420 Magazine says VOTE YES on PROP 19!

420

420

Founder
Today, hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are wasted enforcing the failed prohibition of cannabis (also known as marijuana). Currently, cannabis is easier for kids to get than alcohol. Prohibition has created a violent criminal market run by international drug cartels. Police waste valuable resources targeting non-violent cannabis consumers, while thousands of violent crimes go unsolved. And there is $14 billion in marijuana sales every year in California, but our debt-ridden state sees none of the revenue that would come from controlling and taxing it. Cannabis prohibition has failed.

We need a common sense approach to control and tax cannabis like alcohol.

Proposition 19 was carefully written, in order to:

* Control cannabis like alcohol, allowing adults 21 and over in California to possess up to one ounce of cannabis, to be consumed at home or licensed establishments
Click to expand...
* Give state and local governments the ability to tax the sale of cannabis for adult consumption
Click to expand...
* Put our police priorities where they belong, by ending the arrests of non-violent cannabis consumers, saving hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars a year and enabling police to focus on violent crime
Click to expand...
* Generate billions in annual revenue to fund what matters most in California: jobs, healthcare, public safety, parks, roads, transportation, and more
Click to expand...
* Cut off funding to violent drug cartels across our border who currently generate 60 percent of their revenue from the illegal U.S. marijuana market
Click to expand...
* Protect our kids, our roads, and our workplaces, by increasing the penalty for selling marijuana to minors, banning the smoking of marijuana in public, on school grounds, and while minors are present, maintaining strict criminal penalties for driving under the influence of marijuana, and preserving employers' rights to maintain drug-free workplaces
Click to expand...
* Protect medical cannabis patients' rights
Click to expand...

420 MAGAZINE says VOTE YES on PROP 19!
yeson19.com
 
For far too long Baby Boomers have sat by and let the powers to be call the shots,but today we can make our voices be heard at the polls;so come-on people lets get off our butts and make a vote that can for once,really make a difference!!!
 
Nice! But why did 420 mag wait till today to support it?
 
A Letter To The Undecided Prop 19

I'm not asking you to condone marijuana. I'm asking you to accept the fact that arresting people for marijuana has not decreased the use of marijuana.

If you worry about young people using marijuana, growing more rebellious, and becoming lost - the fact that policing marijuana has failed will be upsetting. However, if we cannot accept the glaring fact that law enforcement has failed to control the distribution and use of marijuana, then we risk punishing hundreds and thousands of people, and spending hundreds of millions of dollars, unnecessarily.

In New York City the police increased arrests for marijuana by about ten fold in the last fifteen years. New York City Police arrested about five hundred thousand people for marijuana possession since 2000. Meanwhile, marijuana use rates remained consistent. Arresting more people for marijuana did not make less people smoke marijuana.

In California, medical marijuana was legalized in 1996. However, a study by the Attorney General's office showed that - after medical marijuana - rates of marijuana use actually decreased among young people. Legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes did not cause more people to smoke marijuana - if anything it caused less people to smoke marijuana.

Finally, the Dutch have allowed the sale and personal use of marijuana to adults for 30 years and they have use rates far below those in America. A country that does not arrest, or ticket people for marijuana has lower rates of use then our country.

These examples show that America's law enforcement has failed to control marijuana's availability or rates of use. The Police can make our society safer but not by arresting people for marijuana possession.

The silver lining to the story of law enforcement's failure is that we no longer need police to waste time on marijuana possession. We can safely predict that removing law enforcement from California's marijuana policy would not cause more use. If the Netherlands and California's experiment with medical marijuana are an indicator then marijuana use could in fact go down after legalization.

Employing law enforcement to control marijuana costs California too much. In the last ten years 850,000 people were arrested for marijuana possession in California and most of them were young. Getting arrested is traumatic, has long term consequences, arrest patterns are racially biased, and it all costs the state money.

People sitting on the fence about proposition 19 remind me of people stuck in dysfunctional relationships. They know they should end the relationship but are plagued with anxiety about the future. I've tried to relieve some fear about legalization so that you might understand more clearly how futile and destructive marijuana prohibition is and why it should be ended. Prop 19 is down in the polls but the race is close. Please go end the states dysfunctional relationship with marijuana prohibition.


NewsHawk: MedicalNeed:420 MAGAZINE
Source:huffingtonpost.com
Author: Jesse Levine
Contact: Contact us
Copyright: 2010 HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
Website:Jesse Levine: A Letter to the Undecided: Prop 19
 
Cut Through Misinformation On Prop. 19

The biggest problem voters have when considering how to use their votes in a meaningful way is misinformation. After reading Dick Dickerson's opinion in Monday's Record Searchlight, I thought it would serve our community to know the facts as opposed to opinions and beliefs about Proposition 19. I have no doubt that Councilman Dickerson's motives are good; it is just that his understanding of this issue is founded on inaccurate information.

First, like many propositions, Proposition 19 is not meant to be definitive in itself. If passed, Proposition 19 would have to be codified into the existing law. That means that the state would have to create guidelines to "regulate, tax and control" the use of and sale of small amounts of marijuana to adults. After the state creates these guidelines and laws, the proposition is designed to allow local governments the right to decide how that happens in our communities. Some communities are already planning on how to regulate locally. A majority of voters understand the negative aspects to marijuana prohibition far outweigh the few problems with the controlled, partial legalization of marijuana that Proposition 19 would create.

Contrary to the beliefs of some, studies show that prohibition and ever-more-costly law enforcement efforts in this area have failed miserably for 40 years. Not only has usage not gone down and availability to high school-aged children not been significantly reduced, but criminalization of youths for minor drug offenses has gone up markedly. Considering the huge "black hole" our prison system has become, partial legalization accomplished by Proposition 19 would limit the criminalization of individuals for nonviolent, victimless cannabis use.

Dickerson brings up usage and potency as reasons to not pass Proposition 19. The facts support the conclusion of Dr. Evan Wood, founder of the International Centre for Science in Drug Policy ( International Centre for Science in Drug Policy - ICSDP ): "No scientific evidence demonstrates an association between the amount of money governments spend on drug law enforcement and rates of drug use. ... And some nations like the U.S., which spend the most have among the highest rates of drug use." Though costs of drug law enforcement have gone up by 600 percent in the past 30 years, marijuana usage among 12th-graders has increased from 27 percent in 1990 to 32 percent in 2008. Scientific evidence indicates marijuana potency has increased one and a half times since 1981; that makes regulation of potency or labeling of products an area that local government could control under the new laws.

