MADD? try MAMD

right on. been saying for years slowly but surely.

 

This would be a great start.

 

A free society is a smart society. Fewer laws, fewer chains on the mind and spirit. MADD can go fly a kite as far as I'm concerned.

 

California Will Vote on mar1juana Legalization This Year!

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/625/california_marijuana_legalization_makes_ballot

Californians will be voting on whether to legalize mar1juana in November. The California Secretary of State's office Wednesday certified the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 initiative as having handed in enough valid voters' signatures to qualify for the November ballot.

The initiative is sponsored by Oaksterdam medical mar1juana entrepreneur Richard Lee and would legalize the possession of up to an ounce of mar1juana by adults and allow for personal grows of up to 25 square feet. It also provides for the taxed and regulated sale of mar1juana by local option, meaning counties and municipalities could opt out of legalized mar1juana sales.

Some 433,000 valid signatures were required to make the ballot; the initiative campaign had gathered some 690,000. On Tuesday, state officials had certified 415,000 signatures as valid, but that didn't include signatures from Los Angeles County. Initiative supporters there Wednesday handed in more than 140,000 signatures. With an overall signature validity rate of around 80%, that as much as ensured that the measure would make the ballot.

Late Wednesday afternoon, the California Secretary of State's office made it official. Its web page listing Qualified Ballot Measures now includes the mar1juana legalization under initiative approved for the November ballot. The 104,000 valid signatures from Los Angeles County put it well over the top.

"This is a watershed moment in the decades-long struggle to end mar1juana prohibition in this country," said Stephen Gutwillig, California director of the Drug Policy Alliance. "Banning mar1juana outright has been a disaster, fueling a massive, increasingly brutal underground economy, wasting billions in scarce law enforcement resources, and making criminals of countless law-abiding citizens. Elected officials haven't stopped these punitive, profligate policies. Now voters can bring the reality check of sensible mar1juana regulation to California."

"If passed, this initiative would offer a welcome change to California's miserable status quo mar1juana policy," said Aaron Smith, California policy director for the mar1juana Policy Project, which recently endorsed the initiative. "Our current mar1juana laws are failing California. Year after year, prohibition forces police to spend time chasing down nonviolent mar1juana offenders while tens of thousands of violent crimes go unsolved -- all while mar1juana use and availability remain unchanged."

Proponents of the measure will emphasize the fiscal impact of taxing mar1juana -- the state Board of Equalization has estimated that legalization could generate $1.3 billion in tax revenues a year -- as well as the impact that regulation could have on reducing teen access to the weed. They can also point out that by now, California has lived with a form of regulated mar1juana distribution -- the medical mar1juana dispensary system -- for years and the sky hasn't fallen.

Opponents, which will largely consist of law enforcement lobbying groups, community anti-drug organizations, and elements of the African-American religious community, will argue that mar1juana is a dangerous drug, and that crime and drugged driving will increase.

But if opponents want to play the cop card, initiative organizers have some cards of their own. In a press release Wednesday evening, they had several former law enforcement figures lined up in support of taxation and regulation. "As a retired Orange County Judge, I've been on the front lines of the drug war for three decades, and I know from experience that the current approach is simply not working," said retired Superior Court Judge and former prosecutor James P. Gray. "Controlling mar1juana with regulations similar to those currently in place for alcohol will put street drug dealers and organized crime out of business."

"The Control and Tax Initiative is a welcome change for law enforcement in California," said Kyle Kazan, a retired Torrance Police officer. "It will allow police to get back to work fighting violent crime."

Jeffrey Studdard, a former Los Angeles Deputy Sheriff, emphasized the significant controls created by the Control and Tax Initiative to safely and responsibly regulate cannabis. "The initiative will toughen penalties for providing mar1juana to minors, ban possession at schools, and prohibit public consumption," Studdard said.

But the three leading contenders for the California governorship, which is also up for grabs this year, were quick to stake out positions opposing the initiative. "I've already indicated that that's not a provision I am likely to support," state Attorney General and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown told a gathering of law enforcement officials in Sacramento Wednesday. "I've been on the side of law enforcement for a long time and you can be sure that we will be together on this November ballot."

