The General
New Member
Marijuana legalization advocates, sensing growing support for their cause in the latest polls, are heading back to the statewide ballot. Their chances of getting before voters in November are daunting: Four competing initiatives are in a race for attention and money – especially the money that fuels signature gathering and media exposure. Initiatives allow an end-run around the Legislature, which has balked at legalization, but qualifying for the ballot means each campaign must collect 504,760 valid signatures of registered voters. In 2012, seven marijuana legalization initiatives failed to meet signature-gathering requirements, and in 2010 a legalization measure was rejected decisively. Law enforcement generally has opposed the efforts.
"I don't get excited about initiatives," said Max Del Real, a medical-marijuana lobbyist who has advocated for regulation reform in California since 2009. "I think if the governor was to actively and publicly support medical marijuana regulations at the state level you would have a Legislature motivated to do something and essentially create the framework to govern." Geographically, the strongest support for legalization – up to 70 percent – came from the San Francisco area and Northern California, according to a 2013 Field Poll. Six in 10 voters from coastal counties also were in favor, and legalization may boost growers' revenue.
"We saw in Colorado (where it has been legalized) that the prices for marijuana went up substantially. Many of these northern (California) cities and counties currently have a quasi-legal economy around marijuana," said Dave Hodges of San Jose, owner of a marijuana collective and proponent of the MCLR Act. "So, this would then legalize that economy and potentially even enhance it." Campaigns for two of the four proposed initiatives are circulating petitions. The California Cannabis Hemp Initiative was the first one cleared by the Secretary of State, in September. The second, dubbed the Marijuana Control, Legalization and Revenue (MCLR) Act, is sponsored by the nonprofit advocacy group Americans For Policy Reform.
The CCHI, the broader of the two measures, would legalize marijuana and hemp use, cultivation, possession, distribution and transportation, while the MCLR Act would legalize limited amounts of marijuana for personal use, cultivation, transportation, purchase or donation, and tax nonmedical marijuana sales. Under the MCLR Act, the law would be enforced by the state Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. "Regulating marijuana like heroin, that's what these other initiatives are trying to do. Like it's some serious, hard, Schedule 1 drug," said Berton Duzy, a Simi Valley contractor and chief proponent of CCHI. "It's really a harmless, non-toxic herb that has a lot of medicinal properties. It's also nice for adults to enjoy, and it's a great industrial crop."
He said his campaign has collected about 250,000 signatures, about half the minimum needed, and is resubmitting the measure in order to push the signature-gathering deadline into April. The MCLR campaign said it has collected "a few thousand" signatures and said it had received $500,000 to help cover the costs of signature gathering. "That's what we needed," said John Lee, head of AFPR's initiative. "Having a paid signature-gathering team put together, that gives us a tremendous chance." A third proposal by the Drug Policy Alliance, a national advocacy group, has been given the go-ahead by the state's elections officer, but hasn't yet launched a formal campaign.
The fourth initiative, by veteran legalization advocate Ed Rosenthal, is awaiting its title and summary, the official description required by law that will appear on the ballot. So how does a voter decide between rival initiatives? "The last one (in 2010) sounded good, too, but people opened it up and peaked under the hood and every editorial board in the state said it was not a good idea," said veteran political strategist Andrew Acosta, who has handled statewide and local campaigns. "Chaos and confusion are the enemies of an initiative campaign, and get voters nervous.
"I don't know how you do multiple initiatives when it's hard to break through the clutter. How do you tell people, 'This is the good one?' " Despite the improving poll numbers, some believe 2014 isn't the year for marijuana legalization in California. The national Marijuana Policy Project is staying out of California this year. From 2007 to 2010 MPP bankrolled reform legislation in California, a spokesman said, but now is waiting until 2016 when marijuana-friendly Democrats traditionally turnout in higher numbers for the presidential election.
On marijuana, California voters have been fickle
Voters in 2010 decisively rejected a measure to legalize recreational marijuana use, 53.5 percent to 46.5 percent. A decade earlier, voters approved Proposition 36 allowing low-level, nonviolent drug offenders to enroll in treatment programs rather than incarceration. In 1996, voters approved Proposition 215, allowing medicinal marijuana use. In the early 1970s, California voters overwhelmingly rejected marijuana legalization.
A 2012 report by the California Police Chiefs Association opposed legalization, asserting that medical marijuana centers "have been tied to organized criminal gangs, foster large grow operations, and are often multi-million-dollar profit centers." But public sentiment appears to favor marijuana legalization, although much depends on voter turnout, said Mark DiCamillo of the Field Poll. "The better the turnout, the better the chances. Its chances would be better in a presidential election year, which typically has a turnout of 20 to 25 percent above a gubernatorial election year." In California, turnout for the 2008 presidential election was 79 percent. Two years later, when Jerry Brown was elected governor, turnout statewide was 59.6 percent, DiCamillo noted. Support, he said, is "much greater among younger than older voters," but that support also has been emerging among older voters. His December 2013 survey polled 1,002 registered voters and showed that two-thirds of those aged 18-to-49 favored the broad CCHI initiative, as did nearly half of older voters.
A lot of money is at stake. A 2011 study by Jennifer Budwig, an executive at Eureka-based Redwood Capital Bank, estimated that "producers receive a minimum of $1 billion gross revenues from Humboldt County marijuana sales on an annual basis." And money will be needed to get an initiative ultimately approved. "Maybe there's an October surprise out there and someone will come in with a $10 million check, maybe not," Acosta said. "Last cycle, there was a lot of speculation by pundits and insiders that it would pass overwhelmingly and it would drive turnout. And it didn't do either one."
