Regulate Marijuana Like Wine campaign collects over 10,000 signatures in two weeks

Discussion in 'Marijuana Legalization' started by dolphingunblade, Nov 19, 2011.

  1. Regulate Marijuana Like Wine campaign collects over 10,000 signatures in first two weeks | Regulate Marijuana Like Wine

    Press Release: Regulate Marijuana Like Wine campaign collects over 10,000 signatures in first two weeks
    \tSACRAMENTO -- Last week the campaign chairman for a new voter initiative to regulate marijuana like wine predicted his group would collect over 10,000 signatures -- in their first two weeks -- or he would resign. Today is the deadline for their campaign to make good on it's promise. True to their word, the Regulate Marijuana Like Wine campaign is releasing documentation to show that they have met their goal. Furthermore, the campaign is releasing the results of an independent poll of professional initiative petitioners that shows overwhelming support by voters for the RMLW Act of 2012.
    \tHere's the report from Angelo Paparella, CEO of PCI Consultants:
    \t\t"PCI Consultants, Inc. has collected over 47 million signatures, qualifying 250 plus measures across the country, and we have provided analysis for measures over the past 20 years.
    \t\tThis past week we put the new Regulate Marijuana Like Wine petition in play with five of our primary coordinators statewide. They in turn distributed it out to approximately 150-‐165 or so circulators throughout California. At the time of this report (Sunday evening 11/13) we've amassed 10,421 signatures in six days. Approximately 7,000 of these signatures have been validated to date and we are running at 75.3% valid rate thus far.
    \t\tWe did a simple categorization of responses by having petition circulators ask the public to grade the petition on an A, B, C basis whereby A was the best grade – meaning the petition was of great importance as a topic that deserved a statewide vote -‐ on down to C as the lowest. Note that in the past the only petitions to get an “A” rating have been the slam‐dunk issues at the ballot, such as increasing the minimum wage or support local governments or medical marijuana when it first came out.
    \t\tAbout 75% of the circulators said the public rated the petition as an “A”. About 20% rated the petition a B – either the Marijuana petition was duly deserving, but other matters like resolving California's pension system were probably more urgent. The other 5% fell into the indifference C category, “I signed to help you make your rent, buddy.” Those 5% are typical of any petition drive, people signing just “because” with no affinity for the issue.
    \t\tOne interesting response that we did not anticipate and we heard numerous times, especially from the better educated (and therefore the most likely voters), is the “medical dispensaries are such a mess, LETS JUST LEGALIZE IT AND BE DONE.” Other responses were quick and to the point, “yeah, its time” or “let's collect taxes on marijuana sales”.
    My reading of the notes from the 5 statewide coordinators is that a Marijuana petition would probably be a stopper (an issue the public goes out if its way to sign) – a lead issue amongst a majority of circulators. That is typically a really good sign for success at the ballot."
    \tAlso, the RMLW has a report from their Statewide Volunteer Field Coordinator:
    \t"In our experience, drawing someone to the table is as easy as asking, "Will you help us legalize marijuana this year?" The simple question stops people in their tracks and the signature is usually as easy as asking what county they are registered to vote in. Several paid petitioners have asked to use our petition as a leader for the death penalty one they were circulating. It was a much easier draw for them. Public opinion in this state seems to expect legalization as a given, they seem tired of the complications. Most signers do not have questions until after they sign. When they want details it seems like what they really want is talking points."​
    \tApparently, paid petitioners are asking to carry this petition for free, just because RMLW is such a powerful magnet for drawing voters to come and sign our petition, so that these petitioners can then get signatures on their paid petitions.
    \tThese results are in complete agreement with the latest Gallup Poll, which confirms a major shift with a record-high 50% of Americans who now say the use of marijuana should be made legal, up from 46% last year. That same poll shows a stunning 55% favoring legalization in the West.
    \tThe November 2012 Presidential Election affords proponents of a ballot initiative to change state law concerning the regulation of marijuana a strong opportunity for success. The most significant consideration is that the California electorate for the next Presidential Election will be considerably younger. Detailed analysis indicates that 21 percent of all voters will be under the age of 35, compared to just 16 percent in the November 2010 election. Also, in November 2010, 27 percent of voters were ages 65 and older but in November 2012 seniors are expected to comprise 20 percent of the electorate. As the table below shows, the composition of the electorate will be more advantageous for a legalization initiative, as a greater share of the electorate will be under the age of 40.
    \tAccording to a spokesman for the campaign, "The universal popularity of our Regulate Marijuana Like Wine measure should not come as a surprise. After all, we created our initiative based upon the Economist/YouGov nationwide poll, which found that 58 percent agreed with the following statement, “Some people say marijuana should be treated like alcohol and tobacco. They say it should be regulated and taxed and made illegal for minors.” In addition, 62 percent of western region respondents agreed with this statement-the highest of any region in the nation. Modeling our voter initiative after these important metrics has paid off and now there is every indication that this measure can go all the way."
    Source: (

    Regulate Marijuana Like Wine campaign collects over 10,000 signatures in first two weeks | Regulate Marijuana Like Wine
  2. hmmm kinda screwed up the format while posting. meh anyways you can check out the site for the original artical and other updates on the bill
  3. I really like the name of this campaign. Wine has been given such an upscale image and wine makers are regarded as earthy artisans, marijuana could have exactly the same if it's ever made legal. Marijuana aficionados should be seen as no different from wine connoisseurs - passionate about the plant and the product, and part of an industry steeped in history and culture.
  4. a good campaign and great name....sadly the Obama administration has proven that it doesn't care a wit about citizen petitions and you can be sure the Republicans don't either.

  5. is for a ballot initiative. It doesn't matter what eitherparty thinks about it, if the people put it on the ballot and pass it in theelection it becomes law.

    ......Unless you're the governor or Arizona,then it seems you can go against what has been passed because you don'tlike it.
  6. Sorry I didn't post earlier... App glitched.

    I really like this- and the name. Think about everybody growing hemp if marijuana gets legalized (no anti bud restrictions!) we can get all the leftover useless flower :D

  7. initiatives don't mean shit...initiatives gave us medical marijuana laws in 16 states....and as as we are now seeing, laws don't always mean anything if the powerful don't want them to. The police state goes far further than Arizona.
  8. It would be a huge step in the right direction if we got the ballot to go forward for some states for full legalization.

    Eventually if over half of the states had marijuana laws that are different than the states, they would have to change their opinion eventually.

    Everyone needs to stop being so negative, "this petition wont do anything" "state laws don't mean anything" "the government will never legalize". Stop being so negative and just do something for the cause.

  9. initiative mean everything to us. You kinda proved that by saying the majority of medical laws were passed this way. Just because those laws don't challange federal law doesn't mean they don't mean shit. They mean a whole lot and this act would make sure the state's police and dea would not enforce the federal laws they literally challenge them in the bill like missouri's.
  10. look, I'm only pointing out the problem of the initiative process. If the powers that be agree with the initiative, or their supporters power bases are unaffected (DEA, police and prison unions etc) then they work...but other wise the will of the people is a subjective issue for them. sorry it all sounds negative but the truth is the truth. Yes the process has given us medical marijuana for the past few years but if you consider the actions of this administrations Justice Department ..... They only mean a lot until greater powers don't allow them. Just what do you think would happen if any state, you chose, decided to legalize by legislation or initiative. A law passed is just a law passed if it can't be initiated or is not respected once passed. The state police would not enforce federal law...what planet are you living on? and by the way, the DEA are federal cops. I may sound like an ass hole but sometimes the truth sucks. I only wish, like you do, that state laws mean a lot....but right now that doesn't seem to be the case.
  11. ^ yea your a happy person... LOL


    Pessimistic to the max.. have a little more faith, the "broken" system has given a LOT of good and benefit due to the will of the people.. or did you forget about that whole movement in regards to civil rights?

    The will of the people in the end will always crush the governments opposition.
  12. #12 Visionary, Nov 26, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 26, 2011
    If a major state like Cali passed something like this it would set off a sort of domino effect. You really think the feds have the money to fight a statewide legalization without the help of local authorities? A well crafted initiative would bar the local authorities from cracking down on the newly legitimate business. In all seriousness ballot initiatives and turning the issue into a total quagmire for the feds are the ONLY ways we're ever gonna get the laws changed. The feds have shown that they absolutely refuse to listen to logic, reason or even the will of the people. I mean it's not like we can vote to change federal law and all the supposedly mj friendly politicians we elect to change things suddenly turn around and stab us in the back(obama) because big pharma sent them some campaign funds.

