Marijuana Reform on Three Statewide Ballots

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2006
Posted on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 06:04:04 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Statewide marijuana reform proposals will be on the ballots of three states next week: Colorado, Nevada and South Dakota. NORML has a rundown of each as well as the various municipal ordinances facing voters in other states. Here are the statewide measures:

COLORADO: Amendment 44, the "Alcohol-Marijuana Equalization Initiative," would revise state statutes to eliminate all criminal and civil prohibitions on the private possession and use of up to one ounce of cannabis for anyone age 21 or older. The measure, sponsored by Safer Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation (SAFER), has been endorsed by numerous Colorado newspapers, including the Aspen Times, the Boulder Weekly, and the Aurora Daily Sentinel. Last year, voters in Denver passed a similar municipal initiative by 54 percent.

NEVADA: Question 7, the "Regulation of Marijuana Initiative," would remove all criminal and civil penalties for the private possession and use of small quantities of cannabis by those age 21 or older. The measure would also seek to create a statewide system for the taxation, legal cultivation, distribution, and sale of cannabis to adults by licensed vendors. Question 7 has been endorsed by the Las Vegas Review Journal and more than 30 state religious leaders. A similar proposal was rejected by Nevada voters in 2002.

SOUTH DAKOTA: Initiated Measure 4 would allow state authorized patients to possess up to six plants and/or one ounce of cannabis for medical purposes. Qualified patients must possess a physician's recommendation to use cannabis and must register with the state Department of Health. Non-registered patients, or those who possess greater quantities of cannabis than allowed under state law, would have the option of raising an 'affirmative defense' of medical necessity at trial. Voters in eight states -- Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington -- have approved similar measures since 1996.

< Judge Rejects Libby's Use of Memory Expert | The Stars Align >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Marijuana Reform on Three Statewide Ballots | 9 comments (9 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Too bad (none / 0) (#1)
by Che's Lounge on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 12:40:10 AM EST

Federal law trumps your silly statewide "rules". I know. I live in San Diego county. So vote away. Hopefully you won't have some RWNJ county board of supervisors tie up the courts and deny medicinal pot to legitimate, taxpaying, LAW ABIDING citizens with their fascist interference in the private lives of others.

Federal Law Trumping State Law (none / 0) (#2)
by Jeralyn on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 01:12:13 AM EST

Che, you are right. But when it comes to individuals (rather than growers) no U.S. Attorney's office will prosecute ounce cases -- unless it's as an add-on to some other more serious drug charge.

Che's just mad (none / 0) (#3)
by Patrick on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 08:54:48 AM EST

Because Prop 215 was written poorly.

47 short (none / 0) (#4)
by kdog on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 10:16:35 AM EST

What are the other 47 states smoking? What's the hold up?

If we wait for the feds to remove their collective head from their rump, our great-great-great-great grandchildren will still be dodging arrest to buy a little reefer.

I'm not saying (none / 0) (#5)
by Che's Lounge on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 01:37:32 PM EST

that anyone will prosecute individuals. I'm saying that someone will sue to overturn the law in federal court based upon federal statutes. Commerce clause, anyone?

Patrick,

Because Prop 215 was written poorly

That's your opinion. But apparently your opinion trumps 60% of the voting public in CA.

What aspect of Prop 215 was harmful to CA? I know the majority matters not to you, but I still believe in the popular vote. And if someone wants to fight 215, arbitrarily shutting down access by sick people as the first step is the fascist way. The San Diego County BOS is doing this ass backwards. First you sue to overturn, THEN if you win, you close the access. But your nazi friends just take the law into their own hands and challenge anyone to fight them. That is not a democracy, much to your satisfaction, I'm sure.

: Wow (none / 0) (#6)
by Patrick on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 01:40:27 PM EST

Che,
Just because a proposition passed doesn't mean it was well written.

[ Parent ]
: Too quick on the button (none / 0) (#7)
by Patrick on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 01:44:43 PM EST

Did it clarify existing law? Not really.
Did it need tons of case law to clarify? yes
Has it been effective? That's debatable
Is it clear to all sides what's legal and what isn't? Defintely not.
It was poorly written. Ask Dennis Peron.
I think that about covers my definition of a porrly written law. Maybe not yours.

[ Parent ]

Maybe your grudge (none / 0) (#8)
by Che's Lounge on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 01:49:46 PM EST

is against THIS "poorly" written law. Maybe because legalization of MJ would put and end to the precious eradication programs that keep you employed. You have too much vested interest for me to take you seriously. And your position still does not justify the methods of the SD County BOS.

: I refer you to my comments (none / 0) (#9)
by Patrick on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 07:40:08 PM EST

in the Health Care thread. Talking to you is like beating one's head against a brick wall.
If marijuana was legalized tomorrow, I'd still have a job. You saying I won't doesn't make it true.
Whether the law is well written or not has little to do with your comment(s). In fact, I've stated before in these very threads California has a pretty decent drug policy. Which included prop 215 and the clarifaction that it required as well as prop 36 (Which really didn't change much). But none of that means a hill of beans with respect to whether the law was well written or not. You are the one with the myopic view, not me.

[ Parent ]