News Moderator - The General @ 420 MAGAZINE ®
Source: Pressdemocrat.com
Author: Samantha Gallegos
Contact: Contact Us | The Press Democrat
Website: California pot legalization backers hope to get back on ballot | The Press Democrat
"I don't get excited about initiatives," said Max Del Real, a medical-marijuana lobbyist who has advocated for regulation reform in California since 2009. "I think if the governor was to actively and publicly support medical marijuana regulations at the state level you would have a Legislature motivated to do something and essentially create the framework to govern." Geographically, the strongest support for legalization – up to 70 percent – came from the San Francisco area and Northern California, according to a 2013 Field Poll. Six in 10 voters from coastal counties also were in favor, and legalization may boost growers' revenue.
"We saw in Colorado (where it has been legalized) that the prices for marijuana went up substantially. Many of these northern (California) cities and counties currently have a quasi-legal economy around marijuana," said Dave Hodges of San Jose, owner of a marijuana collective and proponent of the MCLR Act. "So, this would then legalize that economy and potentially even enhance it." Campaigns for two of the four proposed initiatives are circulating petitions. The California Cannabis Hemp Initiative was the first one cleared by the Secretary of State, in September. The second, dubbed the Marijuana Control, Legalization and Revenue (MCLR) Act, is sponsored by the nonprofit advocacy group Americans For Policy Reform.
The CCHI, the broader of the two measures, would legalize marijuana and hemp use, cultivation, possession, distribution and transportation, while the MCLR Act would legalize limited amounts of marijuana for personal use, cultivation, transportation, purchase or donation, and tax nonmedical marijuana sales. Under the MCLR Act, the law would be enforced by the state Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. "Regulating marijuana like heroin, that's what these other initiatives are trying to do. Like it's some serious, hard, Schedule 1 drug," said Berton Duzy, a Simi Valley contractor and chief proponent of CCHI. "It's really a harmless, non-toxic herb that has a lot of medicinal properties. It's also nice for adults to enjoy, and it's a great industrial crop."
He said his campaign has collected about 250,000 signatures, about half the minimum needed, and is resubmitting the measure in order to push the signature-gathering deadline into April. The MCLR campaign said it has collected "a few thousand" signatures and said it had received $500,000 to help cover the costs of signature gathering. "That's what we needed," said John Lee, head of AFPR's initiative. "Having a paid signature-gathering team put together, that gives us a tremendous chance." A third proposal by the Drug Policy Alliance, a national advocacy group, has been given the go-ahead by the state's elections officer, but hasn't yet launched a formal campaign.
The fourth initiative, by veteran legalization advocate Ed Rosenthal, is awaiting its title and summary, the official description required by law that will appear on the ballot. So how does a voter decide between rival initiatives? "The last one (in 2010) sounded good, too, but people opened it up and peaked under the hood and every editorial board in the state said it was not a good idea," said veteran political strategist Andrew Acosta, who has handled statewide and local campaigns. "Chaos and confusion are the enemies of an initiative campaign, and get voters nervous.
"I don't know how you do multiple initiatives when it's hard to break through the clutter. How do you tell people, 'This is the good one?' " Despite the improving poll numbers, some believe 2014 isn't the year for marijuana legalization in California. The national Marijuana Policy Project is staying out of California this year. From 2007 to 2010 MPP bankrolled reform legislation in California, a spokesman said, but now is waiting until 2016 when marijuana-friendly Democrats traditionally turnout in higher numbers for the presidential election.
On marijuana, California voters have been fickle
Voters in 2010 decisively rejected a measure to legalize recreational marijuana use, 53.5 percent to 46.5 percent. A decade earlier, voters approved Proposition 36 allowing low-level, nonviolent drug offenders to enroll in treatment programs rather than incarceration. In 1996, voters approved Proposition 215, allowing medicinal marijuana use. In the early 1970s, California voters overwhelmingly rejected marijuana legalization.
A 2012 report by the California Police Chiefs Association opposed legalization, asserting that medical marijuana centers "have been tied to organized criminal gangs, foster large grow operations, and are often multi-million-dollar profit centers." But public sentiment appears to favor marijuana legalization, although much depends on voter turnout, said Mark DiCamillo of the Field Poll. "The better the turnout, the better the chances. Its chances would be better in a presidential election year, which typically has a turnout of 20 to 25 percent above a gubernatorial election year." In California, turnout for the 2008 presidential election was 79 percent. Two years later, when Jerry Brown was elected governor, turnout statewide was 59.6 percent, DiCamillo noted. Support, he said, is "much greater among younger than older voters," but that support also has been emerging among older voters. His December 2013 survey polled 1,002 registered voters and showed that two-thirds of those aged 18-to-49 favored the broad CCHI initiative, as did nearly half of older voters.
A lot of money is at stake. A 2011 study by Jennifer Budwig, an executive at Eureka-based Redwood Capital Bank, estimated that "producers receive a minimum of $1 billion gross revenues from Humboldt County marijuana sales on an annual basis." And money will be needed to get an initiative ultimately approved. "Maybe there's an October surprise out there and someone will come in with a $10 million check, maybe not," Acosta said. "Last cycle, there was a lot of speculation by pundits and insiders that it would pass overwhelmingly and it would drive turnout. And it didn't do either one."
News Moderator - The General @ 420 MAGAZINE ®
Source: Pressdemocrat.com
Author: Samantha Gallegos
Contact: Contact Us | The Press Democrat
Website: California pot legalization backers hope to get back on ballot | The Press Democrat
