volunteer and/or robo- phone calls, door-to-door canvasses, and direct mail. Newman would not specifically say which of those Tax Cannabis will do.

Messaging will focus heavily on invoking the support of former law enforcement officials, plus the argument that has driven so much media coverage around this push: estimates that legalizing and taxing marijuana could help California's crippled state budget to the tune of $1 billion, including tax revenue and less spending on law enforcement.

Where will the money come from to fund this campaign? Lee infused it with cash to get the signatures, but according to state financial disclosures, Tax Cannabis has only $32,000 in the bank. The only state-registered opposition group, called "Opposition to the California Marijuana Legalization Initiative (2010)," has not filed disclosure paperwork, so it is unclear how much money Tax Cannabis is up against.

The campaign is reaching out to a broad coalition of donors, Newman said, including an online fundraising operation and traditional political donors.

But the elephant in the room is this: Tax Cannabis has the support of the Drug Policy Alliance, one of several major, national-level drug-policy reform groups. On its board sits liberal super-donor George Soros.

Given how expensive it is to buy air time in the Golden State--L.A. is one of the nation's most expensive media markets--it's not uncommon for political campaigns to wait until a few weeks before Election Day to blast the radio and TV airwaves with a major media buy. And, because California places no limits on donations and spending on ballot initiatives, it is conceivable that if things look close down the stretch, and he felt so inclined, Soros could inject millions of dollars into this initiative.

Right now, the campaign is working to secure endorsements, and the language of the ballot initiative was crafted, Newman said, with an eye toward garnering a broad base of support. It does not simply legalize pot outright: it allows individual counties to regulate the sale and possession to adults over 21, which would likely create a similar effect as "dry counties," where alcohol can't be sold. It does not legalize possession of marijuana on school grounds, or driving while impaired. The entire proposition is posted here.

Reformers claim legalization is popular. A major public poll hasn't been conducted since April 2009, when Field showed 56% support out of 901 Californians polled. Newman says Tax Cannabis has conducted internal polls that show legalization polling in the mid-50s.

November is a long way off. Marijuana legalization gained significant traction in 2009, mostly because of California's budget crisis, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's suggestion that it be seriously discussed, the drug war happening in Mexico, and the finding of the Field poll.

Although Tax Cannabis is airing a radio ad, a public messaging campaign has yet to ramp up against legalizing pot. When it does--when both sides are conducting this fight in public--look for opinion to congeal either for the ballot initiative or against it.

Until then, legalized pot remains a possible outcome in November 2010.


NewsHawk: Ganjarden: 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: The Atlantic
Author: Chris Good
Contact: The Atlantic
Copyright: 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group
Website: The Push to Legalize Marijuana: It's Real
 
Somehow, I just can't see legalization as being bad in any way, shape or form when compared to the status quo.

We've gotten to where we are though the legal system, and now suddenly it's going to turn on us with some kind of hidden agenda? I think we should have a bit more faith in our fellow citizens, and follow the logical conclusion of the path we are on.

There will always be those who lose out in any change, especially one so massive. The black market will be utterly destroyed, and many money making relationships along with it. I doubt the status quo will change for medical users - there is already a legal framework, unless I'm missing something, this law does not change that.

To me, if a cannabis user votes against this law, it can only be for narrow self interest, disregarding the hundreds of thousands of your brother smokers currently doing battle with the legal system.
 
Somehow, I just can't see legalization as being bad in any way, shape or form when compared to the status quo.

We've gotten to where we are though the legal system, and now suddenly it's going to turn on us with some kind of hidden agenda? I think we should have a bit more faith in our fellow citizens, and follow the logical conclusion of the path we are on.

There will always be those who lose out in any change, especially one so massive. The black market will be utterly destroyed, and many money making relationships along with it. I doubt the status quo will change for medical users - there is already a legal framework, unless I'm missing something, this law does not change that.

To me, if a cannabis user votes against this law, it can only be for narrow self interest, disregarding the hundreds of thousands of your brother smokers currently doing battle with the legal system.

Self interests? I `m a seed vender(MC Seeds).This law would not effect my Biz at all! Maybe even help it? I`m still against this law because it WILL put more people in jail! What happends if you have more than an oz? What Happends if you smoke in public and a child is nearby? Yep plenty of people will still go to jail under this state law!!!! Don`t kid yourself any, this is just a dumb law inspired for money and born out of the belief a bunch of stoners wouldn`t be smart enough to apose a law labled `Legalization of Marijuana`! Read the law and then put your thinking caps on Brothers and Sisters! Don`t just buy into the hype! It`s only a fine of $100 in Cali if you get caught with one oz.$50 an oz.state and yet unknown amounts of local taxes per oz. if this law passes! It`s 100 % likely you will pay much more in taxes than you do in fines if this law passes! There is nothing in this law for the people!
 
It`s only a fine of $100 in Cali if you get caught with one oz.$50 an oz.state and yet unknown amounts of local taxes per oz. if this law passes! It`s 100 % likely you will pay much more in taxes than you do in fines if this law passes! There is nothing in this law for the people!

I guess I don't follow your logic - are you saying there are more penalties under the proposed law?
 
Back
Top Bottom