Loading

Adult Use Legalization Measure Qualifies For California Ballot

  • by Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director June 29, 2016

    personal_cultivationCalifornia voters will decide this November on a statewide initiative to legalize and regulate the adult use and sale of cannabis.

    The Secretary of State’s office confirmed yesterday that proponents of the measure, The Adult Use Marijuana Act, collected over 600,000 signatures from registered voters to place the initiative on the ballot.

    Passage of the Act would permit adults to legally grow (up to six plants) and possess personal use quantities of cannabis (up to one ounce of flower and/or up to eight grams of concentrate) while also licensing commercial cannabis production and retail sales. The measure prohibits localities from preventing responsible adults from possessing and cultivating cannabis for non-commercial purposes in the privacy of their own homes. The initiative language specifies that it is not intended to “repeal, affect, restrict, or preempt … laws pertaining to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.”

    Sixty percent of likely California voters say that they intend to vote for the initiative this fall, according to a February 2016 Probolsky Research poll.

    The AUMA is endorsed by a host of statewide and national organizations, including the ACLU of California, the California Democratic Party, the California Medical Association, California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, the California NAACP, the Drug Policy Alliance, Students for Sensible Drug Policy, and NORML.

    California is one of several states where voters will be going to the polls in November to decide on statewide marijuana law reform measures. Separate legalization measures have either qualified for the ballot or are anticipated to appear on the ballot in Arkansas (medical), Arizona, Florida (medical), Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri (medical), and Nevada. A Michigan legalization initiative effort is presently in litigation.

    14 Responses to “Adult Use Legalization Measure Qualifies For California Ballot”

    1. Julian says:

      Awesome news! That puts California and Maine on the ballot; literally coast to coast state legalization. The home grow was a real sensible win on policy and assurance this will pass.
      But lets not get too confident; One other organization that endorses AUMA not mentioned here that is preparing to help push for a yes vote is Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, and they need our help;

      http://www.leap.cc/take-action/donate-to-leap/

      Even $10 helps. It can be overwhelming when we have to split our money up to stay within budget, so only give what you can. But LEAP is a vital voice to convince law enforcement with a voice of reason from within that AUMA is good for us all. Watch Frontline’s “Policing the Police.” Listen to what a couple of Newark cops are telling reporters about pulling guns on a group of young men suspected of carrying a weapon, “You gotta see it from our perspective.” Well when a cop tells another cop ending prohibition will reduce violence and distrust between communities and law enforcement and we have evidence from legalized states, its harder to argue out of the truth.
      Support NORML PAC, and the organisations listed above, but on this critical matter to pass AUMA and legalize the most populous state in our nation, LEAP is the edge we need to get the message out and get youth out to remember to vote yes in November!

      • Duck says:

        One reason not to be too confident is that that 2/16 poll mentioned in the post, showing 60% in favor, asked only whether voters would vote for *an* initiative to legalize, not AUMA specifically. AUMA’s numbers will undoubtedly be less than that, as some pro-legalization voters think AUMA is too restrictive and say they will vote against it. I haven’t seen any AUMA-specific polls, but Gavin Newsom seems to think there’s a real chance AUMA will fail, for this reason.

    2. Julian says:

      Sidenote regarding the DEA’s pending response to petitions to de or reschedule marijuana:

      I was digging up ONDCP director Michael Boticelli’s dossier on wikipedia and this is what I found;

      “Botticelli was raised in Waterford, New York,[1] in a family with a history of alcoholism.[2][3] He received a Bachelor’s degree in psychology from Siena College and a Masters in Education from St. Lawrence University.[4] He has no formal professional educational credentials in addiction medicine, mental health, or public health.

      Botticelli began drinking alcohol regularly in his junior year of high school. By his 20s, he was an alcoholic.[2] He also experimented with cocaine and marijuana.[1] He was arrested for driving under the influence following a traffic collision on the Massachusetts Turnpike in 1988.[2] A judge gave him the option of going into treatment or being sentenced to prison, and he chose to enter treatment.[3]”

      He also expanded access to naxalone and clean needles for AIDS patients, claiming focus on “treatment over enforcement.”
      With this history in mind and considering the money alloted for drug treatment in the Affordable Care Act, I see schedule II written on the wall. I just hope it isnt a prison wall.

