Hey everyone, just wanted to post the latest news from California's 2016 legalization bid. So it turns out that Silicon Valley billionaire Sean Parker who founded Napster and co founded Facebook is drafting his own legalization initiative that is expected to be released soon. And it turns out that his initiative is stealing a lot of thunder away from ReformCA's initiative. All of the big financial backers are preparing to put their support behind his initiative now instead of ReformCA according to recent reports. http://www.alternet.org/drugs/trouble-la-lan-land-divisions-california-legalization-initiative-supporters Just as California's broadest based marijuana reform grouping, the Coalition for Cannabis Policy Reform (ReformCA) rolled out its long-awaited pot legalization initiative, much vaunted efforts at unity between ReformCA and powerful national drug reform groups appear to have faltered--and a deep-pocketed tech entrepreneur is now making a play. As late as last week, ReformCA was referring on its website to the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) and the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) as "supporters," but not any longer. That's at the request of those two groups, who now say they are following their own paths. "DPA is not involved in this [ReformCA] initiative," DPA California state director Lynne Lyman told AlterNet Wednesday. Instead, DPA is betting on an as yet unveiled legalization initiative being prepared on behalf of Napster founder and original Facebook president Sean Parker. The tech magnate, who is worth an estimated $2.7 billion, is a philanthropist and legalization supporter, and donated $100,000 to the failed 2010 Proposition 19 effort. There were reports earlier this year that Parker was vowing to invest in legalization efforts, and this week, it became clear that he was interested in far more than merely being a money bags. According to reports beginning to dribble out this week, Parker and some other deep-pocketed Californians are drafting their own initiative, which has yet to be unveiled. At this point, they're remaining tight-lipped. One of them, Weedmaps.com founder and CEO Justin Hartfield, who has 2 million dollars in campaign committee to support a legalization initiative this year, declined comment on the Parker move, saying he was "under strict orders not to talk to reporters until next week." Parker representatives did not respond to phone calls and emails from AlterNet. "We are giving input to the Sean Parker drafting process and we believe it has the best chance of moving forward and winning," said DPA's Lyman. "We hope in its final iteration it is something we can support, but as Plan B, we're still circulating and advancing our own draft." The ReformCA initiative would be a third-place Plan C, Lyman said. MPP is also now keeping its distance from the ReformCA initiative. "We're still in the process of evaluating drafts and trying to determine the best possible step forward," said the group's communications director, Mason Tvert. "We're not part of the coalition that filed that initiative, but we haven't decided on any language yet. A lot of people are reevaluating after the legislature passed those bills," he added, referring to comprehensive, statewide regulation of medical marijuana approved in Sacramento last month. MPP is talking to the Parker people, too, he said. "There are discussions taking place with Parker, but there are certainly various different drafts coming together," he said. "Our focus is on making sure the best initiative moves forward, but it needs to be done sooner rather than later. A sense of urgency is growing." That's because the clock is ticking. With a soft deadline of February to get signature gathering completed (although it could go later depending on the kind of signature counting required), petition drives are going to have to be fast and furious, and that means more expensive. On the bright side, thanks to low voter turnout in the 2014 mid-terms, only a relatively paltry 385,000 signatures are needed to qualify, as opposed to more than 500,000 some years. With a broad-based coalition behind it, but now facing the prospect of a harder scramble for funding, ReformCA remains unbowed. It has some fund-raising tricks up its sleeve, including a a crowd-sourced funding campaign, and there is still a lot of uncommitted marijuana industry floating around. "Things are up in the air and people will look at the various proposals out there and then decide where to put their money," said California NORML head Dale Gieringer, who is also a ReformCA spokesman. "We're working on it, we're moving ahead, and I think we will have a superior product at the end of the day." Gieringer acknowledged the 800-pound gorilla in the room. "Sean Parker is a big deal, but we'll see what he comes up with, but the last I knew, they didn't have very good language. Maybe they'll borrow our language, and that would be fine," he said. "This is a year to be bold," he added. "DPA doesn't tend to be bold." The ReformCA, DPA, and Sean Parker initiatives aren't even the only game in town. A half dozen other legalization measures have already been filed. While none of them look to have the money or organization to get on the ballot, "any one of them could be picked up by somebody with money who wants to run with it," Gieringer said. Just when clarity was expected to emerge, the situation for pot legalization in California grows even more confusing. Given the money piling up, the likelihood that an initiative will not make the ballot next year is approaching absolute zero. Instead, unless the competing efforts come together, Californians could be choosing between two or three ways to legalize pot when they go the ballot box next November.
This is a good thing. Sean Parker, DPA, and MPP wised up to their antics and could see what was coming. We honestly don't want the same old people trying to write legalization again, with the same old groups running against them. We need something new and a fresh start. It seems like the old players only want their version of legalization and are open to nothing else and no suggestions. Whenever people start going their own direction, they start complaining about a "lack of unity", despite them blowing off a large number of activists. Apparently it was because their version was the "only one" that would generate millions dollars from donors and stakeholders, which was obviously not the case. Cry me a river.
Yeah I agree, it's good to have a fresh new group of people trying to lead the way in CA's legalization attempt. CCPR were the ones who failed last time so we shouldn't trust them again, this election is very important. I was gonna vote for the ReformCA initiative of it made it on the ballot because it's still better than prohibition, but now their initiative might not even make it to the ballot now if Sean is taking all of their financial backers. Some of these old legalization players are actually doing more harm than good honestly, they bash any other initiative that isn't the one they're supporting and would rather keep prohibition than throw their support behind another initiative. You can tell that ReformCA is pissed that they lost most of their support to Sean's upcoming initiative, one of their representatives was trash talking his initiative as well as DPA in the article by saying that his initiative doesn't have very good language from what they've heard even though no details about it have been released to anyone not participating in the drafting process. They're just butthurt that their time in the spotlight is over.
I am seriously still amazed that Washington, Oregon, Alaska, D.C, and lastly Colorado have passed wholesale legalization initiatives, and meanwhile fucking California, of all places, has yet to catch up. C'mon guys. Really? I've never even fucking been there, and I feel for 'em. The impression that I got back in '10 when big ticket ballots started flying around concerning this, is that the black market standards profit-wise are just entirely too good to vote out and give up. My understanding was also that it was largely due to the bill itself being substandard. Fair enough. Still though, how does a pioneering state such as theirs not draft up something workable? It baffles me. When a vast majority of constituents, who should by all rights be supporting the ever-loving shit out of such measures, works in tandem to defeat it, it raises the question in my mind if it'll ever get through without going down in flames when the various vested interests of the black market essentially filibuster to stop it. One main reason for my interest in this is that I sincerely feel that barring nationwide legalization, we'll need the example and support of California being all out for many other states to make the switch. I feel like it would be a debate wedge point to say 'Well, look at California! The publicly outspoken original pro-cannabis state doesn't even support recreational!' and as simple and dumb as it may seem, I could see it not only being said, but also misleading plenty of uninformed people. When that particular domino falls for them, I look forward to seeing the snowball effect after. He're's hoping for resolution and success. jah!/*d$*
I voted for Prop 19 in 2010, and I remember the political atmosphere leading up to the vote. I don't think anyone or any thing hurt Prop 19's chances more than this: Holder vows fight over prop. 19 Polls, which were showing over 50% support prior to this, dropped significantly after Holder made his public statements. Too bad. California would have been the first state in the nation to repeal cannabis prohibition, just like it was the first to approve medical marijuana.
Thank you for bringing that up, I remember that now! It was kinda confusing and dickish seeing as it came on the heels of Obama saying that he wasn't going to fight the movement anymore. I mean, hindsight may be 20/20 and all, but to this day, I don't really feel that it would have been pursued by the Administration. In all reality, I feel it would have been absolute career suicide to have done that, but that's just me. I think they'll catch up in time, though, given the right circumstances and legislation. There has to be something to make it work. jah!/*d$*
I remember this now too! I think you're right, people got afraid that the feds were gonna crack down hard on California if prop 19 passed after Holder released that statement so then they voted it down instead. But even after that happened, the feds still started a huge wave of crackdowns on California's medical cannabis industry in 2011, then Colorado and Washington legalized a year later and they did nothing to stop them. So it'll be interesting to see what the outcome of California's attempt at legalization next year will be. Like I said in my first post, ReformCA basically lost all of the support that they had before they released their initiative after they finally released it. DPA and MPP cut their ties with ReformCA after their initiative was released and now they, along with other groups are eyeing Sean Parker's initiative. I hope that those groups will end up throwing their support behind his initiative because they could run a very powerful and well funded campaign if both Sean and his wealthy colleagues along with these deep pocketed national reform groups all work together. I know that there will still be some opposition by other groups if that does happen because California's advocates are so divided when it comes to drafting legalization initiatives, one group can't release an initiative without it being criticized by at least two other groups. CCHI and MCLR are two groups that I've seen do this a lot, and then they never end up making it on the ballot because neither of them have much money to even gather signatures, let alone run a successful campaign. Then they all get pissed off when it doesn't make the ballot and vote no on whatever does make it on the ballot. So next year's election should definitely be interesting.
http://www.theweedblog.com/a-very-big-california-marijuana-legalization-announcement-is-coming-tomorrow/If the report is true, it's not substantially different than Reform CA's initiative... with the exception this one gives $3 million to the police every year to figure out if you're too stoned to drive.
The problem with California is it's its own damned country compared to CO, WA, and OR. There are so many people and so many different special interest groups as well and an entrenched growing community who want their say so that nothing interesting gets done. They are perfectly content with how things are and don't want big tobacco and his cousins coming in to fuck up the order. Too many chiefs and not enough indians.
Yeah I noticed that its not all that different too. I really don't think that they should be giving $3 million to the cops though, they should be using it to fund schools and education or other things that benefit the public, not to the same people who have been harassing smokers for decades. Another difference is that the Parker initiative allows people over 21 to grow up to 6 plants for recreational use, while ReformCA's initiative allows a 100 square foot garden space for recreational use and I don't know which one would be better. But without the backing from the deep pocketed national organizations, ReformCA might not be able to make it on the ballot because they might not have enough money to get there.
Yeah but the thing is that thanks to those new strict MMJ regulations that Jerry Brown signed into law, California's cannabis industry is going to change even if recreational cannabis isn't legalized next year. These new MMJ regulations could also put a lot of these long time growers in the growing community out of business if they've been selling to medical patients under the current law. So California's quasi-legalization that we've had for the past 20 years is coming to an end one way or another, and I hope that enough people will realize that and decide that we might as well legalize recreational use since things are gonna change anyway.
*Certain* lobby and activists all over California lawmaking and political circles are too greedy or mmj would have already been off the drug schedule or regulated nationwide like baby aspirin instead of booze. The big weed folk just *cannot* let small mom and pops grow and thrive. They never have and they never will. "Something" happens every time the patients just want to be left alone to have their home grows. It's all or nothing for these people or the black market will be well-funded very shortly. I need to marry a grower and bounce out of the U.S. lol.
Oh yeah that's right, I forgot about that because I haven't heard any recent news about those legal challenges. I just looked it up again and it looks like there's 2 lawsuits challenging these new regulations and they're both claiming that the new regulations violate the state constitution because they modify a voter approved law, something that can only be done if voters approve the modifications during an election. I read that the 2 groups filing the lawsuits are the American Medical Marijuana Association and a dispensary owner from San Jose. It sounds like they have a valid argument against the new laws, but wether or not they'll be able to win against the state government in state court is anyone's guess.