Proponents of legalizing cannabis in California in 2016 remain deeply divided

Discussion in 'Marijuana News' started by ogderp, Jan 18, 2015.

  1. Just came across this article today. I hope that they can all sit down and talk things over and agree on one initiative to all get behind. This issue is the reason why there was no legalization initiative on the ballot in CA in 2012 or 2014. And if this issue isn't resolved, it could either lead to there being no initiative on the ballot next year, or another failed initiative.

    http://m.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/one-night-stands/Content?oid=4167228

    The prospect of marijuana legalization in California looks anything but certain after a major meeting late last week in Oakland in which leading activists showed how divided they remain. In fact, the possibility of ending the 78-year-old prohibition on cannabis appears to have increased factionalism within the reform movement.

    In a hotel banquet room on the waterfront in Jack London Square on Friday, luminaries of pot law reform rehashed grievances and honed new disputes over future initiative language, as well as campaign funding and control.

    The remnants of the 2010 Proposition 19 group - the Coalition for Cannabis Policy Reform - held the free event, "Post Mortem Seminar: 2014 Legalization Elections," to build unity, analyze success in Oregon, Alaska, and Washington, DC, and to discuss California's path forward.

    Veteran campaign manager Bill Zimmerman gave the keynote address to a packed room of about one hundred doctors, lawyers, activists, dispensary owners, growers, pollsters, political operatives, and union leaders representing a cross section of the California legalization movement. Zimmerman has personally managed seventeen drug reform ballot initiatives in ten states, including taking over the wayward Proposition 215 in California in 1996 and leading it to victory.

    Today, 23 states have some medical marijuana law. Four states and Washington DC have legalized cannabis for adults 21 and over. But don't get cocky, Zimmerman told the crowd. Unite, face political reality, be pragmatic and empirical, and let leading group Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) manage day-to-day operations for the campaign - or fail, he said.

    "Politics is the art of the possible," he said.

    But many in the crowd revolted. "This time there's going to be other people with money," warned San Francisco lawyer William Panzer. "There's going to be an initiative on the ballot that DPA has nothing to do with."

    DPA intends to draft an initiative that, according to polling, has a good chance of garnering 50 percent of the vote. The group plans to target the roughly one-third of voters who could swing either way, Zimmerman said.

    But that plan risks alienating some of legalization's most radical supporters, including those in the medical cannabis industry who want economic protections included in any ballot language. "I need a job to feed my family," said Debby Goldsberry, ambassador at Oakland's Magnolia Wellness and co-founder of Berkeley Patients Group.

    "I can't give you the assurances you want," Zimmerman responded. "You win as much as you can get."

    Contrary to what headlines have indicated, the political reality of legalization is grim in California: A slim majority of voters backs the idea of legalization, but support is weakest among voters who live in rural areas or are over the age of fifty, and among women and ethnic groups. Plus, legalization lost in 2010, and there were no ballot measures in 2012 and 2014 because reformers have been so divided.

    "History is full of [initiatives] with more support [than marijuana has now] that lost," Zimmerman said.

    Targeting the persuadable one-third of voters means targeting people who "don't have much experience with marijuana and they don't like it. They see it as a threat to teens' brains, highway safety, public order, and morality," Zimmerman added. "If we fail to win these voters, we fail the election," he said.

    This persuadable one-third also does not want marijuana profits enriching cartels, he said. They don't want their kids' lives ruined over a pot bust. They've learned that marijuana is more benign than alcohol and don't want cops wasting time on marijuana. That's "the message that can convince voters," he said.

    Zimmerman outlined three ways in which legalization can lose in 2016: demand too much; divide into opposing factions; and draw heavily funded opposition.

    The main friction points will be initiative language about exactly who will control and profit from a legal market; taxes; protections for medical marijuana patients and dispensaries; the right to home-grow and how much; and an age limit of 18 versus 21.

    "Our belief about what is right has to be put aside in the interest of what is possible," Zimmerman said.

    But many dispute DPA's concept of what is possible in 2016. "Hogwash," responded Dale Sky Jones, chair of the Coalition for Cannabis Policy Reform. "You can cook whatever set of numbers you want."

    Proposition 215 was idealistic and changed the world, some noted. But Prop 215 also ran out of money and failed to gather enough valid signatures until DPA saved it, Zimmerman countered.

    "Somebody has to manage [the campaign], make the decisions on when to hold a press conference, and how we respond to opponents' arguments," Zimmerman said. "We cannot escape the problem of picking a leader. Political campaigns cannot be run by committee."