Republican candidate Meg Whitman is "absolutely against legalizing mar1juana for any reason," said spokeswoman Sarah Pompei. "She believes we have enough challenges in our society without heading down the path of drug legalization," she said.

"Like electing Jerry Brown, the idea of legalizing drugs is one more bad idea from a bygone era," said Jarrod Agen, communications director for GOP candidate Steve Poizner. "Steve Poizner feels we need an across-the-board tax cut to reignite our state's economy, not an attempt to smoke our way out of the budget deficit," he said.

The campaign should be a nail-biter. Legalization polled 56% in an April Field poll, and initiative organizers say their own private research is showing similar results. But the conventional wisdom among initiative watchers is that polling needs to be above 60% at the beginning of the campaign, before attacks on specific aspects of any given initiative begin to erode support. But despite the misgivings of some movement allies, who cringe at the thought of defeat in California, this year's legalization vote is now a reality.

"California led the way on medical mar1juana with Prop. 215 in 1996," said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance. "Now it's time again for California to lead the way in ending the follies of mar1juana prohibition in favor of a responsible policy of tax and regulation."

 

Two Oregon mar1juana Initiatives -- Legalization and Medical -- Aim for November Ballot

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle...ijuana_hemp_legalization_medical_dispensaries

Oregon, the first state to decriminalize mar1juana in the modern era and one of the first to approve a medical mar1juana law, could become a battleground for mar1juana reform again this year. Two separate initiatives, one aimed at improving the state's existing medical mar1juana program, and one that seeks to legalize and regulate mar1juana and hemp, are campaigning to be certified for the November ballot.

The medical mar1juana initiative, I-28, would create a system of state-regulated dispensaries and state-licensed medical mar1juana producers. Dispensaries would have to be Oregon nonprofits, and pay a $2,000 license fee and a 10% tax on gross sales. Licensed producers would have to pay a $1,000 license fee and the 10% tax. Patients registered under the Oregon Medical mar1juana Program would be able to buy their supplies at any dispensary, and dispensaries would be able to buy from any licensed producer.

I-28 would not stop patients from growing their own, nor would it impede them from resorting to a caregiver, as they can do currently.

"Our medical mar1juana law lacks an effective supply system," said John Sajo of Voter Power, the group behind both the passage of the Oregon Medical mar1juana Act in 1998 and the current initiative to reform it. "The law is pretty good on keeping patients from getting arrested, but has produced very mixed results in terms of actually getting patients their medicine. A supply system that relies on patients producing their own medicine is primitive. Instead, we'd like to do it like California, where they can go to a dispensary and have myriad choices," he said.

The current system, which does not allow for medical mar1juana sales, results in thousands of patients begging their medicine from other patients, Sajo said, and leaves thousands more with without an adequate supply or with no supply at all. "The law works well for you if you live on a farm or have good social skills, but if you're terminally ill in a hospice, you might be out of luck," he said.

But the California dispensary system is often criticized in Oregon as little more than money-grubbing capitalism at odds with Oregon values that exploits patients. The Oregon medical mar1juana community contains a sizeable contingent that holds to beliefs and values that might seem quaint or unusual in the rest of the country, especially in light of the recent debate over health care reform: that patients should not have to pay for their medicine and that no one should be profiting from sick patients.

"We face a barrage of criticism that we will be exploiting patients and selling medicine at top dollar, but we've done everything we can to structure the system to avoid that," said Sajo. "We will be taking the best from California and avoiding the worst. There are places there, like Harborside and the Berkeley Patients Group, that are excellent members of the community, that fund social services, that provide high-quality labeled medicine. I think our Oregon dispensary system, with its uniform statewide regulation, will tend to create a system like that rather than one like in Los Angeles, with its fly-by-night dispensaries."

