boaz
07-23-2009, 02:12 AM
is Richard Lee on this forum? Galaxy?? its all starting to make sense now . . . :stoned: :D
Interview with Richard Lee and the Tax Cannabis 2010 initiative
July 10, 2009
The proposed Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis 2010 initiative for the 2010 California ballot has already received a significant level of press coverage. Here??s a short interview with Richard Lee, who is the proponent of the initiative, the president of Oaksterdam University, and the founder of Oakland??s Civil Liberties Alliance, which helped pass Oakland??s Measure Z. I??ve added in a few links for context.
DLB: I??ve been struck by how the momentum around reform on marijuana law seems to have taken on a different tone in the mainstream media in the last couple months, with even Governor Schwarzenegger saying that perhaps there needs to be a discussion on this issue. Do you have any thoughts about why that is?
Lee: It??s partly the economy and partly the turnover in population as the World Word II generation is replaced by Baby Boomers and people who have experience with cannabis. Because you have to remember, for all the World War II people, they were told that this is devil worship and they didn??t know any different. They didn??t know anything about it. But people who have grown up with it, it??s going to be a lot harder to convince them that it??s going to be the end of the world if this is legalized.
DLB: Yeah I guess there??s kind of a generational shift going on over time.
Lee: Exactly. And the other factor is that Mexico is having out of control prohibition violence down there, and it makes it easier to make the analogy to alcohol prohibition and the history of Al Capone. From an AK-47 to the Thompson sub-machine gun, it??s not too hard to put things together to see the similarities.
DLB: There was a decriminalization initiative that was proposed for the 2008 ballot, but it never qualified. Were you aware of that one at all, and did you read the text of it?
Lee: Jack Herer has floated one for a long time. It??s more of a total legalization measure. You know the difference between those things? Technically, we already have decriminalization in California. We??ve had it since the late ??70s. A number of other states have already decriminalized, which means it just a small fine if it??s a small amount.
DLB: Your initiative, at least based on the text I??ve seen on the website, would go a little bit further in the sense that it also authorizes cultivation and possession of up to an ounce.
Lee: And it totally gets rid of the fine. Because in a decriminalized system it??s still illegal, it??s just not a jailable offense. Whereas our initiative would make it totally legal.
DLB: That 2008 measure didn??t really get too much leverage. Do you think with the text you??ve got now you??ve got better prospects for actually getting onto the ballot?
Lee: Well there??s a lot of money available now with all of the dispensaries and all of the people who have come out for legalization. So it??s not a matter of getting onto the ballot, it??s more a matter of crafting language that will win. It??s difficult, because it??s easy for the opposition to say ??Well, what about this, what about that?? and it??s a lot easier to vote no than to vote yes.
DLB: I was intrigued by the limitation to 25 feet of cultivated space and I noticed that you also added provisions enhancing penalties for provision of cannabis to minors and things like that. Do you feel like those sorts of concessions can bring on people who are maybe not particularly interested in marijuana in general?
Lee: We??re focusing on the swing voters. Some of their major issues are personal cultivation and the problems with nuisance from the smell. Already with medical marijuana we??ve tried to address that. And another important point is to keep it away from kids.
DLB: Your website is called Tax Cannabis 2010. The language in the initiative authorizes taxes, but doesn??t actually propose any specific tax. What??s the idea there?
Lee: Right now it??s a local option initiative, so it would authorize ??wet? and ??dry? cities and counties basically. Cities that wanted to tax and regulate cannabis could do so, and those that don??t want to could continue to ban it. The history of alcohol regulation is similar, like in other states, like Texas where I come from, you have wet and dry counties. There??s a number of reasons for not putting in a specific tax. One is to keep the initiative simple. Another is to try to get around the federalism issue.
DLB: Let??s talk about federalism. In theory, this only implicates state-level or even county-level policies but obviously it could have implications in terms of federal supremacy. What do you do to counter the argument that this ultimately undermines federal power to control controlled substances?
Lee: That isn??t exactly how the court views the issue. It??s not whether it undermines the federal power, because states can ?? just as we??ve seen with medical marijuana ?? remove state penalties and whether or not that undermines the federal law isn??t really an issue. What is an issue is whether there is positive conflict. In other words, we can??t require that the state break federal law. We can remove penalties under state law. So in this initiative, leaving it up to localities makes it less likely that the federal government is going to go after each individual city, just like they chose not to, under the Bush administration, go after everyone that permitted medical marijuana.
DLB: On the most recent California ballot we had Proposition 5, the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act. It would have kept nonviolent drug offenders out of jail and prisons. That initiative didn??t go over as well as I??d hoped it would. Do you take any lessons away from the defeat of Prop. 5?
Lee: Keep it simple. One of the problems with Prop. 5 was that a lot of people, even reformers, couldn??t understand it. We??re also thinking about re-writing the language of our initiative to make it more along the lines of the Ammiano bill, AB 390. That would definitely be more of a conflict with federal law, but some people are saying we should fight that battle when we get there. With everything else going on, it??s hard to know if the federal government will even contest it.
