California to hold referendum on legalising marijuana
Discussion
An advantage of direct democracy
Telegraph said:
California has taken a key step towards becoming the first American state to legalise recreational marijuana use and tax sales of the drug after it announced it would hold a referendum on the issue.
A statewide vote on the issue will take place in November that is likely to become a focus for national debate on US drug laws. California was the first state to legalise marijuana for medical use in 1996 and since then 13 other states have followed suit.
Anti-drug campaigners were alarmed by the latest move saying legalisation would lead to an explosion in the use of both marijuana and harder drugs, and drug tourism. It could also put California on a legal collision course with the federal government because the possession and sale of marijuana is a federal crime.
If passed, the proposal, known as the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act, would permit adults over the age of 21 to be allowed one ounce (28 grams) of marijuana for personal use. Possession is currently an offence punishable by a $100 (£60) fine. Under the plan people would also be allowed to cultivate 25 square feet of marijuana plants in their gardens.
Using the drug in public, on school grounds or in the presence of children, or driving under its influence would still be illegal.
Local officials in individual cities and counties would have the option of allowing sale and transportation of the drug and would be able to tax it, which proponents say could generate millions of dollars for public funds.
Recent polls show just over 50 per cent of Californians in favour of legalising the drug and taxing it to help reduce the struggling state's $20 billion (£13.4 billion) budget deficit. Last October, a Gallup poll found 44 per cent of all Americans favoured legalisation.
Among the US celebrities who have called for legalisation are the actors Woody Harrelson and Megan Fox.
The Transformers actress said: “When they do, I’ll be the first person in line to buy my pack of joints. People look at it like it’s this crazy, hippy thing to do. And it’s not. I hope they legalise it. If alcohol is legal, I just think marijuana should be, that’s all.”
The California vote was announced after 694,248 people signed a petition calling for the question to be added to the ballot paper in the forthcoming state general election in November. That was well over the 433,971 signatures required to get a question automatically placed on the ballot.
Ahead of what is expected to be a heated battle for public opinion John Lovell, a lobbyist representing the California Police Chiefs Association, said the announcement of a vote was "the first step towards its defeat".
He said: "There is going to be a very broad coalition opposing this that will include law enforcement. We will educate people as to what this measure really entails." Aimee Hendle, a spokeswoman for Californians for Drug Free Youth, said: "It will definitely lower the perception of risk and we will see youth use go through the roof. How can our kids say no when the adults around them are saying yes?"
The chief promoter of the petition has been Richard Lee, 47, a marijuana activist who founded Oaksterdam University, a "cannabis-oriented college" in California three years ago. He also runs a medical marijuana dispensary.
Mr Lee said: "I really see this as following the history of alcohol, the way prohibition was repealed there." Stephen Gutwillig, California director for the Drug Policy Alliance Network, which backs legalisation, said: "This is a watershed moment. Banning marijuana outright has been a disaster, fuelling a massive, increasingly brutal underground economy and wasting billions in scarce law enforcement resources."
Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Governor of California, has called for an "open debate" on the issue.
A proposal to legalise the sale and use of marijuana in Washington state was recently defeated in the state legislature, and there have been several battles over the issue in Nevada in the last decade. Rhode Island, is also considering decriminalisation.
A statewide vote on the issue will take place in November that is likely to become a focus for national debate on US drug laws. California was the first state to legalise marijuana for medical use in 1996 and since then 13 other states have followed suit.
Anti-drug campaigners were alarmed by the latest move saying legalisation would lead to an explosion in the use of both marijuana and harder drugs, and drug tourism. It could also put California on a legal collision course with the federal government because the possession and sale of marijuana is a federal crime.
If passed, the proposal, known as the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act, would permit adults over the age of 21 to be allowed one ounce (28 grams) of marijuana for personal use. Possession is currently an offence punishable by a $100 (£60) fine. Under the plan people would also be allowed to cultivate 25 square feet of marijuana plants in their gardens.
Using the drug in public, on school grounds or in the presence of children, or driving under its influence would still be illegal.
Local officials in individual cities and counties would have the option of allowing sale and transportation of the drug and would be able to tax it, which proponents say could generate millions of dollars for public funds.
Recent polls show just over 50 per cent of Californians in favour of legalising the drug and taxing it to help reduce the struggling state's $20 billion (£13.4 billion) budget deficit. Last October, a Gallup poll found 44 per cent of all Americans favoured legalisation.
Among the US celebrities who have called for legalisation are the actors Woody Harrelson and Megan Fox.
The Transformers actress said: “When they do, I’ll be the first person in line to buy my pack of joints. People look at it like it’s this crazy, hippy thing to do. And it’s not. I hope they legalise it. If alcohol is legal, I just think marijuana should be, that’s all.”
The California vote was announced after 694,248 people signed a petition calling for the question to be added to the ballot paper in the forthcoming state general election in November. That was well over the 433,971 signatures required to get a question automatically placed on the ballot.
Ahead of what is expected to be a heated battle for public opinion John Lovell, a lobbyist representing the California Police Chiefs Association, said the announcement of a vote was "the first step towards its defeat".
