Posted by GeraldClift on 10/18/09
Last updated 11/15/09

There are four initiatives to legalize marijuana in California all of which can be viewed at the Secretary of State's office.  Of these four only two are currently circulating petitions to get on the ballot in November 2010. 

The Tax Cannabis 2010 Initiative is funded and circulated by Oaksterdam University and is the only initiative to have significant financial backing; as a result they also significantly lead in gathered signatures with a total of 120,000 out of the 433,971 required. 

The other Initiative circulating is called  the California Cannabis Initiative and is all volunteer without a major financial backer.  They have quoted their signature count at 10,000 through internal emails to volunteers.  Since each initiative is only given 140 days to accumulate the 433,971 needed signatures, at their current rate of signature gathering, the California Cannabis Initiative will not be able to qualify (they have been circulating longer than the Tax Cannabis 2010 Initiative).

Ultimately I made my decision on the viability of Tax Cannabis 2010 (it's large volunteer support base through Oaksterdam alumni, financial backing, and impressive signature count that will make them qualify for the ballot well before they need to).  However there are certainly key differences in the two measures that others may wish to take into account.

Tax Cannabis 2010 is certainly a more conservative version of marijuana legalization which they claim is necessary to appeal to a broader voter base.  Tax Cannabis 2010 allows each person to possess only one ounce while the California Cannabis Initiative repeals all possession laws.  Being a defender of liberty, I certainly agree that we should repeal all possession laws regarding cannabis but the LAO (Legislative Analysts Office) has already voiced a potential constitutional challenge to vaguely removing all possession laws.  "That is because the measure in some cases makes general references to the other laws that are to be changed, rather than directly amending or striking out the specific existing laws relating to marijuana" while the Tax Cannabis 2010 Initiative has received no potential constitutional challenges in the LAO's analysis.  Furthermore Tax Cannabis 2010 would argue that more moderate voters may vote against the measure without these restrictions on what a person can posses (a limit which many counties may likely increase on a county by county basis anyway).

Another key difference is that, while each measure legalizes statewide possession and growing, the Tax Cannabis 2010 initiative allows local governments to set up their own system of taxation and stores (should they wish to have marijuana stores) and the California Cannabis Initiative creates statewide regulations for stores and taxation of marijuana.  In that I personally believe local control on most issues is best (except those guaranteed by our Constitution such as the right to bear arms), I prefer the Tax Cannabis 2010 measure in this area; with competition of marijuana regulatory policies between various counties, I believe we can see much better systems at a small level than a statewide system made by the legislature could ever do with a "one size fits all approach."

Ultimately the one area where California Cannabis Initiative stands out is that it releases all current marijuana offenders in California's prisons and expunges marijuana criminal records.  The Tax Cannabis 2010 Initiative made a very calculated decision after polling that they would ultimately receive much more opposition from the Prison Guard's Union (California's most powerful political organization) if they included removal of existing criminal records and release of marijuana offenders. It is an unfortunate political reality but some members of the legislature have hinted they will have a follow up bill in the legislature to help address this and other issues created by the legalization bill (similar to how the legislature passed SB 420 to clarify parts of Proposition 215 that weren't covered when California legalized medical marijuana).

I originally was a volunteer for the California Cannabis Initiative but after seeing both initiatives in action in their first month of operation, it is my recommendation that you support Oaksterdam's Tax Cannabis 2010 Initiative.  It has the money, the volunteer base, a healthy rate of signature accumulation, no constitutional challenges by the LAO, and gives more power to local governments on the marijuana issue.  They need volunteers now to help save money for the statewide ad campaign in the coming months.  To sign up to volunteer click here or the image below.

Posted 11/01/09 DeanLKaufman Santa Ana, CA

I don't smoke pot. I like to have a clear head. If pot is legalized and an impaired on pot driver crashes into me because he or she is not able to function driving a car, I don't know whether I would be able contain my personal temper at that point. Freedom also comes with responsibility. Smoking pot makes people irresponsible for their actions. I never want to have the pay the price for others acting irresponsible because their collective brains were too fogged up to know which end is up or that my car could be wrecked because they have a legal right to blot out all their abilities to think and comrehend reality of life.

Posted 11/02/09 Ascadian Sonora, CA

I thought you didn't smoke or take pot? Shall we ban all other medications from being legal, even when recommended by a licensed physician? People take prescription medication and drive all the time, some even drink and drive.. but I don't hear anyone screaming to ban alcohol. One of natures purest forms of medicinal plants, used for thousands of years, and yet those who claim they don't even use it want to act like they actually know something about the side effects. How come your not worried about Big Pharma companies creating medications that often have horrific long term side effects, some being permanent, that often create the need for other medications...which have their own side effects... the cycle repeats. I'm not sure about you Dean, but 1: I will pray you or your family never gets cancer like mine has. 2: I will continue to always choose natures remedies over multi billion dollar profit motivated "meds"

Posted 11/02/09 jeniflip Royal Oaks, CA

I certainly am not a legislative analyst who has their finger on all the potential consequences of a particular proposed piece of legislation. Just like "Dean", I also am not a marijuana consumer, nor do I condone its use. I'm not much of a drinker or prescription drug aficionado, either. I DO think we should immediately legalize fiber hemp (Cannabis sativa L. subsp. sativa var. sativa - the non-drug kind you make rope and even bio-diesel with). However: I was an Ag/Horticulture major in college, and have run a small organic produce farm. I do have a general and applied knowledge of good agriculture practices. I have a son who is in law enforcement in Humbolt County in Northern California. Published estimates claim that although there are plenty of grows out in remote areas of the county, nearly half of all rental homes in the Eureka area are being used as illegal grow houses. Vulnerable children live in some of these houses. Since the grows are not in proper greenhouses or out in the open, the chemicals used to keep pests, mildews and fungus out of the crop are certainly not "organic" or regulated. Many of these places literally become toxic waste dumps, and are filled with toxic black mold from humidity. A friend of ours works in the State Parks system, and occasionally participates in intensive cleanup of outdoor marijuana grows in the deep cover of state forests. The same kind of situation applies: toxic ag chemicals, waterway/stream/runoff contamination, soil contamination, and some pretty awful garbage and human waste conditions. The ironic thing is that most of the serious growers in the state of California are actually AGAINST legalizing marijuana. How can that be? Well, think about it. The growing business becomes legal. Hemp family plants are generally very pest free if grown in the open sun in a moderate climate, they naturally shade out weeds due to their growth habits, and crops rotated with nitrogen-fixing crops such as beans, soy, or alfalfa every couple of years. Farmers can grow organically out in the fields, pay taxes, but not have the electric illumination expenses of an indoor grow, or the hydroponic or drip system and chemical expenses. Personal users can grow in their gardens. Prices will go down, the product will be less toxic, children are not being poisoned by their parents dubious profession, and the criminal thrill is gone... Driving under the influence - be it alcohol, prescriptions or marijuana, is still illegal. "Ascadian" feels that marijuana can be a beneficial drug, and this may be true. But plants grown as much of the crop is raised currently, is worse than almost any GMO, herbicide and pesticide laden product on the market. Just My Humble Opinion. jeniflip

Posted 11/06/09 nobodyslaw Sunland, CA

The yellow journalism now refers to smear tactics like those employed by W. R. Hearst in support of his vast empire and timber lands ( held to log or harvest the trees for his new wood pulp paper mills), Hearst had vast, vast holdings in Mexico, and made major investments in wood pulp paper mills, (Hearst invested millions of dollars, and "owned" logging rights to millions of acres of timberlands in Mexico he planned to use for his, together with Dupont the patent holder, many wood pulp paper mills, and use the wood pulp paper for printing the Hurst newspapers), W.R.Hearst smeared Pancho Villa who promised to return W.R.Hearst timber lands back to the Mexican people. W.R.Hearst eliminated wood pulp paper competition, namely paper made from American Hemp crops. Using his media empire, using lies, hemp was banned by smear campaign against the scourge of the "Mexican Marijuana". Hearst owned newspapers, widely and daily, ran front page false stories written by Hearst himself claiming murder and rape "confessions" all blaming Marijuana use, or "Reffer" madness" as the cause. Really he needed to remove hemp paper crops from America, that competed against his vast timber paper investments. The "Yellow" in "Yellow Journalism" refers to the rapid yellowing deterioration of the new wood pulp paper, where the Hemp paper commonly used before then (and made of Hemp grown by American Farmers since George Washington and Thomas Jefferson who both grew and smoked Hemp crops by the way), is longer lasting and more durable paper. See "Rag content" in fine paper products. Know that Ben Franklin made Hemp paper from old Hemp clothes for his printing press. Know that USA paper money "dollars" are printed on 24 % hemp paper. Smithsonian is removing all mention of Hemp so as to not "send the wrong message" to the people of America, for the children, we don't want to send the wrong message to the Children? So we can't tell the truth? This will cripple and taint research and stifle innovation and competition throughout Industry in America until we see (the widespread and unrestricted growth of) American Hemp Crops return to fields on American Farms. See how Hemp is- Canvas, Linen, greuel, biofuel in new zealand. Research hemp seed nutrition. Learn historic use of hemp flowers and extracts in medicine. Read and understand top DEA administrative law judge Francis Young ruling on rescheaduling hemp "Marijuana" or Marajuana" from schedule 1. See the "Schaefer Commission final report" from the Nixon era.

Posted 11/15/09 whisperingsage Herlong, CA

If this passes, does that mean I can grow industrial hemp unimpeded? Man, those plants grow 9 feet tall. They are much more productive than flax. (and no, if you smoke it you will throw up).

Posted 11/16/09 fr33domfightr Costa Mesa, CA

The initiative that Gerald supports doesn't contain any language making it legal to grow Industrial Hemp. It also only allows for possession of 1 ounce of cultivated Cannabis. This leaves open a loophole where law inforcement could raid a dwelling knowing a 25 square foot plot would contain more than 1 ounce of flowering Cannabis. On the plus side, it does bring the issue to the lowest level, by empowering people to influence their city council and/or community officials. I'd like you all to read over the initiatives and post your thoughts here. A good open discussion should help flush out the benefits or pitfalls of each of these. To help out, I'm providing the urls to each of the initiatives that I know of (4): Initiatives and Referenda in Circulation as of November 12, 2009: http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i819_initiative_09-00 22.pdf http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i821_initiative_09-0 024_amdt_1-s.pdf http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i822_initi ative_09-0025.pdf Initiatives Pending at the Attorney General's Office as of November 12, 2009 (Due on Nov. 20, 2009): http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i841_initiative_09-0 044.pdf I hope this helps.