Dr. Wood goes on to state, "Legalization and strict regulation are more likely to be effective at eliminating the role of organized crime in marijuana production and distribution, because the profit motive is effectively removed." In other words, the drug cartels won't be able to turn a profit in California if Proposition 19 passes. There is absolutely no evidence to support Dickerson's belief that "illegal cultivation of marijuana will not only continue, but also expand."

It is also misleading to say, "California is currently the major source for marijuana for the nation," when Mexico and Canada are the sources of most U.S. marijuana. The former president of Mexico, Vicente Fox, stated, "We should consider legalizing the production, distribution and sale of drugs ... [W]e have to see it as a strategy to strike and break the economic structure that allows the mafias to generate huge profits in their business."

Proposition 19 is a sensible approach to treat marijuana much the same way we treat alcohol and tobacco. It is not some horrible threat to our community; laws to protect minors and the workplace will remain in place. Alcohol prohibition didn't work and helped create one of the most dangerous and lawless times in our history, when gangs led by people like Al Capone ruled city streets. How did we end that era? We did it by repealing the laws prohibiting its use and creating strict local regulation and taxation.

Contrary to what Dickerson would have you believe, alcohol, tobacco and caffeine are all more toxic, addictive and deadly than marijuana. Criminalization of drugs has failed, and most countries have learned that treating drugs as a health problem makes far more sense. Proposition 19 is a step in the right direction. As the retired chief of police for San Jose, Joseph D. McNamara, proclaimed, "Alcohol and tobacco are far more dangerous drugs than cannabis, but no one is being killed in an alcohol or cigarette black market because those drugs are legal, regulated and taxed."

Facts indicate Proposition 19 just makes sense. Vote yes on 19.


NewsHawk: User: 420 MAGAZINE
Source: Record Searchlight (Redding, CA)
Copyright: 2010 Record Searchlight
Contact: letters@redding.com
Website: Redding Record Searchlight: Local Redding, California News Delivered Throughout the Day.
Details: MapInc
Author: Doug Bennett
Note: Doug Bennett is the Shasta Tehama Trinity Chapter representative for the ACLU of Northern California.
 
It may look grim in the polls right now for this passing, but the numbers that do support it are HUGE. It is a major milestone for our elected (and future hopefuls) to consider. A large percentage of our population is in favor of decriminalizing or outright legalizing MJ. This is a test bed for the world to see that those in favor of legalizing are a huge lobby. A giant lobby is how change is achieved. Do not think this is a last ditch effort in the least. Stand up and be counted, talk to those that oppose it about why cannabis is illegal in the first place. A smaller lobby than this got congress to prohibit it in the first place. I hope when the polls close today, either way the election goes, there is a huge cloud of smoke hanging over all of California, or perhaps even the world. The government should not be involved in an adults decision to ingest a harmless plant that has been used for thousands of years and only illegal for a few because of special interest.
 
Prop. 19's Legal Marijuana Could Improve Safety

For most California voters, Proposition 19 is a state initiative that would make recreational marijuana use legal, but I think the plan has social benefits that go well beyond legal pot parties.

In the long run, a successful November run at the polls could provide a public safety payoff in low-income communities where street-drug dealing qualifies as a thriving commercial enterprise.

The residual effect of drug-dealing is violence, which has decimated the communities where the drugs are sold. Generations of families have been lost to the cycle of drugs and violence and profits that, for some, are worth risking their lives over.

If there is a new law that holds even a chance of cutting drug profits and gun money from local drug kingpins and foreign suppliers, it's worth a try.

Last month, Pleasant Hill Police Chief Pete Dunbar told The Chronicle's editorial board that violence associated with street sales of marijuana made it "the most violent drug of all."

If that's the case, and there's no reason to doubt Dunbar's assessment, then why not control and regulate the market? I can't count how many times I've heard politicians and police officials say that society cannot "arrest its way out of high crime rates."

Most economists will tell you that as a commodity becomes more available, its value falls. So why not use government regulation to distribute and control the price to undercut illegal marijuana sales right out of existence.

Do you think the speakeasy bars thrived after Prohibition was repealed?

As the argument in favor goes, those reduced costs are passed down the chain, from the criminal justice system to police investigations to criminal trial proceedings.

Already there is a growing number of marijuana-related private businesses preparing to provide the consumer with a litany of home-grow aids and equipment should the California law pass - and eventually be adopted in other states.

In such a transformation, the profit to be earned from dealing drugs on the street may just not be worth risking lives over. And that is a cost savings that can be calculated in communities regaining control of parks, neighborhood stores and their front porches in the evenings. And in the poorest communities, where drug and gang culture dominate the landscape, it can be calculated in human life.

At least 14 states and the District of Columbia now approve some form of medical marijuana use, and California has been moving closer to legalization of recreational use for nearly a decade. While Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger opposes the measure, he signed a bill last month reducing possession of less than 1 ounce of the drug to an infraction - the equivalent of a parking ticket.

If possession of less than an ounce is no more serious than a parking ticket, it seems imprudent for state lawmakers - and law enforcement agencies - to continue spending billions of dollars annually to halt illegal sales and use.

There are concerns that teens will have greater access to the drug if it's legalized - but it strains the imagination to consider how that would be possible. Teens who want to score some pot have myriad ways to accomplish the task, including obtaining a medical card and buying the drug at a locally regulated dispensary. There are hundreds of them across the Bay Area.

Marijuana is also the state's No. 1 cash crop, and greater local production reduces the need for smuggling efforts outside the country. Nearly a dozen cities, including Albany, Oakland and San Jose, have local measures to tax pot on the November ballot.

In Oakland, medical marijuana sales are already one of the city's biggest sources of sales tax revenue, and a city-sponsored ballot measure proposes increasing by nearly 3 times the current tax rate of 18 percent on every $1000 in sales.

California could borrow a page from a few Midwestern states where purchasing a bottle of liquor still requires a trip to a state-operated retail store. Every identification card is checked - a ticket recording the purchase is required - and no children are allowed.

I don't favor Prop 19 for the recreation and leisure it promises, but for more important reasons.


NewsHawk: MedicalNeed:420 MAGAZINE
Source:yeson19.com
Author: Chip Johnson
Contact: Contact us | yeson19.com
Copyright: Yes on 19. Tax Cannabis 2010
Website:yeson19.com
 
California’s Prop 19: A Word-For-Word Analysis

I’ve spent the evening reading various blogs that have sprouted up in opposition to Proposition 19, California’s effort to legalize marijuana this November. These “Stoners Against Legalization” blogs confound me; they remind me of Sam Kinison’s line comparing “Rock Against Drugs” to “Christians Against Christ”.

Some of these blogs are based on the notion that legalization would be worse than “what we have now”. The assumption there is that if you smoke marijuana in California, you must already have your Prop 215 recommendation from a doctor, and you’d be losing your rights under Prop 19.

Most marijuana smokers, believe it or not, are healthy and aren’t comfortable spending money for a doctor to give them permission to use cannabis. Currently we face a ticket, fine, and misdemeanor drug conviction record for possession an ounce or less of cannabis. That record prevents us from getting student aid and can cost us our jobs, child custody, and housing, or if we’re on probation, our freedom. (Even if California succeeds at downgrading possession to an infraction from a misdemeanor, a $100 ticket is a lot of money to some people!) We face a felony charge if we grow even one plant at home. For us, Prop 19 is much better than “what we have now”.

Another thing that appears in some of these blogs is outright misinformation, such as talk of a $50/ounce state tax (it’s not in the initiative; that was Ammiano’s bill) or that it would supersede Prop 215 (it wouldn’t, and Prop 19 even references Prop 215 in its language, so it couldn’t). Others play up the “millionaires”, “big corporations”, and “monopolies” that would be created and the earnest Emerald Triangle family growers who’d be put out of business (which amuses me: Prop 19 allows localities to regulate sales, so why wouldn’t Humboldt, Trinity, and Mendocino county residents whose economy depends on pot sales lobby really hard to get legalized pot sales OK’d in those counties and cities within, and regulated in a way that protects the small grower?)

Two notable sticking points have to do with minors below 21: Prop 19 creates a new crime in being an adult over 21 who gives marijuana to adults aged 18-20 and Prop 19 forbids adults over 21 from smoking where minors are present. Prop 19’s penalties in the first situation mirror the penalties for giving alcohol to 18-20-year-olds, but, yes, it is disturbing to create a new statute that calls for jail time over marijuana. It’s also questionable whether an adult should be punished for smoking pot if their child can see them – we don’t even require that of alcohol and tobacco.

But are these reason enough to continue ruining the lives of people 21 and older? Besides, if you’re over 21 smoking with some 18-year-olds or in front of some minors, and you’re doing it inside your home, who is to know? And if you’re 18-20, wouldn’t you love being legal in 1 to 3 years?

Because the biggest thing Prop 19 does, the forest that these blogs are missing for the trees, is LEGALIZE ADULT MARIJUANA CULTIVATION AND POSSESSION.

Even under Prop 215, the adult cannabis consumer is guilty of being a criminal unless proven innocent as a patient. When Prop 19 passes, the adult cannabis consumer is considered innocent until proven guilty. It is a complete game changer for law enforcement, because:

* the smell of marijuana on your person is no longer probable cause to search you;
* that joint in your pocket means nothing;
* the seizure of stems, leaves, and seeds from your trash is irrelevant;
* a couple of baggies with weed residue in them are just garbage;
* the sight of that bong on your table visible through the kitchen window isn’t a “welcome” mat for a police search;
* your utility bills raising a bit for water and lights don’t matter;
* your neighbors smelling skunky plants is just a nuisance, not the source for an “anonymous tip”;
* receipts for lights, soil, fertilizer, ballasts, trimmers, and stuff are meaningless;
* infrared signatures of your home aren’t evidence of anything;
* marijuana sniffing K-9 units are out of a job; and
* pre-employment drug testing programs become harder for businesses to maintain for cannabis.

Basically, one of the simplest tools law enforcement has for harassing cannabis consumers – the sight and smell of cannabis and paraphernalia – is no longer in the tool belt. As long as you’re an adult, keep your grow in a 5′x5′ area, don’t smoke in front of kids, and don’t leave the house with over an ounce, you are free from police harassment.

And even if you don’t follow the law perfectly, who’s to know? If you’re pulled over and there’s an ounce and a half in your backpack, how does that cop know? Does it “smell heavy” in your car? So long as you refuse a search, how will he know? The smell of pot isn’t cause for a search; you’re allowed to have an ounce of it.

If you have a 10′x10′ garden, who’s to know? Is the electric bill that much higher? Does the garden smell more (probably not at all if you build a good grow room)? Plus don’t forget that you’re allowed to have more than one ounce, namely, any amount that you grow within your 5′x5′ garden, at the location of the garden. I think by the time law enforcement came back with a warrant to investigate how big my garden is, three-fourths of it would be cut down and I would suddenly have my 5′x5′ garden and my hanging plants from the last 5′x5′ area I harvested.

Suppose there is four pounds of marijuana at my house. Why, officer, that’s the results from my last legal 5′x5′ personal garden harvest. What, you don’t see any 5′x5′ growing space? Well, I used to grow, but I took down my garden and sold my equipment after my last harvest. Why, yes, they were some pretty big plants. No, I didn’t take any pictures, because what I was doing was perfectly legal. (Prop 19 also has a nice affirmative defense to claim the marijuana in your home was for your personal use. These blogs never seem to notice that.)

So below I’ve decided to write a word-for-word analysis of Prop 19, mainly because it seems like many of the people against it have never read it. Standard disclaimer: I am no lawyer… hell, I’m not even a college graduate.

Proposition 19: The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010

Title and Summary:

Changes California Law to Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be Regulated and Taxed. Initiative Statute.

Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. Permits local governments to regulate and tax commercial production and sale of marijuana to people 21 years old or older. Prohibits people from possessing marijuana on school grounds, using it in public, smoking it while minors are present, or providing it to anyone under 21 years old. Maintains current prohibitions against driving while impaired. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Savings of up to several tens of millions of dollars annually to state and local governments on the costs of incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. Unknown but potentially major tax, fee, and benefit assessment revenues to state and local government related to the production and sale of marijuana products.

If you’re over 21, your personal pot use and cultivation are legal. Some places may even let you buy and sell it. You still can’t smoke it at school, in public, and with kids. Don’t drive stoned. We might even save and raise some money while we’re at it.

Section 1: Name
This Act shall be known as the “Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010.”

Or, simply, “Prop 19″.

Section 2: Findings, Intent and Purposes
This Act, adopted by the People of the State of California, makes the following Findings and Statement of Intent and Purpose:
A. Findings
1. California’s laws criminalizing cannabis (marijuana) have failed and need to be reformed. Despite spending decades arresting millions of non-violent cannabis consumers, we have failed to control cannabis or reduce its availability.
2. According to surveys, roughly 100 million Americans (around 1/3 of the country’s population) acknowledge that they have used cannabis, 15 million of those Americans having consumed cannabis in the last month. Cannabis consumption is simply a fact of life for a large percentage of Americans.
3. Despite having some of the strictest cannabis laws in the world, the United States has the largest number of cannabis consumers. The percentage of our citizens who consume cannabis is double that of the percentage of people who consume cannabis in the Netherlands, a country where the selling and adult possession of cannabis is allowed.
4. According to The National Research Council’s recent study of the 11 U.S. states where cannabis is currently decriminalized, there is little apparent relationship between severity of sanctions and the rate of consumption.
5. Cannabis has fewer harmful effects than either alcohol or cigarettes, which are both legal for adult consumption. Cannabis is not physically addictive, does not have long term toxic effects on the body, and does not cause its consumers to become violent.
6. There is an estimated $15 billion in illegal cannabis transactions in California each year. Taxing and regulating cannabis, like we do with alcohol and cigarettes, will generate billions of dollars in annual revenues for California to fund what matters most to Californians: jobs, health care, schools and libraries, roads, and more.
7. California wastes millions of dollars a year targeting, arresting, trying, convicting, and imprisoning non-violent citizens for cannabis related offenses. This money would be better used to combat violent crimes and gangs.
8. The illegality of cannabis enables for the continuation of an out-of-control criminal market, which in turn spawns other illegal and often violent activities. Establishing legal, regulated sales outlets would put dangerous street dealers out of business.

Prohibition’s bad, mmmkay? It doesn’t work, wastes money, and creates crime. This Act will be a first step in ending that.

B. Purposes
1. Reform California’s cannabis laws in a way that will benefit our state.
2. Regulate cannabis like we do alcohol: Allow adults to possess and consume small amounts of cannabis.
3. Implement a legal regulatory framework to give California more control over the cultivation, processing, transportation, distribution, and sales of cannabis.
4. Implement a legal regulatory framework to better police and prevent access to and consumption of cannabis by minors in California.

News flash: most people, especially non-cannabis consumers, think it is a bad idea for kids to use cannabis.

5. Put dangerous, underground street dealers out of business, so their influence in our communities will fade.
6. Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes.

One blogger suggested that this point #6 would be enough for the courts to assume that the people meant Prop 19 to supersede patients’ medical rights under Prop 215, also known as California Health & Safety Code #11362.5. Somehow, #6 means that Prop 215 patients would suddenly be limited to 5′x5′ gardens and an ounce of medicine. Which seems odd to me, when you read further in #7 below…

7. Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city’s limits remain illegal, but that the city’s citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.

…where they are saying that if your city doesn’t allow cannabis sales, you can still possess your one ounce, except if you’re permitted more than that under Prop 215 (11362.5). How could any court think that #6 means all of Prop 19 supersedes Prop 215 when a nullified Prop 215 means #7 is granting an exception that wouldn’t exist if it were superseded?

8. Ensure that if a city decides it does want to tax and regulate the buying and selling of cannabis (to and from adults only), that a strictly controlled legal system is implemented to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales, and that the city will have control over how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.

If a city does allow cannabis sales it can regulate how much you buy and sell, except if you’re permitted more than that under Prop 215 (11362.5)… you know, the part that #6 supposedly supersedes.

9. Tax and regulate cannabis to generate billions of dollars for our state and local governments to fund what matters most: jobs, healthcare, schools and libraries, parks, roads, transportation, and more.

Well, that’s a lovely premise, but nothing controls how these governments would spend the money. But since were talking about local governments, not the state, there will be more local control and pressure over how local marijuana money is spent.

10. Stop arresting thousands of non-violent cannabis consumers, freeing up police resources and saving millions of dollars each year, which could be used for apprehending truly dangerous criminals and keeping them locked up, and for other essential state needs that lack funding.

Well, people consuming less than an ounce are only getting tickets, not arrests, but still there are arrests for possessing more than an ounce at home and for growing any amount at home.

11. Allow the Legislature to adopt a statewide regulatory system for a commercial cannabis industry.
12. Make cannabis available for scientific, medical, industrial, and research purposes.
13. Permit California to fulfill the state’s obligations under the United States Constitution to enact laws concerning health, morals, public welfare and safety within the State.
14. Permit the cultivation of small amounts of cannabis for personal consumption.

C. Intent
1. This Act is intended to limit the application and enforcement of state and local laws relating to possession, transportation, cultivation, consumption and sale of cannabis, including but not limited to the following, whether now existing or adopted in the future: Health and Safety Code sections 11014.5 and 11364.5 [relating to drug paraphernalia]; 11054 [relating to cannabis or tetrahydrocannabinols]; 11357 [relating to possession]; 11358 [relating to cultivation]; 11359 [possession for sale]; 11360 [relating to transportation and sales]; 11366 [relating to maintenance of places]; 11366.5 [relating to use of property]; 11370 [relating to punishment]; 11470 [relating to forfeiture]; 11479 [relating to seizure and destruction]; 11703 [relating to definitions regarding illegal substances]; 11705 [actions for use of illegal controlled substance]; Vehicle Code sections 23222 and 40000.15 [relating to possession].

This Act will legalize cannabis possession, transportation, cultivation, consumption, and sale of cannabis to some extent…

2. This Act is not intended to affect the application or enforcement of the following state laws relating to public health and safety or protection of children and others: Health and Safety Code sections 11357 [relating to possession on school grounds]; 11361 [relating to minors as amended herein]; 11379.6 [relating to chemical production]; 11532 [relating to loitering to commit a crime or acts not authorized by law]; Vehicle Code section 23152 [relating to driving while under the influence]; Penal Code section 272 [relating to contributing to the delinquency of a minor]; nor any law prohibiting use of controlled substances in the workplace or by specific persons whose jobs involve public safety.

…except where it concerns kids, schools, and driving or working high.

Section 3: Lawful Activities
Article 5 of Chapter 5 of Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code, commencing with section 11300 is added to read:
Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to:
(i) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual’s personal consumption, and not for sale.

If you’re 21 or older, you can have an ounce of weed on you, out in public, and share it with your 21 and older friends.

(ii) Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel. Cultivation on leased or rented property may be subject to approval from the owner of the property. Provided that, nothing in this section shall permit unlawful or unlicensed cultivation of cannabis on any public lands.

You can grow a 25 sq ft marijuana garden in your home or on your land. You might have to get your landlord’s permission if you’re renting.

(iii) Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of any harvest and processing of plants lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii), for personal consumption.

Whatever you harvest at home in your 25 sq ft garden, you can keep at home. Not just one ounce, the whole harvest. No time limit. If you harvest a pound every three months and have a stash of twelve pounds after four years, and you’re not selling, that pot is all yours and perfectly legit.

(iv) Possess objects, items, tools, equipment, products and materials associated with activities permitted under this subsection.

Your bongs are now legal, too.

