California voters will decide whether to legalize marijuana

[boaz]

Christian Science Monitor

California voters will decide whether to legalize marijuana

The first state to legalize marijuana for medical purposes, California leads the country in decriminalizing the sale and use of cannabis. Other states are considering the issue, too, but critics warn of the impact on young people.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Daniel B. Wood Staff writer
posted December 18, 2009 at 5:30 pm EST

Los Angeles â??

California continues to stay at the nation-leading edge of legal activity concerning marijuana use.

In 1996 it passed the first national initiative to make marijuana available by prescription to relieve pain, nausea, and other physical maladies. In July of this year, Oakland became â?? by a wide margin (80 percent to 20) â?? the first US city to assess a tax on the sale of marijuana.

Now, a new initiative that will allow local governments to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales â?? and to determine how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold within area limits â?? will be on the November 2010 ballot. National advocates say that regardless of the vote â?? signature gathering went fast and easy, according to reports â?? a major corner has been turned in national acceptance of marijuana use.

â??Regardless of what the voters decide in 2010, the genie is not going back in the bottle,â?� says Paul Armentano, deputy director for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). â??A majority of west coast voters, and an estimated one-half of the national public, are demanding that we replace our nationâ??s seven-decade-long policy of marijuana prohibition with one of controlled regulation, taxation, and education.â?�

Armentano says the citizenâ??s initiative is evidence that despite the growing public support for marijuana reform, a majority of elected officials still perceive the issue to be a political liability rather than an opportunity.

â??As a result, it will be the voters, not the politicians, who will ultimately determine the direction of our nationâ??s modern marijuana policies,â?� he says.

Other states take up the issue

The California initiative comes amidst a flurry of activity nationally in the past two months after nearly two-decades of inactivity, according to Bruce Mirken, director of communications for the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington D. C., which advocates legalization of marijuana. California has a legislative bill in the offing, he says, as does Washington State while New Hampshire has recently introduced a bill and Rhode Island has adopted a commission to study ideas.

â??There are signs all over the place that this has reached critical mass,â?� says Mirken, citing the photograph of Olympic superstar Michael Phelps last summer. He also says that law enforcement agencies have begun to realize the high cost of arresting, trying, and incarcerating marijuana users â?? money that could be better spent elsewhere.

â??There is growing recognition that through our policies of prohibition, we have not stopped people from using marijuana, but rather handed this lucrative consumer market to some rather unsavory characters, including Mexican gangs,â?� says Mirken. â??Thereâ??s a reason you donâ??t see Mexican wine cartels planting fields of cabernet sauvignon in Sequoia National Park, and people are beginning to understand that there really is a fundamental irrationality to laws that tolerate the far more dangerous substance of alcohol.â?�

Substance abuse activists say the headlong rush to legalization in this initiative has other motivations that ripple out in negative ways.

â??Proponents of the proposed legislation are using the California fiscal crisis to say this will be a revenue-generating solution,â?� says Jim Hall, Director of the Center for the Study and Prevention of Drug Abuse at Nova Southeastern University in Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. â??What has been largely ignored in the legalization meta-debate, however, is the impact the legislation could have on young people.â?�

â??We have developed a clear model with alcohol, but when we debate the legalization of marijuana, we donâ??t address the potential lifelong impact that earlier and easier access will have on young people,â?� says Hall. â??While the proposed legislation might generate a few tax dollars, we need to ask what the cost to society will be for a whole generation exposed to the risk of lifelong substance abuse.â?�

'Right of passage' for adolescents?

He says there needs to be a better way to change patterns of marijuana use as a rite of passage for adolescents. â??Clearly, affording legal access distorts the message of why young people should not use marijuana. If itâ??s legal, whatâ??s the big deal? So goes the mindset.â?�

Hall points out that for the last 20 years, nearly two-thirds of all first-time marijuana users have been below the age of 18. Statistics also show that the younger a person begins marijuana use, the greater the risk of substance abuse later in life, he says. Therefore, itâ??s important to ask a host of questions: Who is going to determine or regulate how marijuana is produced and distributed? Who will it be distributed by? How is the state going to collect the taxes? Will it really have an impact on the illicit trafficking and production of marijuana? Will this lead to proposals to legalize other drugs?

â??This is a largely unexplored policy that raises important questions and potentially dire social risks,â?� says Hall. â??Before changing policy, letâ??s honestly and thoroughly explore these questions.â?�

Initiative advocates point to safeguards

Dan Newman, spokesman for the proposed Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act, counters that the initiative does includes significant safeguards and controls. For example, it will increase the penalty for providing marijuana to a minor, expressly prohibit the consumption of marijuana in public, forbids smoking marijuana while minors are present, and bans possession on school grounds.