Competing with I-28 for the interest and dollars of the mar1juana community, as well as national reform groups, is the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act (OCTA) initiative campaign, which would legalize and deregulate hemp production, provide for licensed mar1juana cultivation with the crop to be purchased by the state, and provide for sale to adults through a system of state stores. Its ballot summary reads as follows:

"... Measure replaces state, local mar1juana laws except medical mar1juana and driving under the influence laws; distinguishes 'hemp' from 'mar1juana'; prohibits regulation of hemp. Creates agency to license mar1juana cultivation by qualified persons and to purchase entire crop. Agency sells mar1juana at cost to pharmacies, medical research facilities, and to qualified adults for profit through state stores. Ninety percent of net proceeds goes to state general fund, remainder to drug education, treatment, hemp promotion. Bans sales to, possession by minors. Bans public consumption except where signs permit, minors barred. Agency to regulate use, set prices, other duties; Attorney General to defend against federal challenges/prosecution. Provides penalties. Effective January 1, 2011"

The charge for OCTA is being led by Oregon NORML. The time is right, said Oregon NORML executive director Madeline Martinez. "Our position is that our initiative is the right initiative at the right time," said Martinez. "We are emphasizing the Oregon cannabis control commission and the industrial hemp angle. With hemp, we can get some green jobs going."

"Paul Stanford is funding a lot of this effort," said Martinez, referring to the medical mar1juana entrepreneur who operates clinics in four states -- Oregon, Washington, Colorado, and Michigan -- under the auspices of The Hemp Cannabis Foundation. Stanford also heads the Campaign for the Restoration and Regulation of Hemp (CRRH), a political action committee, which will be helping to fund the initiative effort.

But while signature gathering for I-28 is well underway, OCTA has yet to begin signature gathering -- and the clock is ticking toward a July 2 deadline. OCTA has been delayed by a last-minute challenge to its ballot title, which the Oregon Supreme Court just resolved yesterday. That leaves I-28 much better positioned at this point to actually make the November ballot.

"Oregon law requires that we turn in signatures gathered by paid signature gatherers monthly," said Sajo. "We turned in 60,000 signatures in January, 7,000 more in February, 8,000 more in March, and an additional 15,000 signatures gathered by volunteers. That means we've collected over 90,000 signatures, and since we only need 82,000 to qualify, now we're working on the buffer. We are aiming at 120,000 to 130,000. If we turn in signatures by May 21, the state will verify those we've turned in and tell us how many are valid, and we will still have until the July 2 deadline to collect any more that we need."

"We have a little over 90 days to gather all the OCTA signatures, and that will put a squeeze on us, but our campaign is ready and we've got everybody at the starting gate ready to run out and gather them once we get the go-ahead," said Martinez. "We are still confident about our prospects."

"We are currently in the process of collecting pledges from people who really want to sign the petitions," said OCTA director of field operations Kyndall Mason. "Our ballot title was challenged, and that's being deliberated on the fast-track by the state Supreme Court, but this delay is not helpful. Still, we've been laying low and building grassroots support."

It's not just grassroots support. In addition to the dollars coming from Paul Stanford, OCTA can also count on some out-of-state support, including a series of six concerts by musician John Trudell, and appearances by national NORML officers. NORML founder Keith Stroup has already been out campaigning, the organization has committed to a small campaign donation, and NORML will hold its annual conference this year in Portland, or "Potland," as some Oregon activists are referring to it.

And OCTA activists continue to seek support. "We're in the process of outreach to national groups," said Mason. "We're getting individual donations, and we have some house parties lined up, but thanks to Paul Stanford we have a lot of funding right now."

Like I-28, OCTA needs 82,769 valid signatures by July 2 to make the November ballot. But because of the ballot title challenge, OCTA is going to have to collect them in a compressed time period.

"We think we'll start signature gathering in mid-April, and we're pretty confident we will be able to turn in enough to qualify. We want to collect 125,000 signatures to have that margin of comfort," said Mason. "We don't see any reason to postpone this at this point. All of us really agree that now is the time to capture the momentum that is out there."

As with OCTA, money is a concern for I-28, too. Voter Power is taking on the bulk of responsibility for financing the campaign, said Sajo. "We did get a mar1juana Policy Project grant and we just got a small grant from the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), but otherwise, we're just raising money from small contributors and from our medical mar1juana clinics."

"Our grants program approved $25,000 to help I-28 qualify for the ballot," confirmed DPA executive director Ethan Nadelmann. "We've done our due diligence, and our sense is that this initiative is a winner. It will help resolve a bunch of issues with the Oregon medical mar1juana program."

Voter Power operates four clinics in Oregon, said Sajo, but he also noted that the medical mar1juana business has become more competitive. "Our market share is declining at the same time we are trying to fund this political effort," he said.

There is some tension between the two initiative campaigns -- OCTA supporters accuse an I-28 advocate of doing the last-minute ballot title challenge that has delayed their signature-gathering -- and leaders of both campaigns are striving to minimize them, but haven't quite mastered that old adage about "if you can't say something nice..."

"Oregon NORML doesn't take a stand on I-28," said Martinez, but couldn't resist adding: "Dispensaries are so '90s. There is such a small segment of Oregonians who could create revenue from the dispensaries in comparison to the 357,000 Oregonians who consume cannabis. If we're looking at this from a revenue perspective and we're serious, it's only logical to look at the larger population, and that's cannabis consumers, not medical mar1juana patients."

"We haven't taken a formal position on OCTA," said Voter Power's Sajo. "Informally, we'd like to see something like that happen, but we're not sure the timing is right to do it this year. We do support taxing and regulating mar1juana, and we'll vote for it if it qualifies, but in terms of strategies for our movement, trying to do two initiatives at the same time divides our resources and creates confusion. We don't think OCTA is ready for prime-time."

But for many Oregon activists the internecine sniping is beside the point. "We absolutely support both initiatives," said Melanie Bariskis of Southern Oregon NORML, "but the problem is that OCTA is not yet ready for circulation. Right now, we are pushing I-28 and gathering signatures for it. We support OCTA philosophically, and we will support it with signature gathering when it is ready."

We will know by early July whether either, neither, or both initiatives make the November ballot. Perhaps by then, Oregon's medical and recreational mar1juana communities can take those rifles they're using in their circular firing squads and begin aiming them at their real foes.

 

Washington, too!

Washington mar1juana Legalization Initiative Aims for November Ballot

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/626/washington_marijuana_legalization_initiative_I-1068

There is a chance, albeit an outside one, that the entire West Coast could go green in November. Last week we noted that the California tax and regulate initiative had made the ballot, and reported on the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act initiative's ongoing effort to make the ballot. This week, we turn our attention to Washington state, where yet another mar1juana legalization initiative campaign is underway.

Sponsored by Seattle Hempfest head Vivian McPeak, mar1juana defense attorneys Douglass Hiatt and Jeffrey Steinborn, and journalist-turned-activist Philip Dawdy and organized under the rubric of Sensible Washington, initiative I-1068 would legalize mar1juana by removing mar1juana offenses from the state's controlled substances act.

As the official ballot summary puts it:

"This measure would remove state civil and criminal penalties for persons eighteen years or older who cultivate, possess, transport, sell, or use mar1juana. mar1juana would no longer be defined as a 'controlled substance.' Civil and criminal penalties relating to drug paraphernalia and provisions authorizing seizure or forfeiture of property would not apply to mar1juana-related offenses committed by persons eighteen years or older. The measure would retain current restrictions and penalties applicable to persons under eighteen."

"We've had to go this route because the legislature isn't getting the job done," said Dawdy. "We had a decriminalization bill and a tax and regulate bill, and neither one could even get through committee. We've basically hit a brick wall in Olympia, and as activists, we're tired of waiting. The state is spending way too much on arresting, prosecuting, and sometimes jailing people for mar1juana crimes. We have 12,000 people arrested for mar1juana offenses every year. It's got to stop. If the legislature can't get it done, we have the initiative process."

The initiative campaign needs to gather 241,000 valid signatures by July 2. According to the campaign, they are shooting for 350,000 signatures and are about 20% of the way toward their goal. So far, it's an all-volunteer effort.

"We've been battling the weather, which has been horrible, and that makes it really difficult to work outdoor events," said Dawdy. "You can't gather very many signatures when it's raining. But we are starting to get inundated with signature petitions, and we remain confident we can get enough to make the ballot."

The campaign is finding support in some unusual places, Dawdy said. "The issue is really popular here, and one of our best hits was at a gun show. Libertarians and conservative Democrats go to those things. We're probably going to have a gun show coordinator for western Washington, and try to target those events. And we can use retired police officers instead of stinky hippies."

There are no signs yet of any organized opposition, but Dawdy said that was no surprise. "I would have been surprised if any popped up this early. I wouldn't expect it until we make the ballot, and then there will probably be some law enforcement group showing up to float the gateway theory and all that stuff."

"We're doing this on a shoestring," Dawdy explained. "We're getting online donations, a few in-kind donations, a few thousand-dollar checks, but funding from the national organizations hasn't really gelled yet. But the medical mar1juana campaign in 1998 didn't get any big money until May, and they got on the ballot and one. I think we can do the same thing."

Unlike California and, to a lesser degree, Oregon, there is little money to be had from the Washington medical mar1juana community, Dawdy said. "It isn't like California here," he said. "There are no $70 eighths, it's very much a nonprofit kind of system. What profits there are are small and underground, and they're underground for a reason."

National Organization for the Reform of mar1juana Laws (NORML) executive director Allen St. Pierre said that the national NORML board of directors had endorsed the initiative and that local chapters were involved in the effort, but that NORML wouldn't do much more than that until -- and unless -- the initiative makes the ballot, something St. Pierre suggested he doubted would happen.

"I'm very skeptical about their prospects," he said. "These guys said from the beginning they didn't have any money, and no initiatives not funded by billionaires have actually made it, yet they still decided to move forward. I told them NORML can't do much until they get on the ballot -- it's not worth the time and effort to point people towards initiatives that haven't made the ballot."

"We're getting sick and tired of being written off by people 3,000 miles away," retorted Dawdy. "That's just not fair, and it suggests that they don't really know Washington state despite coming out for three days each summer for Hempfest. People here are sick and tired of the situation, and legalization and reform are issues that poll strongly. People back East don't appreciate this and they don't understand this is one of the few issues where you can actually make the ballot with an all-volunteer effort."

That's not the only flak the initiative campaign is getting. One of the leading drug reform groups in the state, the ACLU of Washington has refused to endorse the initiative on the grounds that it does not include a regulatory system for mar1juana. In a February statement, the Washington ACLU's lead person on drug policy, Allison Holcomb, laid out its arguments:

"The ACLU supports mar1juana legalization and will continue to work toward that goal. However, we will not be supporting I-1068 because it does not provide a responsible regulatory system."

"We believe that full mar1juana legalization will be accomplished only through implementation of a controlled regulatory system. mar1juana should be placed under controls that not only remove criminal penalties for adult mar1juana use but also address the public's concerns about health and safety. It is unrealistic to regulate it less than tobacco or alcohol."

"We're aware that some believe that I-1068's passage would force the legislature to adopt such regulations in 2011."

"However, the ACLU isn't willing to support an incomplete initiative in hopes that the Legislature will fix it. We believe that when seeking support of such an important and complicated issue, the public should be presented with a carefully considered and well-vetted proposal."

But the initiative campaign argues that Washington's stringent single-issue rule for initiatives blocks it from concocting an elaborate regulatory scheme. Passage of the initiative would force the legislature to then enact regulations, they said.

"All our initiative does is remove criminal penalties for adult use, possession, and cultivation," Dawdy explained. "That will put it back in the hands of the legislature to come up with sensible civil regulations. We would have loved to do regulations in the initiative, but the single issue rule on initiatives in our state is very strict."

The Washington ACLU also argued that support for legalization is less than solid and that a defeat at the polls would be "a significant setback" for the drug reform movement.