(b) “Personal consumption” shall include but is not limited to possession and consumption, in any form, of cannabis in a residence or other non-public place, and shall include licensed premises open to the public authorized to permit on-premises consumption of cannabis by a local government pursuant to section 11301.

“In any form” = hash, edibles, tinctures. You’ve got to consume in a non-public place, unless your city is cool and allows public consumption in certain places. (Hello, hash bar!)

(c) “Personal consumption” shall not include, and nothing in this Act shall permit cannabis:
(i) possession for sale regardless of amount, except by a person who is licensed or permitted to do so under the terms of an ordinance adopted pursuant to section 11301;
(ii) consumption in public or in a public place;
(iii) consumption by the operator of any vehicle, boat or aircraft while it is being operated, or that impairs the operator;
(iv) smoking cannabis in any space while minors are present.

You can’t sell it without a license, smoke in public, smoke while driving, boating, or flying, or smoke around kids.

Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls
Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following:

Local governments can regulate commercial sales. It is very important that this initiative didn’t force the State of California to regulate commercial sales, which could have hung this initiative up in court for putting California in “positive conflict” with the federal prohibition. Here, California isn’t doing anything about sales… literally. California is saying, “if Berkeley wants to allow weed selling, we won’t stop them.”

(a) cultivation, processing, distribution, the safe and secure transportation, sale and possession for sale of cannabis, but only by persons and in amounts lawfully authorized;
(b) retail sale of not more than one ounce per transaction, in licensed premises, to persons 21 years or older, for personal consumption and not for resale;
(c) appropriate controls on cultivation, transportation, sales, and consumption of cannabis to strictly prohibit access to cannabis by persons under the age of 21;
(d) age limits and controls to ensure that all persons present in, employed by, or in any way involved in the operation of, any such licensed premises are 21 or older;

If a city wants to legalize sales, it can only be up to an ounce per transaction and everybody involved has to be 21 or older.

(e) consumption of cannabis within licensed premises;

A city can license bars and coffee shops to allow on-site toking, as well as the retail marijuana stores.

(f) safe and secure transportation of cannabis from a licensed premises for cultivation or processing, to a licensed premises for sale or on-premises consumption of cannabis;
(g) prohibit and punish through civil fines or other remedies the possession, sale, possession for sale, cultivation, processing, or transportation of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully from a person pursuant to this section or section 11300;

A city can punish you for getting cannabis illegally. You can grow your own or you can buy it from a licensed store. You and your friends can share what you grow, up to an ounce each.

(h) appropriate controls on licensed premises for sale, cultivation, processing, or sale and on-premises consumption, of cannabis, including limits on zoning and land use, locations, size, hours of operation, occupancy, protection of adjoining and nearby properties and persons from unwanted exposure, advertising, signs and displays, and other controls necessary for protection of the public health and welfare;

A city could limit a pot store’s locations, hours, size, advertising, and keep them away from other businesses.

(i) appropriate environmental and public health controls to ensure that any licensed premises minimizes any harm to the environment, adjoining and nearby landowners, and persons passing by;

A city could make you control the smoke and smell and make you be polite to nearby businesses and locals.

(j) appropriate controls to restrict public displays, or public consumption of cannabis;
(k) appropriate taxes or fees pursuant to section 11302;

A city can tax marijuana and keep it out of public view.

(l) such larger amounts as the local authority deems appropriate and proper under local circumstances, than those established under section 11300(a) for personal possession and cultivation, or under this section for commercial cultivation, processing, transportation and sale by persons authorized to do so under this section;

A city might decide you are allowed to grow more than a 5′x5′ garden and possess more than an ounce for personal consumption. And maybe they decide you can buy and sell more than an ounce at a time. Hooray!

(m) any other appropriate controls necessary for protection of the public health and welfare.

Section 11302: Imposition and Collection of Taxes and Fees
(a) Any ordinance, regulation or other act adopted pursuant to section 11301 may include imposition of appropriate general, special or excise, transfer or transaction taxes, benefit assessments, or fees, on any activity authorized pursuant to such enactment, in order to permit the local government to raise revenue, or to recoup any direct or indirect costs associated with the authorized activity, or the permitting or licensing scheme, including without limitation: administration; applications and issuance of licenses or permits; inspection of licensed premises and other enforcement of ordinances adopted under section 11301, including enforcement against unauthorized activities.

Cities can tax cannabis and create fees for licensing and can use that to cover the costs of enforcing the law.

(b) Any licensed premises shall be responsible for paying all federal, state and local taxes, fees, fines, penalties or other financial responsibility imposed on all or similarly situated businesses, facilities or premises, including without limitation income taxes, business taxes, license fees, and property taxes, without regard to or identification of the business or items or services sold.

Licensed cannabis businesses have to pay their taxes.

Section 11303: Seizure

(a) Notwithstanding sections 11470 and 11479 of the Health and Safety Code or any other provision of law, no state or local law enforcement agency or official shall attempt to, threaten to, or in fact seize or destroy any cannabis plant, cannabis seeds or cannabis that is lawfully cultivated, processed, transported, possessed, possessed for sale, sold or used in compliance with this Act or any local government ordinance, law or regulation adopted pursuant to this Act.

Cops cannot take your plants or your weed if you’re obeying the law.

Section 11304: Effect of Act and Definitions
(a) This Act shall not be construed to affect, limit or amend any statute that forbids impairment while engaging in dangerous activities such as driving, or that penalizes bringing cannabis to a school enrolling pupils in any grade from kindergarten through 12, inclusive.

You can’t smoke pot while doing something dangerous. You can’t bring pot to school.

(b) Nothing in this Act shall be construed or interpreted to permit interstate or international transportation of cannabis. This Act shall be construed to permit a person to transport cannabis in a safe and secure manner from a licensed premises in one city or county to a licensed premises in another city or county pursuant to any ordinances adopted in such cities or counties, notwithstanding any other state law or the lack of any such ordinance in the intervening cities or counties.

You can’t take your weed out of state or out of the country. But you can take it from one legal place to another, even if the places in-between aren’t legal.

(c) No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this Act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301 of this Act. Provided however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected.

This is a big one. You can’t be punished or denied privileges based on pot smoking. The only exception is employers preventing you from smoking pot on the job. Note the “actually impairs job performance” language. This is the loophole through which some attorney is going to drive a big truck delivering us freedom from workplace pee testing for cannabis. Pee test metabolites do not prove workplace impairment.

(d) Definitions
For purposes of this Act:
(i) “Marijuana” and “cannabis” are interchangeable terms that mean all parts of the plant Genus Cannabis, whether growing or not; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; concentrated cannabis; edible products containing same; and every active compound, manufacture, derivative, or preparation of the plant, or resin.

Hemp is also in Genus Cannabis. Cities could legalize industrial hemp production. Hash, hash oil, and edibles are all legal, too.

(ii) “One ounce” means 28.5 grams.

We just got an extra 0.15 grams… because an ounce is really 28.3495231 grams.

(iii) For purposes of section 11300(a)(ii) “cannabis plant” means all parts of a living Cannabis plant.
(iv) In determining whether an amount of cannabis is or is not in excess of the amounts permitted by this Act, the following shall apply:
(a) only the active amount of the cannabis in an edible cannabis product shall be included;

So the ounce in your plate of brownies is still only an ounce, not the pound that the brownies weigh.

(b) living and harvested cannabis plants shall be assessed by square footage, not by weight in determining the amounts set forth in section 11300(a);

Your plants, in the ground or freshly cut and hanging, don’t count against the one ounce that you can have on your person. So long as the plants fit in 25 sq ft, you’re golden. Since you can already have the fruits of your harvest at home, the fact that this also means your plants don’t count against your home weight is irrelevant

(c) in a criminal proceeding a person accused of violating a limitation in this Act shall have the right to an affirmative defense that the cannabis was reasonably related to his or her personal consumption.

Even if you have a whole lot of marijuana, you still have a defense in court that your marijuana was for your own personal consumption.

(v) “residence” means a dwelling or structure, whether permanent or temporary, on private or public property, intended for occupation by a person or persons for residential purposes, and includes that portion of any structure intended for both commercial and residential purposes.

Since “residence” could have more than one occupant, but each “residence” only gets one 5′x5′ garden, this is a minor issue in a multi-roommate situation. But even sharing the garden, it is more garden than they are allowed to grow now.

(vi) “local government” means a city, county, or city and county.
(vii) “licensed premises” is any commercial business, facility, building, land or area that has a license, permit or is otherwise authorized to cultivate, process, transport, sell, or permit on-premises consumption, of cannabis pursuant to any ordinance or regulation adopted by a local government pursuant to section 11301, or any subsequently enacted state statute or regulation.

Section 4: Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors
Section 11361 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:
Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors
(a) Every person 18 years of age or over who hires, employs, or uses a minor in transporting, carrying, selling, giving away, preparing for sale, or peddling any marijuana, who unlawfully sells, or offers to sell, any marijuana to a minor, or who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give any marijuana to a minor under 14 years of age, or who induces a minor to use marijuana in violation of law shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, five, or seven years.
(b) Every person 18 years of age or over who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give, any marijuana to a minor 14 years of age or older shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, four, or five years.

These first two sections confuse many readers as they think these are all new additions to law. Parts (a) and (b) are the parts of the law as they already exist. Only (c) and (d) are the new portions:

(c) Every person 21 years of age or over who knowingly furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer or give, any marijuana to a person aged 18 years or older, but younger than 21 years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of up to six months and be fined up to $1,000 for each offense.

This is the one section that gets a lot of attention. Currently, the punishment for a “gift” of marijuana from a 21+ to a 18-20 is a citation and $100 fine. Now it will be six months and $1,000.

But this is the punishment in California for providing alcohol to 18-20s. Politically, initiative backers had to face the fact that “What About the Children?!?” is one of the few compelling arguments the opposition has left. No initiative that legalizes for 18-year-olds – many of whom are still in high school – has a prayer of passing yet.

(d) In addition to the penalties above, any person who is licensed, permitted or authorized to perform any act pursuant to Section 11301, who while so licensed, permitted or authorized, negligently furnishes, administers, gives or sells, or offers to furnish, administer, give or sell, any marijuana to any person younger than 21 years of age shall not be permitted to own, operate, be employed by, assist or enter any licensed premises authorized under Section 11301 for a period of one year.

If you own or work in a pot store and your marijuana gets in the hands of someone under 21, you can’t own, work in, or even go to any pot store for a year.

Section 5: Amendment
Pursuant to Article 2, section 10(c) of the California Constitution, this Act may be amended either by a subsequent measure submitted to a vote of the People at a statewide election; or by statute validly passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, but only to further the purposes of the Act. Such permitted amendments include but are not limited to:

The people, through initiative, or the legislature, through bills, can amend this Act, but only to better define what we said this Act was about in the Purposes above, or to…

(a) Amendments to the limitations in section 11300, which limitations are minimum thresholds and the Legislature may adopt less restrictive limitations.

Nobody can make your one ounce and 5′x5′ garden smaller, but the state could give you more.

(b) Statutes and authorize regulations to further the purposes of the Act to establish a statewide regulatory system for a commercial cannabis industry that addresses some or all of the items referenced in Sections 11301 and 11302.

The state could set up a statewide cannabis industry.

(c) Laws to authorize the production of hemp or non-active cannabis for horticultural and industrial purposes.

The state could get serious about industrial hemp production.

Section 6: Severability
If any provision of this measure or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the measure that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this measure are severable.

If the courts strike down, say, the sales portion of the law, that doesn’t kill the personal possession and cultivation parts of the law.


NewsHawk: Ganjarden: 420 MAGAZINE
Source: NORML
Author: "Radical" Russ Belville
Contact: NORML
Copyright: 2010 NORML Foundation.
Website: California’s Prop 19: A word-for-word analysis
 
Prop. 19 FAQ

Does Proposition 19 overrule the medical marijuana laws of California?

No. Proposition 19 is designed to, among other things, "[p]rovide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes." Although a statement of purpose is not necessarily controlling, courts generally look to it in interpreting the statute's language. The purpose of Proposition 19 is not to overturn Proposition 215 or any other state or local medical cannabis law.

Does Proposition 19 make it a crime to smoke marijuana in public?

No. Proposition 19 maintains the status quo. It neither authorizes, nor prohibits such conduct.

Does Proposition 19 make it a crime to smoke in front of your children?

No. Proposition 19 maintains the status quo. It neither authorizes, nor prohibits such conduct. The normal child endangerment laws remain in effect.

Will Proposition 19 allow localities to ban medical marijuana dispensaries?

Unclear. Currently, there is no legal authority stating that localities must regulate dispensaries under Proposition 215 and SB 420. Proposition 19 allows for local regulation of medical cannabis sales, but only when consistent with the purpose of the initiative and with California medical cannabis laws.Regardless whether or not Proposition 19 is adopted, ASA will continue to fight against local bans of medical cannabis collectives and cooperatives.

Does Proposition 19 hurt patients?

No. While it is possible there will be unanticipated consequences and legal controversy, nothing in the text of Proposition 19 is designed to deny any rights to medical cannabis patients.

Would legalizing cannabis help patients?

ASA believes that the legalization, taxation and/or regulation of cannabis for non-medical purposes are separate from the regulation of medical cannabis. While it is possible that the taxation and regulation of cannabis at the local or state level may improve conditions for medical cannabis patients and providers, there is no guarantee of this outcome. It is vital we continue to advocate for the rights of patients and increased scientific research.

Does ASA support or oppose Proposition 19?

Neither. ASA's mission is to ensure safe and legal access to cannabis for therapeutic uses and research. We take no position on Proposition 19, because it lies outside the scope of our focus and area of expertise. Our neutral position should not be interpreted as support or opposition.

Is Proposition 19 the most important issue for medical cannabis in this election?

No. Medical cannabis opponent and LA County District Attorney are seeking to be California's next Attorney General. Medical cannabis advocates must help defeat Cooley to protect safe access in the state. If Cooley is elected as our next Attorney General, he will rewrite or repeal the Attorney General's medical cannabis guidelines - possibly misinterpreting state law to forbid sales of cannabis in legal patients' collectives, stop all transportation of medicine, and close the storefronts patients rely on for safe access every day. Cooley will file amicus briefs opposing medical cannabis and aggressively prosecute patients and growers. He will support bad legislation to roll back safe access.

Who supports Proposition 19?

The National Black Police Association, retired United States Surgeon General Dr. Joycelyn Elders, Harvard Economist Jeffrey Miron, Congressman Pete Stark (CA-13), Congressman Dan Hamburg (CA-1) (Ret.), Congressman Pete McCloskey (CA-11) (Ret.), California State Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (Ret.), California State Senator Mark Leno, California State Senator Tom Hayden (Ret.), California State Assemblymember Tom Ammiano, California State Assemblymember Hector De La Torre, California NAACP, California Libertarian Party, California Green Party, California Young Democrats, Republican Liberty Caucus, ACLU of Northern California, ACLU of Southern California, ACLU of San Diego, and many other individuals and organizations in law enforcement, elected office, social justice, faith-based programs, many medical and non-medial cannabis consumers, and more. See Endorsements | yeson19.com for a complete list of endorsers.

Who opposes Proposition 19?

The California Beer & Beverage Distributors donated $10,000 to Public Safety First, a political action committee organized to oppose the proposition. The California Narcotics Officers' Association donated $20,500; the Cal Police Chiefs Association contributed $30,000. The California Correctional Supervisors Organization donated $7,500. The Placer County Deputy Sheriff's Association, the California Peace Officers Association, the California District Attorney Association and the Peace Officers Association of Los Angeles County have all contributed, as well. Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca has been an outspoken opponent. Earlier this month, current and former heads of the Drug Enforcement Administration held a press conference in Washington to oppose the proposition and urge the White House to sue to stop it if it passes.

(Data from the Huffington Post)
 
Hemp May Piggyback To Legality On Prop. 19

David Bronner's third-generation family business – Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps – imports 20 tons of hemp oil a year from Canada to make soaps, shampoos and skin lotions near San Diego.

Now Bronner hopes California's Proposition 19 to legalize marijuana for recreational use can give impetus to legalizing cultivation of hemp – pot's cannabis cousin.

Proposition 19 proponents say the initiative's language allowing local governments to permit cannabis cultivation – by definition – includes both marijuana and hemp.

But the measure variously inspires or infuriates hemp advocates, who are waging arguments over whether it will help or hinder efforts to lift a U.S. ban on hemp cultivation.

Some say Proposition 19 could invigorate a national hemp industry that already produces more than $350 million in annual sales of clothing, food, paper, carpet and other items – all from hemp grown in other countries.

Others contend the measure will further link hemp – a cannabis plant that can't get you high – with marijuana and deal a public relations setback to the hemp movement. While it looks like marijuana, hemp contains only minute traces of pot's psychoactive elements.

Hemp fibers, foods and oils are imported from more than 30 other countries, but the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration treats hemp cultivation as an illegal activity akin to narcotics production.

Erwin A. "Bud" Sholts, chairman of the North American Industrial Hemp Council, a Wisconsin group hoping to open up American farmland to hemp cultivation, wants nothing to do with California's pot initiative.

"I don't think we're interested in legalizing the drug at all," he said.

Sholts, a former economist for the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, said his hemp trade organization is working with major U.S. companies he won't name to "develop a strategy" for legalizing U.S. production.

The last thing his partners need, Sholts said, is California's Proposition 19. "They don't want to appear to be pro-marijuana," he said.

In its only direct reference to hemp, Proposition 19 says the Legislature may "authorize the production of hemp or non-active cannabis."

That is pure political melody to Bronner, president of another pro-hemp group, the Hemp Industries Association.

"I think the initiative would be very helpful," said Bronner, who said his business costs would drop by 25 percent if he could cultivate hemp in California.

Several states have passed legislation urging the federal government to legalize hemp and setting guidelines for a potential resurgence of cultivation.

In 2006, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 1147 by San Francisco Democrat Mark Leno and Irvine Republican Chuck DeVore to endorse hemp cultivation in California. The bill was vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Leno, now a state senator, said he will introduce new hemp legislation if Proposition 19 passes.

His earlier bill argued that hemp should be defined differently than marijuana because it is a not a mind-altering substance. While marijuana may contain 5 percent to 20 percent of psychoactive tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), hemp has 0.3 percent or less.

"They are distant biological cousins," Leno said. "The analogy is that hemp has as much THC as the poppy seeds on your bagel have opium."

Nationally, growing hemp has essentially been illegal since marijuana was outlawed in 1937 – except for one notable period. In World War II, the U.S. Department of Agriculture produced a film – "Hemp for Victory" – that called on "patriotic farmers" to produce hemp for rope, fabrics and other "needs of our Army and Navy."

U.S. drug agents have since regarded the plant as an unwanted relative of pot. Authorities contend its similar appearance can shield illegal marijuana cultivation – though pot growers say hemp can cross-pollinate marijuana, killing its potency.

Last year, Republican Rep. Ron Paul and Democratic Rep. Barney Frank introduced the Industrial Hemp Farming Act in Congress, seeking to give states the right to permit hemp growing.

In a joint letter, Paul and Frank argued that hemp's inclusion with marijuana in the Federal Controlled Substances Act has prohibited American farmers from "competing in the booming industrial hemp market."

That market is already booming for John Roulak. His Oxnard-based Nutiva food company – listed in Inc. magazine as one of America's 5,000 fastest growing businesses – expects to earn $12 million this year on imports of hemp foods from "Hemp Ginger Salad Dressing" to hemp protein shakes and munchable hemp seeds.

Sales of hemp foods – said to be high in fiber, protein and Omega-3 and Omega-6 – took off after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2004 that the Drug Enforcement Administration couldn't ban foods containing the plant products.

Roulak is torn over whether Proposition 19 and greater marijuana legalization will help with hemp.

"I've been in the middle of that debate for too long," he said. "I'm a voice of stay away from the dope (pot), stay focused on the rope (hemp)."

Roulak said few people in California are willing to invest in growing acres of hemp – whose market value is far closer to corn than marijuana – for fear authorities will "have their fields cut down."

But he said passage of Proposition 19 would give political cover for the next governor to sign a bill legalizing cultivation.

"We feel optimistic," he said, "that a bill signed by the governor of California will give us more options legally than we have now."


NewsHawk: User: 420 MAGAZINE
Source: sacbee.com
Author: Peter Hecht
Copyright: 2010 The Sacramento Bee
Contact: Contact Us - sacbee.com
Website: Hemp may piggyback to legality on Prop. 19 - Marijuana - sacbee.com
 
The Property Rights Issue At The Heart Of Proposition 19

This May, Paul Armentano, a prominent figure in the coalition to pass California’s Proposition 19 (legalize and tax cannabis), wrote an essay conclusively titled “Only Marijuana Legalization Will End Shocking Police Raids Like the One in Columbia, Missouri”.

Though we personally hope that Proposition 19 passes on Tuesday, we fear Paul Armentano may be too optimistic in his judgment. The SWAT raids that have become as American as apple pie or Cracker Jack do not exist solely because our cannabis laws are cruel and inhumane. These SWAT raids exist as the tip of a hugely lucrative industry, and the militarization of our police will continue regardless of whether or not California legalizes on Tuesday.

It has taken a tremendous amount of effort and sacrifice for activists like Paul Armentano to get America to this historic moment. But cannabis legalization represents the opening skirmish, not the critical battle, of the fight for America.

America is under attack. Our democracy has been stolen and co-opted by the law-enforcement industrial complex, the biggest opponent of cannabis legalization and of criminal justice system reform. This has happened because American law enforcement has become fundamentally corrupted by access to funding mechanisms like civil asset forfeiture, a property seizure process which was used to create a massive source of off-budget funding for the War on Drugs. This money, often taken from people who are never convicted of a crime, is retained by American law enforcement agencies who keep it for themselves, free of civilian oversight or legislative control.

This multibillion-dollar revenue stream is the money that purchases used military equipment (tanks, .50 caliber rifles, and full military assault gear), that is used as seed money for larger federal grants for more military equipment and surveillance technology, and that our police chiefs and sheriffs stash away in their private slush funds, enriching themselves off the labor of others from whom they wantonly steal.

Even when California legalizes cannabis, these laws will be used (are being used!) by the federal government to subvert the will of Californian voters by paying California’s law enforcement to continue enforcement of the federal law. And California is one state out of 50. And the laws regulating cannabis are part of a larger body of federal and state criminal justice law that needs drastic re-evaluation and reform.

If we legalize cannabis in California and perhaps even in other states, a best case scenario may see the end of the use of paramilitary policing strategies for enforcement of cannabis laws. But it is more likely that we will just see the aims of law enforcement shift as they look for a new revenue stream. The SWAT teams will still exist, and their arbitrary use will continue to traumatize children, kill dogs, and brutalize non-violent citizens. Perhaps we will see the use of paramilitary police tactics to enforce compliance with the liquor laws (like this raid on Yale students), or for the prostitution laws (like this Michigan raid). And the tale of Donald Scott, the Californian millionaire shot dead in a SWAT raid initiated because the National Park Service wanted his ranch as an addition to a park, should give pause to those who fear the expansion of police powers to enforce the environmental laws.

It is perhaps most odious that these systemic violations of human rights are perpetrated by law enforcement agencies addicted to the forfeiture money at the heart of the Drug War. But the story is more nuanced; our law enforcement agencies, from the local to the federal level, have realized that they can sustain and increase their funding through engaging in the political process. To this end, America’s law enforcement unions form powerful political coalitions and deploy lobbyists to influence politicians to enact increasingly draconian criminal laws and enact more generous compensation arrangements year after year. Now America’s municipalities, states, and the federal government all face colossal budgetary crises as unfunded pension obligations and wasteful government programs (especially the War on Drugs) confront the cold economic realities of the current recession.

At its core, Proposition 19 and the cause of cannabis legalization is not about cannabis. For Californians, it is about the right of a free people to self-determination. For law enforcement, Proposition 19 is a threat to the industry that provides employment for prison guards, bail bondsmen, sheriffs, probation officers, scientists in the drug testing industry, prosecutors, criminal justice instructors, etc. Law enforcement will not give up their vested interests without a struggle, and we must not let one battle blind us to the war.

For Americans, Proposition 19 provides a focal point for bringing back Constitutional, limited governance. It is vitally necessary for us to end the use of civil asset forfeiture laws and reaffirm the protections guaranteed by our Bill of Rights and most particularly the Fourth Amendment. It is vitally necessary for us to reaffirm the checks and balances on governments at all levels and end the ability of law enforcement agencies to become self-funding. An America wracked by external foes and economic troubles may yet surmount great obstacles, but an America torn apart through the insanity of the Drug War and the corruption of our governance is one that is unlikely to survive unvanquished.


NewsHawk: User:420 MAGAZINE
Source:forfeiturereform.com
Author: Eapen Thampy
Contact: About Us
Copyright: 2010 Americans for Forfeiture Reform
Website:Americans for Forfeiture Reform
 
thats good, but news to me...my bad.
this thread and very informative posts might have really helped, earlier.
 
We should all just move to amsterdam because the Gov't will NEVER make MJ legal they make way to many billions for it to be illegal.... Nothing anyone says or does will make it LEGAL......
 

Similar threads

Jim Finnel
Voting Yes on Propostion 19 Only Way to Regulate
Replies
19
Views
3K
Jim Finnel
Jim Finnel
MedicalNeed
Pot's An Infraction, But We Need Prop. 19
Replies
0
Views
633
MedicalNeed
MedicalNeed
Ganjarden
Pot Legalization Ballot Statements Offer Starkly Different Realities
Replies
5
Views
1K
Choji
C
MedicalNeed
RAND Study: Prop 19 Would Defund Local Pot Dealers
Replies
1
Views
717
AceOfSpades
AceOfSpades
Jim Finnel
'LULAC,' Huge Latino Group, Endorses Prop. 19
Replies
0
Views
912
Jim Finnel
Jim Finnel
Back
Top Bottom