He also says that studies by state tax experts â?? the Board of Equalization and the Legislative Analyst Office â?? show that the initiative will generate billions of dollars in revenue to fund schools, public safety, and other critical needs at a time when the state is desperate for resources.

â??For those reasons, and the fact that most Californians understand that the current drug laws arenâ??t working, several recent polls show the initiative [will win] support from a majority of voters," says Newman. â??Weâ??re building a broad and diverse coalition that includes law enforcement professionals who understand that regulating marijuana will put street drug dealers and organized crime out of business, while allowing police to focus on protecting the public by preventing violent crime.â?�

boaz Reviewed by boaz on 01-06-2010. California voters will decide whether to legalize marijuana Christian Science Monitor California voters will decide whether to legalize marijuana The first state to legalize marijuana for medical purposes, California leads the country in decriminalizing the sale and use of cannabis. Other states are considering the issue, too, but critics warn of the impact on young people. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Daniel B. Wood Staff writer posted December 18, 2009 at 5:30 pm EST Rating: 5

[boaz]

the centerfold :stoned:

[gypski]

.....but critics warn of the impact on young people. They are worried about the impact on young people????? :S2::S2: If they were so worried about the young people, how come they have indebted them for generations to come. Time for a new catch phrase rightie. What a bunch of two-faced, double talking hypocrites.

[boaz]

he probably means well :jointsmile: I personally believe, in the long term, we would see a decline in use overall if it could be obtained safely and legally at will. It would actually make it easier to quit for while. and kids won't start because it will no longer be hip. it would be just another habit that some choose and some don't. :twocents:

"Therefore, itâ??s important to ask a host of questions: Who is going to determine or regulate how marijuana is produced and distributed? Who will it be distributed by? How is the state going to collect the taxes? Will it really have an impact on the illicit trafficking and production of marijuana? "

I think its even more important that we ask: Who determines or regulates it now? who distributes it now? how are the pols collecting their "tax" now? what impact does all this have to society right now? The prohibs can't understand or choose to ignore all this.

[WashougalWonder]

Great article, thanks for posting and advising. Nice to know more than one State is working on the issue with legislation, the proper way.

Frankly, I see this getting taxed and regulated the same way tobacco is. It will be (eventually) regulated at that level. Until then, the States will all do different things, some will tie it in with liquor, some will make new agencies to regulate it. (No one seems to see there will be regulation, just like liquor.)

[redtails]

Hah, I like how they are now using racism against Mexicans (one of the main reasons it became illegal) to make it legal...

[redtails]

About the youth: I see it as more of a curiosity issue. I know for myself personally, I tried it for the first time when I was 16, even though I had been exposed to it much earlier. I wouldn't want to try most of the prescription drugs out there because I KNOW what that stuff is and what it does, but with mj (& ciggs when I was young) it was just a "don't do it, because I said so" type of situation. With more education that will come from it being legal and studied more, people will be able to better form their own opinions on it while decided whether or not to try this. If there's ads about possible side-effects and uses like is required on Rx drugs then the public at large will be better informed and realise that it's a good thing, but like any other "drug" there's potential risks associated with it's use.

I strongly agree on the banning of sale to minors from personal experience, but we all know that won't do too much. At a time when our minds are evolving and setting, one should almost never try to use any sort of psychoactive drugs.

I want to see proposed regulation and taxation ideas that they have. I know there's been years and even decades of thought behind it but it seems like the gov is still pretty inefficient in this area, from the various media articles so far.

[mainegrown]

fuck that.. i dont want them taxing A PLANT I CAN GROW!
and i wont pay for the right to grow a 'weed' either. that is just wrong and i am so not down with the whole tax idea.
now i am all for taxing a box of joints sold in corner stores, just like cigs and beer. both of which can be made at home for personal use FOR FREE (at least not taxed)..
-just my :twocents:-
-MG

[redtails]

Oh, definitely! I'm not for taxing the plant itself, but the finished product being sold in stores sure. I already get taxed on all the equipment, soil, nutrients, etc...I think my city has it right, like you are describing, with the food. In the city limits there's no tax if you buy the ingredients to make your dinner but there's the standard 8.1% tax on already prepared food like tv dinners or McD's...

[boaz]

^ yeah, I agree, MG. This will only tax non medical adult retail purchases. no plants will be taxed. personally, I would also hope they never tax medical purchases, either, just non med sales to adults would be okay to tax. Given the choice I would grow my own but if I had to buy it and did not have a med card (or want to have to get one) then I'd gladly pay a reasonable tax for legal access. :twocents: