Doctors want focus off punishment, and into ways to properly use drug as a treatment.
by Brian Leubitz
The California Medical Association, the 30,000 strong organization of California doctors, has just issued a statement calling for the reclassification of marijuana away from its current Schedule I status.
The California Medical Association (CMA) has adopted official policy that recommends legalization and regulation of cannabis. The decision was based on a white paper concluding physicians should have access to better research, which is not possible under the current policy. The paper, available here, is a thoughtful study and response to an important issue, continuing CMA's tradition of providing guidance on public health.
CMA is the largest physician group in California and the first statewide medical association to take this official position.
"CMA may be the first organization of its kind to take this position, but we won't be the last. This was a carefully considered, deliberative decision made exclusively on medical and scientific grounds," said James T. Hay, M.D., CMA President-Elect. "As physicians, we need to have a better understanding about the benefits and risks of medicinal cannabis so that we can provide the best care possible to our patients." (CMA)
There are a lot of questions about the pros and cons of marijuana, but because of the classification, very little serious research has been done. CMA is just taking a look at what the reality is on the ground, acknowledging the facts and seeing what they can do to make the situation better. We have far too many people locked up in prisons for drug crimes, we're spending money on a losing battle. How do we actually address the problem instead of pretending we are still fighting a war on drugs that we clearly lost years ago.
Of course, there are plenty of groups out there to go crazy over this, and one Republican running for the Assembly obliges MediaNews on that front:
But critics, like Paul Chabot, president of the Coalition for a Drug Free California, said the CMA recommendation would harm society. ... Chabot, who said his group has more than 1,000 members, called on doctors to tear up their CMA membership cards "in light of leadership's pro drug legalization stance."
"Research has shown marijuana use has been linked to testicular cancer, schizophrenia, and depression," Chabot said. "It's because of so-called medical marijuana, we now have the highest use-rate for kids in America. What an irresponsible and unethical position the CMA has taken." (MediaNews)
It is perfect that Chabot is running for Assembly, he'll fit in well with the pretend reality doesn't exist GOP caucus. The "studies" he cites are far from comprehensive and don't accurately tell anywhere near the full story. At the very least, we should be doing real research on both sides of the drug, instead of just pretending it is purely this insidious thing.
Because, you know, tobacco isn't linked to, oh, I don't know, every imaginable form of cancer, yet we allow recreational use of that known-killer. Let's see Chabot call for outlawing tobacco and see how far he gets in the political world. I suppose Altria has better lobbyists and more cash than Oaksterdam.
Three years before the election, Governor already faces scrutiny about his plans.
by Brian Leubitz
While Jerry Brown was busy over the weekend signing bills to ban synthetic marijuana and bar a San Francisco measure to ban circumcision, apparently people are pretty excited about replacing him. Or perhaps more accurately, people are excited to talk about people who could replace him.
"I've extremely enjoyed my first year," Brown said. "I find it -- I don't know if I'd call it exhilarating -- but I find it quite engaging and interesting and fully worthy of my total involvement."
There had been speculation when the now 73-year-old Brown was first elected to what actually amounted to a third term that he would not run again.
If he does decide to seek another term it would cause serious damage to any number of folks who want to be governor. (LA DN)
Of course, this came up in the context of an interview with CalBuzz a while back, though from their article, the question seemed to be directed more at how Brown was handling his first year back in the Horseshoe. But, Sacramento being what it is, there are always people eyeing the top spot, and tons more willing to talk about people eyeing it. From every statewide elected official to a the big city mayors, there will be attention on the 2014 race.
Did I mention that Brown has been in the office less than a year? Welcome to the 24 hour news cycle.
I've worked in law enforcement for 35 years, including 15 years as the police chief in San Jose, California. Over my career, I have seen firsthand how misguided our marijuana policies are for our state and our country. That's why I narrated the Yes on 19 campaign's new TV ad.
(News from the Yes on 19 Campaign. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
It sure feels like the tide is turning among voters when it comes to Proposition 19, The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010. On Thursday, the PPIC released a poll showing the initiative leading 52-41 with only 7% undecided. Since the last PPIC poll in May, Prop 19 leaped from a 1-point lead to an 11-point advantage.
On the heels of the Field Poll that Brian Leubitz wrote about last week (Yes - 49, No - 42, Und - 9), we here at the Yes on 19 campaign see a clear trend developing. As voters tune in to the upcoming election, they begin to realize what an incredible opportunity California has to lead the nation in ending cannabis prohibition by voting yes.
Prop. 19
Proposition 19 on the November ballot would make California the first state to legalize the recreational use of marijuana. We hear from a proponent and an opponent of the proposition, known as the "Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010."
