<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>NORML Blog, Marijuana Law Reform &#187; California Beer and Beverage Distributors</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.norml.org/tag/california-beer-and-beverage-distributors/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.norml.org</link>
	<description>Working to reform marijuana laws</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:26:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Big Alcohol Backs &#8216;No on Prop. 19&#8242; Campaign</title>
		<link>http://blog.norml.org/2010/09/16/big-alcohol-backs-no-on-prop-19-campaign/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.norml.org/2010/09/16/big-alcohol-backs-no-on-prop-19-campaign/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:01:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[ACTIVISM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alcohol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[booze]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California Beer and Beverage Distributors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California Narcotics Officers Association]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California Police Chiefs Association]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LEAP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NORA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prop. 19]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public Safety First]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tim Rosales]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.norml.org/?p=4008</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[California campaign finance reports disclose that The California Beer &#38; Beverage Distributors Association is one of the primary financial backers of Public Safety First, sponsors of the &#8216;No on Prop. 19&#8242; campaign. Booze Lobby Funding the No on 19 Campaign via The East Bay Express The California Beer &#38; Beverage Distributors disclosed it donated $10,000 to defeat Prop 19 — which would regulate and tax marijuana like alcohol. The alcohol lobbyist&#8217;s funds will help spread the lie that employers must tolerate stoned employees, and the talking point that &#8216;California doesn&#8217;t [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignright" src="http://norml.org/images/blog/arrested.jpg" alt="" width="225" height="143" />California campaign finance reports disclose that <a href="http://www.cbbd.com/">The California Beer &amp; Beverage Distributors Association</a> is one of the primary financial backers of <a href="http://www.noonproposition19.com/">Public Safety First</a>, sponsors of the &#8216;No on Prop. 19&#8242; campaign.</p>
<blockquote><p><strong><a href="http://www.eastbayexpress.com/LegalizationNation/archives/2010/09/13/booze-lobby-funding-the-no-on-19-campaign">Booze Lobby Funding the No on 19 Campaign</a></strong><br />
via <em>The East Bay Express</em></p>
<p>The California Beer &amp; Beverage Distributors disclosed it donated $10,000 to defeat Prop 19 — which would regulate and tax marijuana like alcohol. <strong>The alcohol lobbyist&#8217;s funds will help spread the lie that employers must tolerate stoned employees, and the talking point that &#8216;California doesn&#8217;t need another legal, mind-altering substance.&#8217; </strong>Alcohol causes an estimated $38 billion in costs in California each year from emergency room visits, arrests, etc, according to the Marin Institute. There are roughly 3,500 deaths annually from alcohol-related illness and more than 109,000 alcohol-related injuries in California. Conversely, pot caused 181 emergency room visits in 2008, according to a study by the non-partisan RAND Corporation, despite being used by more than four million Californians monthly.</p>
<p>Law Enforcement Against Prohibition spokesperson and retired Orange County, CA. judge James Gray said the booze lobby&#8217;s decision was probably financial. The move echoes the tobacco and alcohol industry&#8217;s help creating leading drug war group Partnership For a Drug-Free America.</p>
<p>“It was a really wise thing to do from a merchandising standpoint to reaffirm the distinction between a legal and an illegal drug,” he said. “They are protecting their own economic self interest.”</p></blockquote>
<p>The alcohol lobby&#8217;s <a href="http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/09/15/2079897/weed-wars-beer-lobby-opposition.html">$10,000 donation to the &#8216;No on Prop. 19&#8242; campaign</a> <strong>is one of the largest monetary donations received by Public Safety First</strong>, third only to the $30,000 donated by the California Police Chief&#8217;s Association and the $20,500 donated by the California Narcotics Officers Association. (Want to ask PSF campaign manager Tim Rosales why an organization called Public Safety First accepts funding from the pushers of a product that is responsible for immeasurable public safety costs? You can do so by going <a href="http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/5559/action/prop19">here</a>.) Last month, the <em>East Bay Express</em> <a href="http://www.eastbayexpress.com/LegalizationNation/archives/2010/08/02/citizens-outspending-cops-51-in-prop-19">reported</a> total financial contributions to the Prop. 19 campaign were well ahead of those reported for Public Safety First, which at that time had only raised $61,000, with just one citizen donor.</p>
<p>Of course, this isn&#8217;t the first time that the The California Beer &amp; Beverage Distributors have targeted their alcohol profits to oppose drug law reform in the Golden State. In 2008, the booze lobby donated a much larger amount &#8212; $100,000 in fact &#8212; to defeat <a href="http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2008/oct/22/why_do_prison_and_alcohol_lobbie">Prop. 5, The Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act</a>, which among other things would have reduced criminal marijuana possession penalties from a misdemeanor to a non-criminal infraction. (The measure <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_5_(2008)">failed</a> 40 percent to 60 percent.) Could it be that the alcohol lobby is fearful of the day when they will have to legally compete with a natural product that is remarkably safe, non-toxic, and won’t leave you with a hangover? Do we even have to ask?</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll give the final word to <a href="http://www.drugwarrant.com/">DrugWarRant</a> blogger extraordinaire Pete Guither who <a href="http://www.drugwarrant.com/2010/09/alcohol-lobby-funds-prop-19-opposition/">says it best</a>, <strong>&#8220;If you’re opposed to Prop 19, you’re on the side of the narcs, the cartels, the sheriffs, and the booze industry.&#8221;</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.norml.org/2010/09/16/big-alcohol-backs-no-on-prop-19-campaign/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>106</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Who&#8217;s Getting Rich Off Prohibition? Just Look Who Opposes Prop. 5</title>