      • TheOracle says:

        You have to have home grow allowed.

        I would remind Michael Botticelli that there is overlap between the LGBT community and the cannabis community. In the beginning Dennis Peron was helping patients with cannabis. Peter McWilliams was denied his cannabis medicine because of the prohibitionist policies of YOUR office, Michael. He died all the sooner because of the prohibitionist policies of YOUR office. His quality of life could have been better.

        Marijuana needs to be descheduled completely. If you’re not going to wuss out and keep it in Schedule I and are going to remove it from Schedule I then just moving it to Schedule II–as rumors have it–may allow DC to implement adult recreational ONLY so long as the language in the federal funding legislation stays the same. If the langugage stays I and cannabis is moved to Schedule II, it’s a green light for DC.

      • Galileo Galilei says:

        I saw somewhere that Boticelli is a homosexual in a relationship with another man.

        When I was young a homosexual was among the worst things you could be. I wonder if this drove him to his careless use of drugs?

        I still find myself with a prejudice against gays. I’m working on it, because I don’t normally dislike anyone who hasn’t in some way purposefully offended me. I could never have guessed in the Sixties that marijuana prohibition would outlive the taboo on gay behavior.

        What a long, strange trip it’s been.

        (Like most guys, my aversion to homosexuality doesn’t extend to that hot girl-on-girl action. I’m still trying to figure out how to arrange a threesome with Ellen and Portia.)

      • Mark Mitcham says:

        It is entirely possible for one to be a recovering alcoholic, and still to smoke pot, without threat to one’s sobriety. I’m one of those myself, and I know of plenty others. Those who see that as a contradiction don’t know what they’re talking about.

        On the other hand, some recovering alcoholics see marijuana as part and parcel of an entire lifestyle of alcohol and other drugs, and reject the entire lot of it when they quit. And for their sake, I wouldn’t pick a fight over cannabis if they felt it was a threat to their sobriety, I wouldn’t advise them to take that risk; I would only tell them that it works well for me.

        I don’t know which camp Botticelli subscribes to, but it sounds more like the second camp, the one that still views the world in terms of “drugs” (illegal, bad, getting high) and “drugs” (the other one: legal, good medical, lifesaving, therapeutic), based on comments he’s made in the past expressing strong skepticism about the legitimacy of “recreational” cannabis.

        We can only hope he is willing to learn, and that his personal experiences as an openly gay man, and a recovering alcoholic, will make him more receptive to the concepts of social justice and civic responsibility, and even Truth itself.

    3. TheOracle says:

      It’s great that AUMA is a go. Might as well keep California ca$h in California. Yup, whole west coast. Now is no time to rest on successes, as prohibitionists are going to bring out their tired old reefer madness tales so that they can keep ruining American lives to the profit of for the profit of law enforcement bugets and for-profit prisons.

      The East Coast needs legal states for cannatourists. Come on Maine & Massachussetts!

      Is Trudeau going to go back on his word to legalize in Canada? He’d better call off the dawgz and stop the raids. He’d better not hand over the whole legalization job to big business to create Big Canadian Cannabusiness with the fix in so that individuals and small groups of people can’t become small businesses and get into it legally or get elbowed out by the Big Box Stores.

      Legalization must have come up at the Three Amigos Summit. They have to coordinate a plan for legalization. Pena-Nieto has to be the liaison for Latin American countries. Read that as Uruguray for one. There basically needs to be a concerted public and media campaign for the win-win peace dividend for calling off the war on marijuana. Be certain the prohibitionists will try to stall the momentum, try to defeat legalization measures in the fall election, as well as try to obstruct, postpone, and reverse Canadian legalization. Politicians always go back on their campaign promises, right? Sometimes they do, and sometimes they get away with it. Not this time.

    4. mexweed says:

      “Up to one ounce of flower…”– if everything were toked that would be 1132 x 25-mg single vapetokes*, but after Screensifting to #16 flakesize you’ll get 900-1000 (seeds go in flowerPOT, twigs go in teaPOT). Some geezers like me, 2-3 tokes a day average, take a year to use up a rieffer ounce.
      _____________________________

      *in a flexdrawtube oneheater, natcherly

      • Mark Mitcham says:

        Two to three tokes per day? How moderate of you! Sounds like a responsible, hard-working, peaceful cannabis consumer to me!

        Of course, medical titrations are typically much higher in volume, and thus THC content. But vaping can be done at this level, too; I’ve seen patients at airports medicating (vapor) out of large plastic bladders (no combustion whatsoever, thus no combustion byproducts to concern fellow passengers.)

    5. Beebs says:

      This is disturbing for me. If this passed it will open the door for commercial grows where they’ll pump every chemical they can into a plant to increase profitability. The quality of medicine for medical patients will go down as a result of caregivers trying to keep up with demand. They will tax Marijuana to the extent that it will no longer be feasible for the small time home grower to grow a high quality product and ask fair price, for cost of producing the product, without looking extremely overpriced after taxes. It’s almost criminal what is going to happen with this bill in California. Definitely a step backwards.

      [Editor’s note: Ummm…where cannabis has been legalized by voters producers and sellers of pesticide-laden cannabis are fined and punished. Under prohibition there are no consumer-patient protections or enforcement against unscrupulous producers and sellers. The quality of cannabis products go up where there is legal competition, not down. Cannabis taxes are self evidently not too high as both more businesses seek more licenses to produce and sell it and more consumers keep choosing to buy legal/taxed rather than illegal/untaxed (and maybe pesticide-soaked) product.

      Ending cannabis prohibition in CA under AUMA is hardly criminal, the continuation of it based on your unfounded fears however would be.]

      • Julian says:

        I am SOooo glad ya’ll do editor responses for education on this blog… Its what draws me back here all the time. Its hard work, but only education can distinguish the scared and miseducated who refuse to properly research from the trolls who DO research but are invested in prohibition…

      • Mark Mitcham says:

        I think your fears of corporate malfeasance are well founded. It isn’t hard to find examples of corporate malfeasance in almost any established legal industry, whenever companies cut corners for profit. And industry regulations have never been weaker since… there weren’t any, as far as I know!

        However, I strongly disagree with your statement that AUMA would be a step backward.

        The ballot issue is Legalization. Whatever your or my views on Corporate America might be, we must understand that Marijuana Legalization was never about bringing down “The Man.” It’s about stopping the marijuana arrests. We should not try to wait for The Revolution before Legalizing Marijuana; that would be foolish.

        It’s always been implicitly understood, for many decades now, that the Legalization of marijuana would result in the Commercialization of marijuana. It’s an inevitable consequence.

        The choice for California citizens is not one of economic or social systems. It’s a case of all other things being equal: is it better to Legalize Marijuana in California, or to maintain prohibition?

        Clearly, AUMA is a huge step forward. Legalize it in California!

    6. Anna says:

      I’m trying to understand some things here and having difficulty, so maybe someone can explain it to me a little better.

      There was once a prohibition on alcohol. Craft beer has been on a steady rise for many years now. While the huge corporations like Anhouser Busch, etc. clearly make the killing, the small nano breweries are also figuring out how to find their way in the market and are staying afloat.

      While I understand the fear that big pharma, big ag, etc. will take over and will make a large amount of the profits, where is the faith that small micro grows can make it work? With the right mindset, the right business plan, and the proper funding, is there anything truly holding us back?

      Any type of legalization seems like a huge step forward for us, am I wrong?

      • Mark Mitcham says:

        I think you’re right, if you believe as I do that marijuana legalization is about stopping the marijuana arrests, primarily.

        Legalization will mean sellers of marijuana will have to compete against so-called “big business”, and this has a lot of feathers ruffled. I’m no fan of “big business,” believe me! But if “big marijuana” is a consequence of legalization, then so be it: it’s not worth one more marijuana arrest.

    Leave a Reply