    If reformers overreach when drafting language or if they remain divided, opponents could "smell blood and mount a campaign" with multimillion-dollar television ads, Zimmerman said. "Our opponents will jump on our disagreements," and will tell voters that "protecting kids and public safety is so difficult that even legalization activists can't agree how to do it," he added. "That argument would be devastating to the voters we need to target.

    "We will have to spend four times as much as they do to neutralize them," he continued. "Dramatic lies sit in people's minds far longer than optimistic truths.

    "We will all have to compromise," he added. "Essential to success is not making the kind of mistakes that will tempt [an opposition] campaign. That would be not shooting ourselves in the foot, but in the head."

    Reform groups agreed to disagree, and to continue meeting in 2015. Look for more from the post mortem seminar on the Legalization Nation blog this week on EastBayExpress.com.
     
  2. I don't understand why they don't copy and paste Colorado's legalization initiative.

    It seems most people from Colorado are happy with it.

    No need to make things complicated.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  3. Yeah I agree completely. Some media outlets are even calling their system "the colorado model" and said that it should be duplicated in other states considering legalization.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Please use it.
    Because we will vote that week ass law down as well.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. What's weak about Colorado's legalization.

    Anyone from Colorado complaining?
     
  6. #6 EmeraldCream, Jan 31, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 31, 2015
     
    Well most are because they get their weed and that's all that matters. 
     
     
    The business side of things, from what I understand if you are in CO and want to grow? You need mega pockets because the law is 110% geared to keep anyone who isn't already filthy fucking rich, out of the industry. 
     
    From talk around the NorCal Grapevine, that's one of the biggest reasons there is lots of divide here in CA. Another big line of thought is "what happens to medical?" and that scares a lot of folks from legalization. 
     
    But the biggest? It's California.....what should be nickle bags of shake are going to be 80$ grams of .001% THC bark shavings by the time our legislators get done taxing the industry right the fuck out of bidnizz before it ever has a chance to open it's doors. 
    [​IMG]
     
    And nobody wants that....b/c as nice of gardens as there are in other states no one produces as much as NorCal. CA sent CO TONS upon TONS of weed in 2014 and from what I saw it was BARELY enough to keep shit on the shelves. 
     
    If the feds don't get on the bandwagon soon and get things sorted legalization is about to turn into a world class clusterfuck of epic proportions. 
     
    Just my perspective from the mountains of beautiful northern California...
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Because it's easy as fuck to get a license in Cali...no to mention you have some counties where people grow like 50+plants,you have a lot of people making money right now. If I were a Cali resident i'd be hesitant on signing a bill. Cali also has a shitty run government, why would they vote in a bill that would almost surely get them taxed out the ass? You see rappers on instagram with pounds of weed? Guess where they're getting it from? The dispensary owners with licenses to grow. You got guys like that K Powers dude showing up Wiz concerts with pounds of bud to sell...(on video too lol). Alot of people are making money right now.
     
    The Colorado way would be a step down for Cali. For pretty much alot of states the Colorado way might work, but with Cali...nope.
     
    If anything Cali residents need to work on protecting the rights of card users...i've seen countless stories where cops see the card as a joke and confiscate and arrest people for possession anyway. That shit should be nipped in the bud asap.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. Sounds like you might be making money off of it and that's why you don't want to see it legalized in Cali. That's why they should keep the medical and recreational systems separate so that nothing changes with it, and the industry can expand. And people over 21 wouldn't have to worry about cops messing with them anymore if it were legalized. Cali does need a system that works best for the state and protects MMJ though, look at whats happening with the medical system up in Oregon in Washington state. They also shouldn't tax it out the ass because that doesn't cut down on the black market, but I wouldn't be surprised if the state government decides to add ridiculous taxes anyway.
     
  9.  
     
    That's exactly what it sounds like.  "Fuck everyone else I want to make bank on it the way things are."
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. #10 EmeraldCream, Feb 1, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 1, 2015
     
    More like "Fuck monsanto types, it's better when more than 2 people and their senator buddy are making money off the industry." but you're right that's totally irrelevant and unimportant to the consumers. Tough shit for them, they aren't the only group that's part of this equation. 
     
     
    You can't have a recreational system charging asshole amounts of tax, and medical. 
     
    No one is going to buy the 80 dollar bag of shake when they can get their "I have a boo boo" card and buy top shelf for 1/3 the price. 
     
    That is to say we sold legalization on "tax it till the worlds problems are gone" and that can't compete in a market where the state isn't taking 60%+ off the top. So the state isn't going to allow that market to exist...medical will die and your once 5$ sack of shake will cost a hundred bucks, and the black market will be alive and well again. 
     
  11. I'm un-familiar with the laws in currently legal states, but I assume individuals are allowed to raise certain amounts for personal use tax free, much like making beer or wine. if so, wouldn't thousands of people raising their own herb eliminate a lot of price gouging and help keep prices down.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. #12 SlightlyStonedSD, Feb 1, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 1, 2015
    All that matters is personal grows aren't outlawed and it will work itself out.

    I won't vote for legalization if I'm not free to grow at least what's legal for MMJ
     
    • Like Like x 3
  13. exactly right, this is not about the money hogs. I've been an outlaw for forty yrs. because I like to grow my own herb. make personal grow/ medical  legal first then let the money grubbers and politicians fight over the rest. 
     
  14. Well I do agree that they definitely will make changes to medical in Cali if legalization passes, I think that any ballot initiative should at least have a provision that stops medical from being completely eliminated, if that's possible. The same thing was happening in Colorado after the recreational shops opened there, people were still buying medical instead because it was cheaper with less taxes. Also if the age for recreational in Cali was 21, then people that are 18-20 would just continue to get their card for whatever bogus reason to smoke recreationally. So I think that medical should still exist, but I can pretty much guarantee that it will undergo some changes at least if Cali legalizes. Maybe they should just try to adopt a statewide regulatory system for it and make it harder to get a card.
     
  15. Yeah I don't think that they'd outlaw personal grows under legalization, especially in Cali. I wouldn't vote for legalization either if that was outlawed
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. I'm just skeptical. There's a lot more money to be made for the government and the "pot barons" if you can stop or limit people from growing their own. People in power don't like to leave all that money on the table. So I'm optimistic but skeptical.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Yeah we'll see what the language of the ballot initiative is gonna be later this year, so we'll know how it would work by then. I think personal cultivation is a really important part of it, so any law that has ridiculous rules on cultivation to where you can only grow a very small number of plants or are only allowed to be in possession of a certain amount that is way less than the final yield of your plants shouldn't be passed in Cali. I heard that like 3 groups are trying to get on the 2016 ballot, so we'll see who has the best initiative. I think that legalization could be good for Cali because it would create lots of new jobs and tax revenue, but it has to be done right and in a way that best suits Cali.
     
  18. #18 dabs710, Feb 1, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 1, 2015
    Because Prop 215 is arguably written better than a lot of the proposed legalization bills to many people. You have one side that is trying to be as greedy as possible, similar to "Responsible Ohio", that are trying to monopoloize and over tax marijuana, and then you have groups like CCHI who are trying to actually completely decriminalize weed like tomatoes, but the "big money backers" aren't happy with them.
     
    I've seen this situation coming for a long time. Personally I blame it on the greed and basic lack of comprehension from many of the so-called "cannabis movement reformers". I will not name any in particular. They have created chaos in Washington State from a complete lack of insight. Anyone who read I-502 before it was passed knew how unworkable the tax structure was, if they did basic math. But, the "reformers" *knew* people did not care about details then, they just cared about the novelty of marijuana being legal vs. illegal. Now they are getting so greedy, they are trying to rewrite their tax law (with still huge numbers) and allow growing a smaller number of plants, and at the same time try to remove dispensaries. Simply because the bad rec store system is not as good as the medical dispensaries. Anything that is not as good or better than the Prop 215 system we have here in Cali will result in unhappiness from most of the "stoner community", and much greater skepticism on future legalization efforts.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. #19 EmeraldCream, Feb 1, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 2, 2015
     
    Yea I agree, totally should be allowed to have your own  personal shit...it should be like beer or wine. You want to make your own and enjoy it personally? No problem....want to sell and make money? You need to get a licence and become a government tax collector. And that licence shouldn't be some insano bullshit system to keep everyone they possibly can out of the industry.  200 bucks at the courthouse and the nice lady behind the counter prints you out a licence, good luck with your bidnizz. 
     
     
    Problem is they don't want you to grow your own....they want you to buy their buddies weed (he's the only one getting a licence, because connected and because California) because why not just corner the market from the get go and charge any of the competition an asshole amount of money just try and compete then tax the consumer through the nose.  Just look at some of these states laws....it's ridiculous. There is just corrupt/corny bullshit all OVER the legalization movement and I don't have any reason to think CA will be any different. 
     
    I do too...let's just hope it undergoes changes and not the "You don't need a medical card if it's fully legal, just BUY it!!" kind. 
     
    I do too...but cali politics are a total crap shoot at best sometimes and a total cesspool at others soooo....*shrug* ehh....we will see. I mean what will happen?They gonna ban it all again? LOL and just like back in the day and in other prohibitive states I'll still be growin' my own.
     
  20. at least it's "some kind" of legal. I live in va. and I doubt seriously if it will ever be legal in my life time. also another problem , even being legal you're employer can still piss test you and fire you. years of propaganda will take years to undo.
     

Share This Page