    Like alcohol prohibition we quite simply have to turn this into such a HUGE mess that the feds finally run out of money and support. Jury nullification, state initiatives, rampant law breaking, protests and just plain education are the things that will win this war. Right now the official fed response to our attempts at playing nice has basically been to give us a big middle finger and say "screw you guys we're gonna do whatever we want regardless of facts and logic. We say MJ is bad and that's that.".
  13. Good discussion, folks. Visionary is right. Consider that California has more residents than about half of the world's countries. If CA passes the initiative, and at least one other state (hopefully two or more) does the same, how will the feds stop it? The feds don't even have the resources to shut down all the dispensaries in mmj states. They have shut down as many as they can in the hope that it would scare the rest into shutting down voluntarily. But it hasn't worked. Consider that the emancipation proclamation was supposed to give African-Americans equal citizenship status with the rest of the country, but it took another 100 years for the Civil Rights Act to be enacted in order for it to actually happen. In the meantime, there were lots of people-and I mean LOTS- who thought it never could or would happen. We are coming up on the 75th year of cannabis prohibition in this country. It is easy and tempting to be pessimistic, given everything we've been through. But I think that when the people speak loudly enough, the government will have to listen.
  14. Woo! I ALWAYS compare pot to wine when I explain to ppl who don't smoke. You gotta preserve the quality and enjoy the subtleties in the different strains. Small tastes to test quality, but it'll still fun to get messed up from time to time!
  15. I must say, quite interesting responses to my statements. Yet examples like Greystones makes me wonder what the definition of success means to you. Should we endure this insanity for a 100 yrs ? Do you think Civil Rights changes came about without violence. Why must the citizens endure violence, imprisonment and the ruination of their lives while the rich and powerful and their allies suffer not? How many will you continue allow to be imprisoned as you wait patiently for change? Visionary states that the initiative process has become a quagmire for the feds and that well crafted laws will keep the feds at bay. I say that's bullshit, nothing personal Visionary but the feds represent huge power bases in enforcement, courts, prisons, church groups. And although it may seem far fetched to envision federal troops enforcing their will on the States one only has to refer to the Civil Rights era to see that they did and will again. I agree that the initiative process has it's place and I don't discount it's usefulness in rallying the citizens to a good cause, but it is not a good indicator of lasting change as can already be seen in how this administration is moving forward. So call me a cynic but I have a good sense of our countries history as well as first hand experience with the courts and prison system when it comes to growing and distribution of marijuana.
  16. Maggo, you are absolutely right. I never meant to imply that if we can just be patient, everything will have a happy ending. It will take a lot more than patience; unfortunately many will have to suffer, and all of us will have to fight. And it is absolutely true that a state law only means so much - the feds will crack down on any state law they don't like to the best of their ability (and they have a lot of ability). But state laws do count for something, and right now, they're all we've got. I don't blame you for being a cynic, I am one too. But as long as there is a sliver of hope, we can't give up. You point out good reasons to be cynical, but there are also good reasons to be optimistic. I truly believe that we are at a pivotal point on this issue, and it could swing either way. And that is precisely why all of us need to help swing it the right way. The issue isn't going away just because a few states out of fifty legalize. If CA, CO, and some other state all vote to legalize, I fully expect things to get ugly. Busts will be made, and heads will be bashed. But sadly, these are often the kinds of things that have to happen for the public to wake up to the fact that a policy they have lived with for years is really unjust. As you say, a state law can rally the people around a cause. It's no coincidence that the last 20 years have seen many states legalize medical mj and many more decriminalize, and during the same period polls have shown support for legalization go from 25% to 50%. Ethan Nadelmann thinks that we will have full legalization when public support reaches 60%. If he's right, we could see it within the next 6 or 8 years.

    In any event, I think this is a really fruitful discussion. We obviously have some intelligent and passionate folks on this forum. We may differ on the details, but at the end of the day I think we are all on the same page. :)
  17. #17 Epicurus, Nov 27, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 27, 2011
    No medical marijuana law explicitly says it challanges the federal government and the attorney general isn't forced to defend that law. If you read missouri's legalization bill (or RMLW) we actually say that our own state's enforcement cannot help the dea enforce federal law and we challange the federal government. There really isn't that much federal resources to enforce it without the state helping them. The Regulate Marijuana Like Wine act forbids enforcing federal law, and forces the attorney general to defend it. It also demands federal reschedueling. This bill is written 10x better than prop 19, I'd recommend actually reading it.

    These crack downs work only because they get help from local law enforcement, this wouldn't fly under these laws.
  18. Epicurus, it is my opinion that even if a state refused to help the feds enforcement actions, the Feds would act on it's own. They operate freely in every state as it is. The federal courts are in every state and do not need permission to stay. The DEA has an office in every state and will act with or without state approval. heck it's not opinion it's fact. Other posters have posited the opinion that "the feds don't have the money...." to enforce on their own but that's just nonsense and there is no fish to big to fry for them. As I have said before, there is a place for the initiative process and it does serve to change public opinion....I just feel that it is delusional to think that the Federal government will respect state laws contrary to their own.
  19. How can they enforce these policies on their own though? Are they going to arrest every person and crack down on every grow and dispensary in the state? Its completely unrealistic. If we could get a couple states to legalize next year, this would be a serious blow to law enforcement. Then not only would they have to somehow control an entire states but they'd have to treat the borders to surrounding states like the border between Mexico and the US now. Can you imagine the flood of legal weed going into the surrounding illegal states. It would be madness to think they could control any of that. Granted its madness for them to think they could control the current Cannabis market but that would be the cherry on top.

  20. you ask how can they enforce their policies on their own? How about the same way they do now. They have enforcement troops now called the DEA. They don't NEED the convenient state and federal task forces
    they use now. These task forces and the federal money they give to the states (not the other way around) are not critical to the feds enforcement actions. Just the threat of loss of federal funds for transportation, education grants, police funding grants etc etc have already frightened many states into rethinking their medical marijuana policies (mostly on a city government level so far). They don't have to go into citizens backyards to enforce their policies now or in the future. It is not at all unrealistic to think the feds alone could force the closure of clinics nation wide, they could accomplish that with ease. No state would challenge them. Those that did would be met with federal court rulings, funding losses and if need be the arrests of state politicos who stood in there way. You don't have to look very far back into history to see this (in the 1960's civil rights era tanks and federal troops were used). It does not matter to the feds if their policies work (your refer to their ability to control state and national borders) their policies don't work now and they are willing to not only carry on this farce but to increase funding for it. What facts are you basing your opinions on? just curious.

Share This Page