		<link>http://blog.norml.org/2008/10/30/whos-getting-rich-off-prohibition-just-look-who-opposes-prop-5/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.norml.org/2008/10/30/whos-getting-rich-off-prohibition-just-look-who-opposes-prop-5/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2008 04:58:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[ACTIVISM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LEGISLATION]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LITIGATION]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California Beer and Beverage Distributors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prison guards union]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Proposition 5]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.norml.org/2008/10/30/whos-getting-rich-off-prohibition-just-look-who-opposes-prop-5/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You can learn a lot about the merits of a proposal by taking a good, hard look at who&#8217;s lobbying against it. Take California&#8217;s Proposition 5, the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act, which would require the diversion of certain non-violent offenders to drug treatment and increase funding for state-sponsored rehabilitation programs. The measure seeks to expand upon the alternative sentencing programs initially enacted by Proposition 36, which is estimated to have saved taxpayers some $1.7 billion dollars and reduced the number of people incarcerated for simple drug possession by one-third. So who [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/J_J0zlx-McQ&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></embed></p>
<p>You can learn a lot about the merits of a proposal by taking a good, hard look at who&#8217;s lobbying against it.</p>
<p>Take California&#8217;s <a href="http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/state/prop/5/">Proposition 5</a>, the <a href="http://www.prop5yes.com/">Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act</a>, which would require the diversion of certain non-violent offenders to drug treatment and increase funding for state-sponsored rehabilitation programs. The measure seeks to expand upon the alternative sentencing programs initially enacted by <a href="http://www.prop36.org/">Proposition 36</a>, which is estimated to have <a href="http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/05/in_time_of_cali.html">saved taxpayers some $1.7 billion dollars</a> and <a href="http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/05/in_time_of_cali.html">reduced the number of people incarcerated for simple drug possession by one-third</a>. So who would <a href="http://www.noonproposition5.com/">oppose</a> this proposal?</p>
<p>If you guessed: the folks who make their living arresting non-violent drug offenders, you&#8217;d be right! According to the &#8216;No on 5&#8242; <a href="http://www.noonproposition5.com/">website</a>, the California State Sheriff&#8217;s Association, the California Narcotics Officers Association, the California Peace Officers Association, the Police Chiefs of California, and the California District Attorneys Association all oppose Prop. 5.</p>
<p>However, even more disturbing is who&#8217;s bankrolling the &#8216;No on 5&#8242; campaign. According to the <a href="http://www.drugpolicyalliance.org/homepage.cfm">Drug Policy Alliance</a>, California&#8217;s powerful prison guards union has <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-abrahamson/jerrys-brown-nosin-with-c_b_139293.html">spent close to $2 million dollars to lobby against the passage of Prop. 5</a>. After all, overcrowded prisons &#8212; In 2007, California declared a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/us/27prisons.html?ref=us">&#8216;state of emergency&#8217; in the prison system </a>because of the lack of bed space &#8212; and more prison construction (in lieu of building additional public high schools and state colleges) are a financial windfall for prison guards, even if they spell disaster for everyone else.</p>
<p>In addition to expanding drug treatment in California, Prop. 5 would also reduce minor marijuana possession penalties from a <a href="http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?wtm_view=&amp;Group_ID=4525">misdemeanor</a> (punishable by a $100 criminal fine with a criminal record) to a non-criminal infraction (punishable by a $100 civil fine with no criminal record). Now who would be against that?</p>
<p>If you answered: the folks who make their living by possessing a monopoly on the sale of legal intoxicants, you&#8217;d be correct! According to the DPA, the California Beer and Beverage Distributors have <a href="http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy_main/2008/oct/22/why_do_prison_and_alcohol_lobbie">donated $100,000 to the &#8216;No on 5&#8242; campaign</a>. Could it be that the alcohol lobby is fearful of the day when they will have to legally compete with a natural product that is remarkably safe, non-toxic, and won&#8217;t leave you with a hangover? Do we even have to ask?</p>
<p>So now that you know who&#8217;s against Prop. 5, why not examine <a href="http://www.prop5yes.com/category/supporters">who is lobbying for it</a>. That list would include the California Nurses Association, California Society of Addiction Medicine, the California League of Women Voters, and the California Academy of Family Physicians.</p>
<p>In short, those who have dedicated their lives to helping others in need are backing Prop. 5, while those who have dedicated their careers to destroying people&#8217;s lives (or who promote a product that does) vehemently oppose it. You do the math.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.norml.org/2008/10/30/whos-getting-rich-off-prohibition-just-look-who-opposes-prop-5/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>27</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