He said: "There is going to be a very broad coalition opposing this that will include law enforcement. We will educate people as to what this measure really entails." Aimee Hendle, a spokeswoman for Californians for Drug Free Youth, said: "It will definitely lower the perception of risk and we will see youth use go through the roof. How can our kids say no when the adults around them are saying yes?"
The chief promoter of the petition has been Richard Lee, 47, a marijuana activist who founded Oaksterdam University, a "cannabis-oriented college" in California three years ago. He also runs a medical marijuana dispensary.
Mr Lee said: "I really see this as following the history of alcohol, the way prohibition was repealed there." Stephen Gutwillig, California director for the Drug Policy Alliance Network, which backs legalisation, said: "This is a watershed moment. Banning marijuana outright has been a disaster, fuelling a massive, increasingly brutal underground economy and wasting billions in scarce law enforcement resources."
Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Governor of California, has called for an "open debate" on the issue.
A proposal to legalise the sale and use of marijuana in Washington state was recently defeated in the state legislature, and there have been several battles over the issue in Nevada in the last decade. Rhode Island, is also considering decriminalisation.
Amazing.
Only proposed, but at last some sensible legislation regarding Marijuana.
Considering that it was only made illegal due to cotton farmers and slave traders lobbying the newly formed American Government, then swiftly spread around the globe, if California successfully implement this law, then it's a great first step towards kicking back against the simply flawed arguments used by the Christian Right in the states, and then hopefully overseas.
After all, the original US Constitution was written on weed. As was the Declaration of Independence. Oh, and the first Stars and Stripes was made out of weed fibres too....
Prohibition simply doesn't work, unfortunately, hysteria by a very vocal minority (where else does that happen?), means that politicians simply roll over and the world keeps revolving with people knowingly and deliberately disregarding the law, as it's shown to be an ass.
Only proposed, but at last some sensible legislation regarding Marijuana.
Considering that it was only made illegal due to cotton farmers and slave traders lobbying the newly formed American Government, then swiftly spread around the globe, if California successfully implement this law, then it's a great first step towards kicking back against the simply flawed arguments used by the Christian Right in the states, and then hopefully overseas.
After all, the original US Constitution was written on weed. As was the Declaration of Independence. Oh, and the first Stars and Stripes was made out of weed fibres too....
Prohibition simply doesn't work, unfortunately, hysteria by a very vocal minority (where else does that happen?), means that politicians simply roll over and the world keeps revolving with people knowingly and deliberately disregarding the law, as it's shown to be an ass.
Marijuana is already grown in two or three counties in California. It's already big business, multi million dollar operations.
It is currently allowed by county law/regulations, illegal by federal law.
Hence the need to act so some form of duty can be applied, I think tax (sales and income) is already paid by the growers.
ETA possibly no sales tax if medicinal, I'm not well up on California Sales Tax Law
It is currently allowed by county law/regulations, illegal by federal law.
Hence the need to act so some form of duty can be applied, I think tax (sales and income) is already paid by the growers.
ETA possibly no sales tax if medicinal, I'm not well up on California Sales Tax Law
Edited by jeff m on Saturday 27th March 03:24
Given that 60% of the people I work with are pot heads I can see the budget crisis being solved within a few hours if this "reeferendum" goes through to eventual decriminalisation.
I personally think it should be legal to buy and use in private areas, I can say first hand the alkies at work are less productive and a huge pain in the arse vs the pot heads.
N.B I don't drink OR do any drugs.
I personally think it should be legal to buy and use in private areas, I can say first hand the alkies at work are less productive and a huge pain in the arse vs the pot heads.
N.B I don't drink OR do any drugs.
[quote]John Lovell, a lobbyist representing the California Police Chiefs Association, said the announcement of a vote was "the first step towards its defeat".
He said: "There is going to be a very broad coalition opposing this that will include law enforcement. We will educate people as to what this measure really entails."
[/quote]
No.
Law enforcement should not be lobbying, 'educating' or talking to the press about anything other than what they're currently doing.
They are there to enforce the laws passed by the legislature, not to attempt to alter or interfere with their passage.
He said: "There is going to be a very broad coalition opposing this that will include law enforcement. We will educate people as to what this measure really entails."
[/quote]
No.
Law enforcement should not be lobbying, 'educating' or talking to the press about anything other than what they're currently doing.
They are there to enforce the laws passed by the legislature, not to attempt to alter or interfere with their passage.
handpaper said:
No.
Law enforcement should not be lobbying, 'educating' or talking to the press about anything other than what they're currently doing.
They are there to enforce the laws passed by the legislature, not to attempt to alter or interfere with their passage.
I disagree. Law Enforcement are citizens too. They should be heard but their weight should be no more and no less than other citizens. They don't lose their right to be heard just because they agree to "serve and protect".Law enforcement should not be lobbying, 'educating' or talking to the press about anything other than what they're currently doing.
They are there to enforce the laws passed by the legislature, not to attempt to alter or interfere with their passage.
It's a bit like saying soldiers shouldn't be allowed to vote because then they will be picking their commander in chief.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff