The stakes could rise considerably in 2010 in the argument over marijuana use – and not just for medical purposes.
Officials from a group campaigning to put a marijuana-legalization measure before California voters said they have enough signatures to qualify for the 2010 ballot.
The possibility of marijuana being legalized in the state has riled activists on both sides of the issue.
“First off, we don’t think it’s going to pass at all,” said Paul Chabot, co-founder of the Inland Valley Drug Free Community Coalition.
“California has really woken up since Proposition 215 passed in 1996. Most Californians now know this fraud is brought to us by those who funded the (marijuana) legalization initiative.”
Proposition 215 legalized the use of marijuana for medical purposes.
A Field Poll conducted in April found that 56 percent of California residents supported legalizing and taxing marijuana to help bridge the state budget deficit [ So, as you can see, Chabot lies again. ].
“The question is of the 5 or 10 percent truly sitting on the fence,” said Lanny Swerdlow, director of the Marijuana Anti-Prohibition Project. “Those are the groups we’re going to have to educate on why to legalize and tax cannabis. I think we can do it. We have the attitude. We will raise enough money.”
The initiative would legalize possession of up to one ounce of marijuana or adults 21 and older. Residents could cultivate marijuana gardens up to 25 square feet. City and county governments would determine whether to permit and tax marijuana sales within their boundaries.
medical marijuana facilities would not be affected.
The initiative has far more than the nearly 434,000 signatures needed to make the statewide November 2010 ballot, said Richard Lee, an Oakland medical marijuana entrepreneur and the initiative’s main backer.
The initiative is also supported by Oaksterdam University, a marijuana emporium in downtown Oakland. On its Web site, Oaksterdam describes itself as providing “quality training for the cannabis industry.”
Chabot described Oaksterdam as “the same people who run a medical marijuana business.”
“It’s been (marijuana proponents’) agenda (to legalize the substance) since 1996. It’s never about sick people. It’s about drug legalization. This weakens the medical- marijuana argument.”
Chabot described the initiative as, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. We don’t think Californians are going to get fooled again.”
Marijuana is illegal under federal law. But some legal scholars have argued the U.S. government could do little to make California enforce the federal ban if the drug became legal under state law.
Supporters point to provisions in the legalization measure that call for jail time for anyone who sells or gives marijuana to children. It forbids smoking pot in a public place or in front of minors.
Opponents of the measure contend legalization of marijuana will lead to more drug abuse among minors.
Crano published a paper in the Association for Psychological Science‘s journal Perspectives on Psychological Science stating that the more involved parents are with their children, the less likely the children are to use marijuana.
“It’s a natural push to model after those respected parents or adults or people who happen to be 21 and over,” Crano said. “It’s inevitable it will make smoking dope seem more legitimate. I’ve done plenty of research. And contrary to the people in the marijuana movement, I’d suggest this is not a good thing for youngsters.”
Crano said adolescents who use marijuana “are prone to a host of negative consequences and reoccurring problems,” including delinquency, affiliation with delinquent peers, mental impairment and other issues that “lead to more drug use.”
Swerdlow thinks the younger generation will help pass the initiative in 2010.
“I think a lot of young people are excited that marijuana has chance at legalization,” he said. “They don’t feel like criminals, and they’re not doing anything wrong. They want to see it legalized.”
“I would vote for anyone to have access so that people who are deprived under current law can get it,” Kruse said. “In the current time, in my opinion, it’s not the easiest thing to get a place to distribute it.”
Kruse’s dispensary was shut down by court order in 2007.
“Eventually, the courts will recognize” the legal right of people to have medicinal marijuana, he said.
Jan Werner, operator of a Bloomington and Home Gardens medical marijuana collective, said marijuana is a medicine like any other medicine and should be controlled.
“People who need it (should be) under doctor’s regulation and guidance would be best like any medication,” Werner said. “We don’t just legalize valium or legalize Vicodin for recreational purposes. What we do do is provide safe access for qualified patients.”
Election officials must validate and count the signatures before the California secretary of state places the measure on the ballot. Campaign organizers say they will submit more than 650,000 signatures of registered voters next month.
Filed under: Civil Liberties, Drugs, Education Industrial Complex, Information, Military Industrial Complex, Prison Industrial Complex | Tagged: Association for Psychological Science, Claremont, Claremont Graduate University, Compassionate Use Act, Darrell Kruse, Field Poll, Inland Empire, Inland Valley Drug-free Community Coalition, Jan Werner, Lanny Swerdlow, marijuana, Marijuana Anti-Prohibition Project, medical marijuana, Oakland, Oaksterdam University, Paul Chabot, Perspectives on Psychological Science, Prohibition, Proposition 215, Richard Lee, Vicodin, War on Drugs, William Dean Crano |