Posted by Alex on July 08, 2009 in Marijuana, Medical Marijuana | Permalink
Interview with Richard Lee and the Tax Cannabis 2010 initiative
July 10, 2009
The proposed Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis 2010 initiative for the 2010 California ballot has already received a significant level of press coverage. Here??s a short interview with Richard Lee, who is the proponent of the initiative, the president of Oaksterdam University, and the founder of Oakland??s Civil Liberties Alliance, which helped pass Oakland??s Measure Z. I??ve added in a few links for context.
DLB: I??ve been struck by how the momentum around reform on marijuana law seems to have taken on a different tone in the mainstream media in the last couple months, with even Governor Schwarzenegger saying that perhaps there needs to be a discussion on this issue. Do you have any thoughts about why that is?
Lee: It??s partly the economy and partly the turnover in population as the World Word II generation is replaced by Baby Boomers and people who have experience with cannabis. Because you have to remember, for all the World War II people, they were told that this is devil worship and they didn??t know any different. They didn??t know anything about it. But people who have grown up with it, it??s going to be a lot harder to convince them that it??s going to be the end of the world if this is legalized.
DLB: Yeah I guess there??s kind of a generational shift going on over time.
Lee: Exactly. And the other factor is that Mexico is having out of control prohibition violence down there, and it makes it easier to make the analogy to alcohol prohibition and the history of Al Capone. From an AK-47 to the Thompson sub-machine gun, it??s not too hard to put things together to see the similarities.
DLB: There was a decriminalization initiative that was proposed for the 2008 ballot, but it never qualified. Were you aware of that one at all, and did you read the text of it?
Lee: Jack Herer has floated one for a long time. It??s more of a total legalization measure. You know the difference between those things? Technically, we already have decriminalization in California. We??ve had it since the late ??70s. A number of other states have already decriminalized, which means it just a small fine if it??s a small amount.
DLB: Your initiative, at least based on the text I??ve seen on the website, would go a little bit further in the sense that it also authorizes cultivation and possession of up to an ounce.
Lee: And it totally gets rid of the fine. Because in a decriminalized system it??s still illegal, it??s just not a jailable offense. Whereas our initiative would make it totally legal.
DLB: That 2008 measure didn??t really get too much leverage. Do you think with the text you??ve got now you??ve got better prospects for actually getting onto the ballot?
Lee: Well there??s a lot of money available now with all of the dispensaries and all of the people who have come out for legalization. So it??s not a matter of getting onto the ballot, it??s more a matter of crafting language that will win. It??s difficult, because it??s easy for the opposition to say ??Well, what about this, what about that?? and it??s a lot easier to vote no than to vote yes.
DLB: I was intrigued by the limitation to 25 feet of cultivated space and I noticed that you also added provisions enhancing penalties for provision of cannabis to minors and things like that. Do you feel like those sorts of concessions can bring on people who are maybe not particularly interested in marijuana in general?
Lee: We??re focusing on the swing voters. Some of their major issues are personal cultivation and the problems with nuisance from the smell. Already with medical marijuana we??ve tried to address that. And another important point is to keep it away from kids.
DLB: Your website is called Tax Cannabis 2010. The language in the initiative authorizes taxes, but doesn??t actually propose any specific tax. What??s the idea there?
Lee: Right now it??s a local option initiative, so it would authorize ??wet? and ??dry? cities and counties basically. Cities that wanted to tax and regulate cannabis could do so, and those that don??t want to could continue to ban it. The history of alcohol regulation is similar, like in other states, like Texas where I come from, you have wet and dry counties. There??s a number of reasons for not putting in a specific tax. One is to keep the initiative simple. Another is to try to get around the federalism issue.
DLB: Let??s talk about federalism. In theory, this only implicates state-level or even county-level policies but obviously it could have implications in terms of federal supremacy. What do you do to counter the argument that this ultimately undermines federal power to control controlled substances?
Lee: That isn??t exactly how the court views the issue. It??s not whether it undermines the federal power, because states can ?? just as we??ve seen with medical marijuana ?? remove state penalties and whether or not that undermines the federal law isn??t really an issue. What is an issue is whether there is positive conflict. In other words, we can??t require that the state break federal law. We can remove penalties under state law. So in this initiative, leaving it up to localities makes it less likely that the federal government is going to go after each individual city, just like they chose not to, under the Bush administration, go after everyone that permitted medical marijuana.
DLB: On the most recent California ballot we had Proposition 5, the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act. It would have kept nonviolent drug offenders out of jail and prisons. That initiative didn??t go over as well as I??d hoped it would. Do you take any lessons away from the defeat of Prop. 5?
Lee: Keep it simple. One of the problems with Prop. 5 was that a lot of people, even reformers, couldn??t understand it. We??re also thinking about re-writing the language of our initiative to make it more along the lines of the Ammiano bill, AB 390. That would definitely be more of a conflict with federal law, but some people are saying we should fight that battle when we get there. With everything else going on, it??s hard to know if the federal government will even contest it.
Posted by Alex on July 08, 2009 in Marijuana, Medical Marijuana | Permalink