Voters Won't Approve Legal Pot Until Advocates Earn Their Trust

[Jim Finnel]

The defeat of Proposition 19, while disappointing, was neither unexpected nor surprising. The best strategic thinkers in the cannabis movement and the top political consultants all cautioned against placing Prop. 19 on the ballot this election cycle, and urged proponents to wait until the general election in 2012.

Now, the cannabis movement is asking, why did Prop. 19 lose? How did we go wrong, and what can we do about it?

The language and provisions of Prop. 19, which would have legalized cannabis for recreational use for people over 21, have been widely criticized and were admittedly less than perfect in the eyes of both cannabis consumers and the wary general public – but they were not the decisive factor in its defeat. The low turnout typical of midterm elections and young voters was no doubt a contributing factor, but also not decisive. And it's not clear that more funding would have made a difference – Prop. 19 backers exponentially outspent the opposition.

I believe at the root, California voters decided against Prop. 19 because they still are not convinced that cannabis can be legally distributed in a safe, seemly and responsible fashion. Voters will not welcome cannabis into their communities until it is demonstrated that it can be done in a way that is not threatening to the health and welfare of their families.

Poll after poll has established that Californians, like voters nationwide, overwhelmingly support medical cannabis – 70 percent nationwide in the latest Gallup poll. Public opinion surveys also consistently show that voters in California and nationwide are significantly less likely to approve of fully legal cannabis. I think these statistics indicate that voters are taking a wait-and-see approach.

If medical cannabis appears to work out well, they may consider further reform. If not, they may continue to have reservations about legalization. Since 1996, California voters have been watching our state's experiment with the legal distribution of medical cannabis. Unfortunately, the performance of this nascent industry has been spotty.

Cities like Oakland and Berkeley, which moved quickly to establish good faith regulation of medical cannabis, have been rewarded with responsible and trouble-free dispensaries. However, many jurisdictions either entirely failed to regulate dispensaries or bungled the process. The prime example is Los Angeles, where the City Council first delayed regulation and then failed to enforce its own regulations. Similar situations unfolded across the state, from San Diego to Richmond.

The result in the unregulated areas was an uncontrolled proliferation of entirely inappropriate dispensaries and related businesses. Shoddy and sometimes shady storefronts sprouted up, often in close proximity to schools or other sensitive locations. Over-saturation in the marketplace led to sleazy promotional strategies, like bikini-clad "nurses" on roller skates. Leaflets were distributed to school kids; neon cannabis leaf signs beckoned from downtown windows, and that which was intended for patients was forced on the public at large.

Many California voters understandably were soured by the experience.

Until these voters see that medical cannabis can be properly distributed in a way that brings benefits to communities, rather than harming them, they will not feel comfortable further extending access to cannabis. They will not authorize even more extensive cannabis sales until the existing medical cannabis system is healthy and functional.

In the wake of Prop. 19, the task of the cannabis movement is clear. Over the next two years, we must demonstrate to our fellow citizens that we are worthy of the trust we are asking for. We must develop and launch positive models of medical cannabis distribution. We must show California that cannabis can be cultivated and sold in a fashion that brings benefits to communities.

The cannabis reform movement should focus its efforts on passing reasonable, win-win regulation of medical cannabis sales in California jurisdictions that have not yet done so. In jurisdictions that have regulated medical cannabis, the movement must do everything it can to ensure that only legitimate and professional dispensaries are licensed and patronized.

When most Californians have directly experienced the civic benefits that result from well-regulated cannabis sales in their own jurisdictions, then the time will be ripe to ask them to expand access to all adult Californians. If we do not shrink from holding the mirror to our own community; if we equally insist on effective regulation and positive models of cannabis distribution; if we earn the trust of our fellow citizens, then our time will come in 2012.


NewsHawk: User: 420 MAGAZINE
Source: The Sacramento Bee
Author: Steve DeAngelo
Copyright: 2010 The Sacramento Bee
Contact: Contact Us - sacbee.com
Website: Viewpoints: Voters won't approve legal pot until advocates earn their trust - Sacramento Opinion - Sacramento Editorial | Sacramento Bee

 

[nottinghamtop]

Whats wrong with bikini-clad nurses?

 

[Odin]

Now, the cannabis movement is asking, why did Prop. 19 lose? How did we go wrong, and what can we do about it?