Host: Michael Krasny
Guests:
* Cliff Newell, district attorney of Nevada County
* Joseph McNamara, research fellow at the Hoover Institution and retired police chief of San Jose
Every year tens of thousands of people in California are arrested for simply possessing small amounts of marijuana. These arrests overload our already stressed courts and jails. They also divert scarce public safety dollars that could be used to address violent crime. California's Proposition 19, on the November 2010 ballot, offers a remedy that will move marijuana policy in a direction that makes sense. The California Legislative Analyst's Office explains that the passage of Proposition 19 would allow redirection of court and law enforcement resources to solving violent crimes.
At first glance, the November ballot initiative to legalize marijuana in California seems like a no-brainer. It will boost tax revenues. It will lighten the burden on our prison system and allow law enforcement to focus on more serious issues. It will move billions of dollars out of the hands of drug traffickers and into the legitimate economy, creating thousands of jobs. Overall, it will end the prohibition of a relatively harmless drug that has demonstrated medical benefits and is enjoyed by millions of recreational users.
But a closer look suggests the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act - or RCTC for short - is less than ideal. Even so, I think voters should vote yes on RCTC.
The drive to pass RCTC is being funded by Richard Lee, who operates a dispensary and a nursery in the Oakland area. Lee also runs Oaksterdam University, which offers instruction on topics such as cannabis horticulture and legal issues facing dispensary operators. At least one critic, activist Bruce Cain, calls Lee a "marijuana monopolist" and claims a chief goal of RCTC is to line Lee's pockets. Indeed, Lee's empire already pulls in single-digit millions every year - though he says his personal share is only about $50,000 - and does seem well-positioned for growth if RCTC passes.
Potential profits for Richard Lee don't concern me, though. It's the way RCTC goes about legalizing marijuana that leaves a few things to be desired.
The initiative includes some long-overdue changes to existing law. If it passes, Californians over 21 would be allowed to grow their own marijuana and to keep what they grow on the premises where they grow it. RCTC would also legalize the possession of up to one ounce of pot outside of those premises. These moves would be major improvements over the current prohibition of non-medicinal growing and holding.
On the other hand, the initiative has some key weaknesses. For example, RCTC stumbles by deferring commercial pot policy to local governments instead of establishing a statewide plan for commercial sales. NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, touches on this weakness in its endorsement of the initiative. "The immediate effect of the passage of this measure would be to protect the individual from arrest if he/she possesses or grows a small quantity of marijuana in the privacy of their own home," NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano said in a press release. Longer term, RCTC "will provide local governments with the option to regulate and tax the retail distribution of marijuana to adults in a manner similar to the way society controls alcohol."
Let me reiterate that: the initiative on the November ballot will make it legal to possess and grow small amounts of marijuana, but would not create a framework to buy, sell, and tax marijuana throughout California. Instead, the initiative would give cities and counties the option to create such a framework on their own.
This local-option approach might be okay with Richard Lee up in Oakland, a city so pot-positive it allows medical marijuana patients to fly out of Oakland International with weed on their person. But what about towns run by conservatives, like San Diego? It seems unlikely that our county's board of supervisors, for example, would take a sensible and fair approach to marijuana when the board doesn't even take a sensible and fair approach to issuing food stamps. In fact, just this week, the board began zoning medicinal marijuana dispensaries practically out of existence in the county, even though California voters legalized medical cannabis 14 years ago.
That's why I prefer a statewide pot policy like the one in HR 2254, the Marijuana Control, Regulation and Education Act, a bill from Democratic state assemblyman Tom Ammiano of San Francisco. As calpotnews.com reports, "Ammiano's bill would impose a $50-per-ounce state levy on pot made available for sale. It also would license private marijuana cultivators and wholesalers and give the state Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control authority over a legal retail marijuana industry."
But 2254 is a tough sell in Sacramento, where a majority of our legislators lack the spines to enact legalization themselves. As RCTC gathered momentum in early 2010, Ammiano delayed hearings on 2254 until this fall, apparently hoping the push for the initiative could help his fellow legislators see the light. "We want to see how the legislation can get out in front of the initiative and at the same time be complementary," Ammiano said. "The initiative does call for more of a patchwork than a uniform state policy, but there may be a way to try to blend those two."
HR 2254, with its statewide approach, seems like the superior path to legalization. Ammiano's bill even exempts medical marijuana from taxation, which RCTC does not. Long-time legalization advocates like Ed Rosenthal, aka the Guru of Ganja, and Dennis Peron, whose activism helped Proposition 215 become law in 1996, point out that no other prescription drugs are taxed -- so why would it be acceptable to tax medicinal marijuana?
RCTC also does nothing for Californians who are serving time for marijuana-related offenses. Donna Lambert is a San Diego medical marijuana patient and former dispensary operator who was charged with seven felonies by county district attorney Bonnie Dumanis. Though Dumanis's office retreated after juries acquitted two other dispensary defendants, offering a plea deal that traded the seven felonies for one misdemeanor, Lambert remains concerned about others who weren't so fortunate.
"I am deeply disappointed that this act does nothing to release the thousands of marijuana prisoners, but in fact actually creates several new levels of punishable crimes," Lambert said in an email. Lambert says she'll probably vote for RCTC but hopes that it will be followed by more comprehensive reform.
Under RCTC, anyone who furnishes marijuana to a person aged 18 to 20 could face upt to $1,000 in fines and up to 6 months in jail. A knowledgeable local source told me that about 75% of San Diego's registered medicinal users are between the ages of 18 and 25, so it seems fair to assume demand is strong among that age group. And since college-age people don't tend to demand their friends show ID, it's not hard to imagine a scenario where a 22-year-old shares marijuana with a 20-year-old and ends up in trouble with the law. With this in mind, I think it would make more sense for RCTC to extend legalization to people aged 18 and over, not just 21 and over.
HR 2254 also allows adults to grow up to 6 marijuana plants at a time, while RCTC places a 25-square-foot limit on personal growing space. I've never tried to grow tomatoes, let alone marijuana, so I'm not sure which limit makes more sense. But the "Prince of Pot," Marc Emery - a Canadian who was recently extradited to Seattle and currently faces several years in US federal prison for selling seeds to Americans over the Internet - has said that 25 square feet would be more than enough. In a Cannabis Culture magazine article, Emery crunches the "industry standard" horticulture numbers and concludes that "ANY competent grower can achieve 16 to 40 ounces every 10 weeks in their space, a generous personal or medical amount by any standard."
Emery calculates that a 25-square-foot indoor growing area could yield up to 5 pounds of marijuana a year at a total cost of about $1,000, or somewhere around $12.50 an ounce. Currently, high-grade marijuana's selling price at California dispensaries typically equals its street price of about $300 to $400 per ounce. These numbers suggest that current prices include massive profit margins, which I couldn't help but think of as I left a Banker's Hill dispensary after a recent visit, just as the man who runs the place was pulling up in a brand new Lexus.
In any case, my thumbs are anything but green and are far more comfortable pressing the spacebar than working the soil - so if RCTC passes and I find myself looking to consume some marijuana, I'll likely be buying it from somebody. Accordingly, I'm a bit perplexed by RCTC's deferral to local jurisdictions, which could preserve black markets in areas like San Diego and force legal consumers like me to spend my money in more with-it jurisdictions.
But assuming HR 2254 and its statewide sales plan is out of reach, RCTC strikes me as a weaker but still dramatic improvement in marijuana policy that Californians should support. By voting yes on the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act, we will lead the nation forward in an area where the federal government appears incapable of moving beyond the asinine status quo, even with Democrats in firm control of the executive and legislative branches.
In March 2009, for example, President Obama held a town hall-type meeting in which he invited Americans to submit questions online and vote for their favorites. More than 3 million people voted on more than 13,000 questions, and in three separate categories - budget, health care reform, and green jobs - questions about legalizing marijuana got the most votes.
"I don't know what this says about the online audience," Obama said with a forced laugh that instantly marginalized the legalization movement. "The answer is, no, I don't think that is a good strategy to grow our economy."
After the event, a reporter complained about Obama's response to White House press secretary Robert Gibbs. "But, Robert, he didn't take on the serious issue," the reporter said. "He made a joke out of it. I mean, there were a lot of questions about legalization of marijuana, not as a job creation program, but just as a serious policy issue. And with what's happening in Mexico -"
"The president opposes the legalization of marijuana," Gibbs responded, providing another example of how Obama's progressivism tends to be limited to the pages of his autobiographies. But the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act, despite its shortcomings, would be a big step forward for marijuana policy - and that gives me hope.
The regulation and taxation of marijuana is going to be a fairly big issue come this fall. But, the question remains as to how it will fair. In order to pass the measure, the supporters will likely need fairly high turnout. However, from a starting position, they could be doing worse. Today, they released results of an internal poll:
• 51% of voters support the initiative on hearing only the title, with 40 percent voting no - an 11-point margin.
• 74% agree that "marijuana should be controlled like alcohol and tobacco."
• 57% agree the initiative "puts police priorities where they belong."
Now some of these numbers are kind of weird. Like why would you say that the initiative would put police priorities in the right place, then vote against it. But, I suppose 5 percent of the state is just kind of weird.
Voters generally likes the idea of the additional revenue flowing into the state, and aren't all that worried about any changes that might occur. Incidentally, my guess is that very few changes will actually occur, as teh federal government would likely step in if the measure passes. Not that this fact should stop Californians from supporting the measure, but it is a point worth noting.
Finally, there is this convenient little fact for progressives:
The marijuana initiative has the potential to drive turnout among younger voters, newer voters and
independents.
• More than 3 in 4 voters (77%) say they have heard about the initiative. Awareness is high across all demographic groups, including newer voters, younger voters, young Democrats and independent voters.
• Many of these traditionally low propensity voters say they will be more likely to vote because of the marijuana initiative. Especially in a year when so many voters are turned off by politicians and the election process in general, this initiative can be a strong driver of turnout among younger voters, newer voters, Democrats and independents.
CDP Chair John Burton mentioned this during the convention, but it's likely true. In the absence of this measure, I'm not sure there's any great motivation to rush to the ballot for any of the gubernatorial candidates. This measure, however, changes the game, even if just a little bit. So while Jerry Brown may not be embracing the measure, you can be sure he's glad it is on the ballot.
Oakland City Attorney John Russo wrote an excellent op-ed about the Regulate, Control & Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 that I thought was worth sharing. As the City Attorney of the first city in the country to regulate the sales of medical marijuana, Russo has seen first hand that regulation can improve public safety and believes the same can be accomplished statewide and beyond with the passage of the initiative:
As the City Attorney of Oakland — a city where dozens of people are killed in drug-related murders every year — my primary concern is the war on marijuana’s collateral damage to public safety.
Black market marijuana is a main source of fuel powering the vast criminal enterprises that threaten peace on our streets and weaken national security on our borders. According to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Mexican drug cartels get more than 60 percent of their revenue from selling marijuana in the United States.
Money is the oxygen of these organizations. For decades, our approach to fighting violent drug gangs has been like trying to put out a house fire with a watering can. Why not try shutting off the fire’s oxygen supply?
Russo’s right. The war on drugs has been an utter failure, not only at curbing the use of illegal drugs but also at ending violence. Cannabis regulation is a way to curb this violence and to stop needless arrests that waste tax payer dollars:
The cost of enforcing prohibition is hard to estimate. We spend hundreds of millions of dollars and countless law enforcement hours arresting people for low-level marijuana crimes, further overburdening courts and prisons. Jail beds needed for marijuana offenders could be “used for other criminals who are now being released early because of a lack of jail space,” the state Legislative Analyst’s Office wrote.
More than 61,000 Californians were arrested for misdemeanor marijuana possession in 2008. That same year, about 60,000 violent crimes went unsolved statewide. The reality is that resources tied up fighting marijuana would be better spent solving and preventing violent felonies and other major crimes.
Regulating and controlling marijuana is really a law-and-order measure. It takes marijuana off street corners and out of the hands of children. It cuts off a huge source of revenue to the violent gangsters who now control the market. And it gives law enforcement more capacity to focus on what really matters to Californians — making our communities safer.
It’s time we call marijuana prohibition what it is — an outdated and costly approach that has failed to benefit our society. In November, we will finally have the chance to take a rational course with the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act.
Oaklanders like Russo have seen firsthand that marijuana regulation and taxation works. Now it’s up to us to spread that message to the rest of the state to ensure the passage of this initiative in November.
All three leading guv hopefuls oppose legalizing weed for recreational use.
"I've already indicated that that's not a provision I am likely to support," Attorney General and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown told a gathering of law enforcement officials in Sacramento this week. "I have been on the side of law enforcement for a long time, and you can be sure that we will be together on this November ballot."
GOP candidate Meg Whitman's spokeswoman, Sarah Pompei, said Whitman is "absolutely against legalizing marijuana for any reason. ... She believes we have enough challenges in our society without heading down the path of drug legalization."
Steve Poizner's communications director, Jarrod Agen, said Poizner "feels we need an across-the-board tax cut to reignite our state's economy, not an attempt to smoke our way out of the budget deficit."
These statements are damning evidence of just how disconnected from California public opinion these three candidates are - 56% of Californians support legalizing and taxing marijuana, according to the Field Poll from April 2009. Support for legal marijuana is an idea fully in the mainstream of the state's electorate, especially in the tightly regulated forms proposed in the legalization initiative that qualified for the November ballot last week, or in Assemblymember Tom Ammiano's AB 390.
It also suggests a certain lack of seriousness about exploring all reasonable options to deal with the state's budget deficit. Jerry Brown is particularly disappointing on this, even if his stance isn't at all surprising. Brown has gone around the state pointing out, correctly, that we spend too much money on prisons at the cost of other core services, such as schools. Brown also signed a bill in his first year as governor in 1975, sponsored by then-State Senator George Moscone, decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana.
Unfortunately, in recent years Brown has been totally unwilling to revisit the sentencing policies that produce those high prison costs. He opposed Proposition 5 in 2008, which would have provided sensible sentencing reform and was widely supported by drug treatment professionals. That didn't move Jerry Brown then and doesn't appear to move him now.
Brown's framing of his opposition to legalization - that he's "on the side of law enforcement" - is both inaccurate and profoundly unhelpful. Groups such as Law Enforcement Professionals Against Prohibition (LEAP) are strongly supportive of legalization. Many local police agencies and county prosecutors would welcome the ability to shift their attention away from pot and toward actual threats to public safety, especially at a time when police budgets are under stress.
Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner are no less out of touch for their opposition, even if it is also unsurprising. Both Whitman and Poizner apparently believe they must hold the line against ANY new tax, in order to justify their reckless plans for massive new tax giveaways to their wealthy friends.
All three candidates are turning down what could be as much as $1.4 billion (according to the Board of Equalization study of AB 390) in desperately needed budget savings, coming from new taxes on marijuana.
In the absence of leadership from the gubernatorial candidates, Californians will have to lead the way themselves this November by voting to approve the legalization initiative.
Well, the question of marijuana will likely be coming to a ballot near you:
Supporters of legalized marijuana announced today that they have gathered about 700,000 signatures for their initiative, virtually guaranteeing voters will see it on the November ballot. They plan to turn in the petitions today to elections officials in some of the state's major counties, including Los Angeles. Supporters need 433,971 valid signatures to qualify the measure.
The measure's main proponent, Richard Lee, a highly successful Oakland marijuana entrepreneur, bankrolled a professional signature-gathering effort that was bolstered by volunteers from the state's hundreds of medical marijuana dispensaries.
The initiative, known as the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act, would make it legal for anyone 21 and older to possess an ounce of marijuana and grow plants in an area no larger than 25 square feet for personal use. It would also allow cities and counties to permit marijuana to be grown and sold, and to impose taxes on marijuana production and sales. (LA Times)
The most recent polling shows the measure passing at about 56%. That's a nailbiter for a number if you have a vigorous No campaign. However, at this point, I wonder who ponies up with any serious money to oppose the measure. Sure, you are likely to get a bunch of opposing endorsements from candidates and elected officials. But money? That's an entirely different question. From a brainstorming perspective, maybe some law enforcement organizations would throw a bit of money against it, but I just don't see enough money being raised to bring the numbers down.
On the flip side, I imagine that Lee and other drug policy advocates will do what they can to support this measure. It looks like we will be doing some pretty interesting voting this year, huh?
The petition drive, which was run by a professional signature-gathering firm, collected more than 680,000 signatures, 57% more than the 433,971 valid signatures needed to put it on the ballot, said Richard Lee, the measure's main proponent.
"It was so easy to get them," Lee said. "People were so eager to sign."
The initiative would also allow cities and counties to adopt their own laws to allow marijuana to be grown and sold, and the localities could impose taxes on any aspect of marijuana production and sales. It would make it legal for adults over 21 years old to possess up to an ounce of marijuana and to grow it in a 25-square-foot area for personal use.
Because this particular initiative creates a "local option" for taxation, on top of a statewide legalization, it is hard to quantify exactly how much money this would raise. Initiative proponents cite the Legislative Analyst who says it could generate up to $1.4 billion in new revenue, in addition to an unknown but likely significant amount of savings in prison and court costs.
Although some other legalization initiatives are floating around out there, this is the only one that's expected to make the 2010 ballot. And despite some earlier debate over whether 2010 or 2012 was the best time to go the ballot, other marijuana legalization advocates plan to support this initiative fully and work to pass it.
They may be joined by the rest of the state:
Polls have shown that a majority of California voters support legalization. A Field Poll taken in mid-April found that 56% of voters in the state and 60% in Los Angeles County want to make legalize and tax pot as a way to help solve the state's fiscal crisis. In October, a poll taken by a nonpartisan firm for the Marijuana Policy Project found 54% support in the county.
A poll taken for the initiative's proponents by EMC Research, an opinion research firm in Seattle, found that 51% of likely voters supported it based on language similar to what will be on the ballot, but support increased to 54% when they were read a more general synopsis.
Those numbers are no slam dunk. But they also show that this is clearly an idea whose time has come. California has proven that the costs of the war on drugs are unacceptably high, and that we need to bring that stupid and pointless conflict to an end before it bankrupts the state.
There's still 11 long months to go between now and the November 2010 election. But I'm hoping that Californians are ready to take the national lead in legalizing and taxing marijuana as part of a more rational and sensible approach to drug policy, prison reform, and the budget crisis.
The Assembly Public Safety Committee, chaired by San Francisco's Tom Ammiano, held a hearing on Ammiano's AB 390 to legalize and regulate the sale and distribution of marijuana.
Advocates said legalization and regulation could bring as much as $1.4 billion in state and local excise and sales tax revenue per year; control the drug's potency; do more to keep it out of children's hands; and end a centurylong double standard in which alcohol and tobacco - which they say are more harmful - are legal while marijuana isn't, leading to a war on drugs particularly destructive to people of color.
Law enforcement officials testified the harms caused by marijuana legalization would far outweigh whatever tax revenue it might bring - more, not less, use by children; more people driving under the influence, causing more injuries and deaths; decreased worker productivity that could hurt the economy; and a still-thriving black market. (Bay Area News 10/29/09)
As it stands, it will be a while before there are any where the number of votes necessary to pass this bill. Beyond the majority vote measure to legalize, there is also the 2/3 part of this that would tax. Ammiano would have to convince more than just Democrats to get this thing passed.
Of course, these debates become more of an issue if any of the four measures currently out for signatures gets on the ballot. Polls have consistenly shown support for regulation and taxation of marijuana to be hovering around the 55% mark for about a year now. Once a campaign starts, all bets are off, especially with former Senate President pro tem Don Perata throwing his weight behind one of the measures.
Major policy changes often happen as a result of a sudden shift that is, in fact, not so sudden at all. Public attitudes and behavior steadily change over time, but a political system whose practitioners have made up their minds on a topic years ago, before that change became apparent, are typically unwilling to accept the new reality. Until something changes - a new generation of leaders takes power, a financial crisis causes people to become more open to new ideas. Or perhaps it's just as simple as an idea whose time has come, an idea whose wisdom can no longer be denied.
We're at such a turning point with marijuana. One of the state's main cash crops, the economic base of many small towns in the North Coast (and of a growing but hard to track number of metropolitan households), marijuana is already widely available in California, whether on the black market or at a quasi-legal dispensary. As more and more Californians are comfortable with the use of marijuana, even if they do not partake of it themselves, the decades-old drug war has become seen as more and more absurd when it comes to marijuana.
When an April Field Poll found 56% of Californians back marijuana legalization, it became only a matter of time before the topic became a fully mainstream subject, deemed appropriate for "serious" conversation at everything from public policy summits to the dinner table.
And so this week California is witnessing a fundamental shift in marijuana policy, where for perhaps the first time it really is a question of "when," and not "if," the sale and use of marijuana will become legal in California.
The biggest news comes from the federal government, where Attorney General Eric Holder has followed through on his early signals and announced the Justice Department will no longer prosecute people for using medical marijuana in accordance with their state's laws. Holder is not yet embracing full legalization, of course. But this is a significant shift that recognizes states do have a right to innovate when it comes to drug policy. Whether the Obama Administration intends it or not, the new policy will be further evidence that a strict federal "War on Drugs" is no longer desirable or viable.
Here in California, more fundamental changes are under way. As a judge rules LA DA Steve Cooley's attack on dispensaries to be invalid, the movement for full legalization is well under way. Tom Ammiano's bill to legalize, regulate, and tax marijuana, AB 390, will get its first hearing in the Assembly next week.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, speaking at a bill signing ceremony in Merced yesterday, said he is "basically opposed" to legalization but believes it's time to have a debate about the issue. In Arnold-speak that says he doesn't see legalization as a political loser, even if he's not quite willing to go there himself. His comments show that legalization has gone from being a sensible idea on the fringes of our political discourse to something we can debate as easily and naturally as, say, water policy.
Meanwhile, armed with the Field Poll results - as well as the recent Gallup Poll which found support for legalization was highest in the Western US, with moderates and independents nationwide about split on the matter, California activists are not waiting around for the legislature or the governor to act.
Instead they're going directly to the ballot. TaxCannabis.org is the headquarters for the effort to put an initiative on the November 2010 ballot to treat marijuana much like alcohol. The initiative would legalize possession of up to one ounce for all adults over 21, and give local governments the ability to determine whether to more broadly legalize and tax marijuana themselves. It would essentially create a "local option" instead of a statewide free-for-all.
It's not yet clear if they have the money or the volunteers to put this on the ballot. And the fact that local governments would be the ones implementing the policy, instead of a single statewide standard, might limit the savings in prison spending and the overall tax revenues created. But it's a clear step forward for sensible drug policy, one whose time has clearly come.
Before I start this post, I should put this out there: I'm a nerd. Always have been, always will be. My experience with marijuana is limited to a couple of times in college and an accidental brownie in Golden Gate Park. That being said, the statistics and research all say one thing: Marijuana is Safer than alcohol. (Again, square alert, I drink one beer a week at most and I'm tipsy at the first sniff of alcohol.)
We mentioned in an open thread a few days ago that there were a couple of initiatives that have been approved for circulation to legalize mariujana. And one of these measures now looks like it might have some momentum behind it.
In a rather smart move all around, former State Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata has joined the effort to tax and regulate marijuana. As a candidate for Mayor of Oakland, this can't help but be an asset in the campaign. After all, the voters in the City of Oakland recently passed a measure to tax marijuana by a vote of 80%-20%.
Given the poll numbers showing such a measure passing by about 10 points now, this certainly has a shot at passing. While the state laws would be superceded by the federal laws, the statement alone would result in a push for bringing the conversation up in DC. If this can get on the ballot, this might be an interesting item to watch.
We have less than 50 days until the special election in the 10th Congressional District to replace Ellen Tauscher, who resigned to take a job at the State Department. The candidates include local members of the legislature, the state's Lieutenant Governor, and several candidates with interesting resumes. There's even word that New Age guru and Oprah pal Marianne Williamson may get into the race, although she doesn't have much time to make her decision. The 2nd quarter fundraising totals revealed some interesting outcomes, and the campaign staffs have debated who has the most local support and the most endorsements. There's even a burgeoning controversy about Ellen Tauscher's presence on Sen. Mark DeSaulnier's mailers, which may violate the Hatch Act now that she works in the State Department.
We've heard a lot about strategies, funding and endorsements, but a little less so about where the candidates stand on the issues. So I'm making an effort to interview all the Democratic candidates in the race, to discuss their views on the type of vexing problems that the country faces which they would be expected to deal with in Congress. The first candidate to respond was Adriel Hampton, the former Political Editor at the San Francisco Examiner and an investigator in the SF City Attorney's Office. What follows is a paraphrased transcript of the interview I conducted last week.
Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-SF) has been known as a big idea guy for a while here in San Francisco. His record as a legislator on the Board of Supervisors is really without comparison. You probably have heard about AB 390, that would legalize, regulate, and tax the sale of marijuana. Many simply laughed at the idea, but when a recent Field poll (PDF) showed that 56% of the state favored the idea, well, a lot fewer people are laughing now.
Someone else who isn't laughing? Well, that would be our very own Governator, who told reporters today that he thinks the idea should be open to discussion. From the Bee:
"Well, I think it's not time for that, but I think it's time for a debate," Schwarzenegger said. "I think all of those ideas of creating extra revenues, I'm always for an open debate on it. And I think we ought to study very carefully what other countries are doing that have legalized marijuana and other drugs, what effect did it have on those countries?"
This still isn't very likely to get passed anytime soon, but if we can get it done in the next decade both at the state and federal levels, we will spend a whole let less on the "War on Drugs" and putting it to better use. Oh, and we get a new product to put a sin tax on.
"Well, certainly, I have seen in my own state of California people over and over voting a big majority the whole issue of marijuana and possession of that," Sanchez said this morning on CNN. "So maybe it would be a good pilot program to see how that regulation of marijuana might happen in California since the populous, the majority of Californians believe maybe that's should happen."
Taking a page from a number of those who favor the reform of pot laws, Sanchez likened the issue to the prohibition of alcohol in the early 20th century.
"Well, certainly there is one drug - it's called alcohol - that we prohibited in the United States and had such a problem with as far as underground economy and cartels of that sort that we ended up actually regulating it and taxing it," she said. "And so there has always been this thought that maybe if we do that with drugs, it would lower the profits in it and make some of this go away."
All of this is eminently sensible public policy, and it's good to have someone widely viewed as a moderate selling this to the public. She is absolutely right to compare marijuana to alcohol (even though alcohol tends to be the more dangerous drug) and remind us what we did when the Prohibition policy failed by creating widespread evasion as well as massive crime - we repealed the 18th Amendment and legalized alcohol.
The Hill article notes that Sanchez's subcommittee, Border, Maritime, and Global Counterterrorism, has jurisdiction over the American side of the drug war that has brought parts of northern Mexico into chaos. Drug policy reform advocates have been pointing out for decades that the best way to encourage more stability in Latin America, and to cut down the power of the cartels, is to end America's prohibition policies.
Let's hope this sparks a broader level of political support for marijuana legalization in California. It's been the right move for a long time. It's also now a necessary move if we're to have any hope of starting to fix our budget mess.
Up in Bellingham, Washington, a town just a few miles from the Canadian border, Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducted a "raid" on an engine plant, arresting 28 workers. The raid stirred outrage among many progressives who had hoped that the secret police tactics of the Bush-era ICE (and I'm sorry, but that's really the best way to describe it) would end with the new administration.
These "raids", several of which have hit California communities, making temporary orphans of children whose parents go to work and are thrown into prison camps with no warning or provision made for care of the children (or in cases in Texas, the children themselves are thrown into the camps), have been a prime target of immigrant rights and human rights groups.
These groups point out that immigration law can be enforced without destroying communities or violating basic rights. They also note that the raids rarely catch criminals. A New York Spanish-language paper, El Diario La Prensa, called the raids "a runaway program that has ruthlessly persecuted undocumented families" and demanded Obama and Napolitano stop them.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told lawmakers during a Wednesday hearing in Washington, D.C., that she did not know about the raid before it happened.
She has asked ICE for answers.
"In my view," she said, "we have to do workplace enforcement, and it needs to be focused on employers who intentionally and knowingly exploit the illegal labor market. I want to get to the bottom of this as well."
The original Know Nothings were a nativist party in the 1800's. Call me cynical, pero I have a hard time buying that the new Secretary of of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, didn't know anything about the ICE raid yesterday that arrested 28 undocumented workers....
As ICE raids continue while the Obama administration keeps telling us via Spanish language media that they care about immigration, is this administration going to be the new Know Nothings?
It's good for immigrant rights activists to keep up the pressure on the Obama Administration. Whether the problem is Bush-era holdovers or an administration not yet willing to break with a policy that violated the human rights of thousands on a massive scale, these raids must stop.
Also, AG Eric Holder is promising to end the raids on medical marijuana clubs. This is a big victory for California and might signal a shift in Obama's approach to the failed war on drugs, although it's worth noting this is a small step forward. Let's hope that Napolitano and Holder are both serious about ending these raids.
A frequent topic of online discussion on the budget crisis in recent weeks has been a call to legalize and tax marijuana in order to help close the budget deficit. This would have two beneficial effects - reducing the prison population and increasing the revenue stream for state government. It was even the most popular question at Change.gov back in December.
Today Assemblymember Tom Ammiano announced he supports this basic concept, and to that end is introducing AB 390 - a bill number you'll be hearing a lot about in coming months. From a press release sent via email:
Today Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) announced the introduction of groundbreaking legislation that would tax and regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol. The Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education act (AB 390) would create a regulatory structure similar to that used for beer, wine and liquor, permitting taxed sales to adults while barring sales to or possession by those under 21.
"With the state in the midst of an historic economic crisis, the move towards regulating and taxing marijuana is simply common sense. This legislation would generate much needed revenue for the state, restrict access to only those over 21, end the environmental damage to our public lands from illicit crops, and improve public safety by redirecting law enforcement efforts to more serious crimes", said Ammiano. "California has the opportunity to be the first state in the nation to enact a smart, responsible public policy for the control and regulation of marijuana."
Ammiano estimates this will bring in $1 billion in annual revenue. That could double when considering the impact of savings on prison spending.
This is clearly an idea whose time has come. I do not know of any recent polling on the topic, but I have to believe that support for regulating marijuana like alcohol has risen in recent years. 2009 offers an interesting moment, where long-time legalization advocates can now ally with Californians who want to solve the budget crisis and can no longer afford to ignore the high costs of a failed marijuana policy.
Ammiano is also following in the footsteps of other San Francisco legislators. In 1975 then-State Senator George Moscone got a bill passed and signed by Governor Jerry Brown to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. Ammiano's proposed legislation is of a much larger scale, but it makes sense to treat marijuana, a drug that is already widely available in California, the same way we treat alcohol.
It's good to see someone in Sacramento stand up and point out that there's no reason we should maintain a policy that has failed so totally and completely, and at such an enormous cost, as marijuana prohibition.
. (Again, square alert, I drink one beer a week at most and I'm tipsy at the first sniff of alcohol.)