And so things stand as April begins. Initiative campaigners have about 90 days to gather the requisite signatures and make the ballot. Maybe then they'll begin to get some respect. And maybe then they can join California, and hopefully, Oregon, in turning the West Coast green.

 

Poll Finds Support for mar1juana Legalization Still Rising, Medical mar1juana Overwhelming

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/626/pew_poll_medical_marijuana_legalization
A new poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press has found that nearly three out of four Americans (73%) support legalizing the medicinal use of mar1juana, while fewer than one out of four (23%) oppose it. Support is broad and solid, spanning all major political and demographic groups, and is equally high in states that do and do not already have medical mar1juana laws.


The poll comes with 14 states and the District of Colombia, representing about one-fourth of the US population, already having approved medical mar1juana. Several other states, including New York, South Dakota, and Wisconsin could join the list this year, and medical mar1juana has been an active issue in another dozen or so state legislatures this year.

The poll identified concerns about medical mar1juana. Nearly half (45%) of respondents said they would be "somewhat concerned" or "very concerned" if a medical mar1juana dispensary opened in a local retail district, and about the same number (46%) said that allowing medical mar1juana made it easier for people to obtain mar1juana even if they didn't have a legitimate need. But only 26% said that bothered them. Not surprisingly, opponents of medical mar1juana legalization were most likely to cite such concerns.

When it comes to general mar1juana legalization, support is much lower than for medical mar1juana and is still a minority position. The Pew poll found that 41% or respondents supported legalization, while 52% opposed it. The good news is that figure is the highest since Pew started polling on the question in 1969 and it continues a steady upward climb in the past two decades.

After support for legalization peaked at 30% in 1978, then bottomed out at 16% in 1990, support grew steadily, surpassing the 1978 level in 2000 (31%), and reaching 38% in 2008. It has grown by three percentage points in the last two years. The Pew numbers are similar to a Gallup Survey conducted last October that showed 44% support for legalization.

Unfortunately, the Pew poll does not contain a regional breakdown of support. In California, an initiative has already made the ballot; in Oregon and Washington initiatives are still in the signature-gathering stage.

The polling reveals significant demographic divides. A majority of under-30s (58%) support legalization, while support declining steadily with age. For those 30 to 49, support was at 42%, for 50 to 64, 40%, and for those 65 and older, support dropped dramatically to 22%.

There are differences between the sexes. Men are almost evenly divided on the question (45% yes, 47% no), while 57% of women oppose legalization.

An even higher percentage of Republicans (71%) oppose legalization, while Democrats are evenly divided, and liberal Democrats show majority support (57%) for legalization. Among independents, 49% support legalization. Among both Democrats and independents, support has increased dramatically in the past decade. Ten years ago, only 29% of Democrats and 35% of independents supported legalization.

The poll found that 40% of respondents had tried mar1juana, and that people who had tried mar1juana were much more likely (64%) to support legalization, than those who had not (25%).

Bottom line: We're not quite there yet nationally, but the trend line points to national majority support for general mar1juana legalization within a decade.

 

I smell sticky green progress.

 

I'm starting to think that these threads belong in the Hangout. I haven't seen any actual debate regarding drug policy in quite some time.

 

Your work here is done.

 

I can't believe they would actually consider endangering our great nation by legalizing modern super-weed.

 

You my friend have an irrational hatred (fear) of mar1juana and it is only a by-product of the corporate machine's propaganda brigade that has been filling your mind with fear tactics to incite your steadfast support of their policies to keep the wacky tobaccy off the markets to protect the interests of Phillip Morris, Anheuser Busch, and Jack Daniels among others (On the other hand, Frito-Lay and Mountain Dew must be backing this whole-heartedly).

 

Are you OK with drunk driving?

 

4 million people overdosed on mar1juana?

http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20030918/mar1juana-smoking-doesnt-kill

 

I'm curious as to how one succumbs to death by doobage. Perhaps you could provide details of these millions of casualties....

 

http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/node/30#item1