The language and provisions of Prop. 19, which would have legalized cannabis for recreational use for people over 21, have been widely criticized and were admittedly less than perfect in the eyes of both cannabis consumers and the wary general public – but they were not the decisive factor in its defeat. The low turnout typical of midterm elections and young voters was no doubt a contributing factor, but also not decisive. And it's not clear that more funding would have made a difference – Prop. 19 backers exponentially outspent the opposition.

I believe at the root, California voters decided against Prop. 19 because they still are not convinced that cannabis can be legally distributed in a safe, seemly and responsible fashion.

In my opinion, these are some of the main reasons why it failed. I also think there is a lot of unrest with the idea of mass comercialization of Cannabis. I think the people behind the advances made in Cannabis genetics in California are feeling like they going to get tossed out with the garbage when it becomes legalized.

In my opinion, the best start for a new law would include (and this is in a perfect world, but getting these ideas out is key to working towards better legislation):

Prohibition of massive commercial-sized grow ops. At least for the first couple years. I think creating an agency somewhat similar to the Organic Certification agencies that regulate organic food production would be a great start. They would certify who is allowed to grow organic, high quality Cannabis. They would issue grow certificates that would allow these growers to package and sell their product to retailers. They would ensure proper organic methods were being followed. They would collect taxes and fees on these farms, and whatever small (keyword small) taxes were placed on the product at the retail outlet. Etc, etc.

Anyone else that wanted to grow could do so glady, but if they did not have the proper paperwork to be a certified organic cannabis grower for market consumption, they could not distribute their product to retail outlets. Wether a $5000 Rule Exemption or similar rule be included, I dont know. Since there is substantially more profit in growing cannabis than growing potatos, I think it should not be included. Only licensed, inspected, and tax paying certified growers would be allowed to sell their product on the market.

This way, the Emerald Triangle and many other counties that have created the fabulous genetics we get to smoke today, aren't put out of business and the great strains they posess lost in the flood of commercial pot. If the small timers are not able to keep up with demand (I think they will have no problem keeping up) then down the road provisions can be made for more large scale, Budweiser type operations. Is this a perfect idea? Probably not, but I think these general ideas are by far the best way to go about it. I think instant comercialization is honestly a fucked up way to go about it. I support Microbreweries for example. Let the small time, microgrowers set the scene for the legal CA Cannabis market. A Napa valley type tourist attraction across the entire state will bring more interest, and do more to spread California legend, than a state covered in Coors style production. If comes to it, the mass produced stuff comes in later, it gives the small time more time to establish a name for themselves which in my mind is only fair to them. Without them, we'd all have been be smoking Mexican shwag for a loooong time.

With that said, no posession limits and no personal growing limits would also be musts. With an established system of regulating the organic Cannabis for mass consumption, YES there would still be the "Friend to friend" type deals going on but on a not-very-profitable level. I buy tons of organic produce from my friend without paying taxes, its not realistic to ever be able to regulate small time transactions like that Cannabis or otherwise.

The regulating agency needs to be established and fairly put together as part of the legislation. Fair, non-excessive taxes be established. Another key aspect would be pushing the Feds to reclassify Marijuana and work towards Federal level elimnation of its illegal status. With other states spring up with more MMJ, and more legalization efforts, the fire has been ignited and what we must do now is legalize it THE RIGHT WAY.

Collectivly we need to stop hoping for scraps and instead demand the whole platter. California is a trend setter, so lets set the morally correct and most honest trend we can.

 

[Dain Bramage]

i think it was not the right time for it to have been put to a vote,asked for it to soon, should have waited till 2012 and been smart about it.it is no longer a question of "if" but "when" it will be leagel

 

[LaManny]

i think it was not the right time for it to have been put to a vote,asked for it to soon, should have waited till 2012 and been smart about it.it is no longer a question of "if" but "when" it will be leagel

I couldn't agree more. The "messages" (actually, the interpretations) sent by voters across the United States were/are very misleading.
In an election with "referendum" written all over it, and with so many people hurting & furious in the US, this was not the best time to request any sort of liberal or "open-minded" attitude from the average voter.
It would have been much more appropriate and mature to practice a little patience on this one.
Instead, the concept is now tainted with (more) inaccurate ideas and false pretenses.
This could (and should) have been avoided.