California Initiative to Legalize Marijuana Poised to Make Ballot

Tomorrow the votes will be counted on a California ballot initiative that would legalize marijuana:

The 10-page California initiative would allow anyone 21 or older to possess, share and transport up to an ounce for personal use and to grow up to 25 square feet per residence or parcel. It would allow local governments, but not the state, to authorize the cultivation, transportation and sale of marijuana and to impose taxes to raise revenues.

To make the ballot, the measure needs 433,971 valid signatures. By Tuesday, it was just 15,000 short. Los Angeles County, where supporters collected 142,246 signatures, is expected to put it over the top.


Check out TaxCannibis.Org. As more states face budget crises, it's an idea whose time may have finally arrived. And in the Wall St. Journal today, The War on Drugs is Doomed. Why? "Strong demand and the high profits that are the result of prohibition make illegal trafficking unstoppable."

Democrats in New York submitted a proposal to legalize and tax sales of medical marijuana as part of their budget.

< Lindsey Graham Submits Indefinite Detention Legislation to White House | Tuesday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Hope someone gets the federal (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 09:46:16 PM EST
    schedule changed.

    Hey, how far in advance to you have (none / 0) (#3)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:55:41 PM EST
    to register to vote in Ca? This could get me to vote {grin}

    Here's the dope: (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:00:27 PM EST
    Thanks! (none / 0) (#5)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:05:10 PM EST
    I have already registered to vote in CA (none / 0) (#12)
    by nyrias on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 11:34:48 AM EST

    NULLIFICATION!!!! (none / 0) (#2)
    by azhealer on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:50:50 PM EST
    a state ballot initiative that attempts to overturn established federal law!

    Could these Californians really be any more obvious about their desire to return the Republic back to the Civil War days?

    Oh, you say they are trying to protect the rights of citizens from an overbearing federal government that has got it wrong?

    ... and that is why you are supporting same sex marriage and the fight over Prop 8?

    Good for you, then!

    I guess you should be equally supportive of state efforts to protect citizens from an overbearing government that wants to force everyone into a health plan --- thereby forcing them to follow all the rules of the plan for what kind or care, when and how, that Washington decides...

    welcome on board!

    Sorry, I can see through your logical fallacies (none / 0) (#9)
    by cymro on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 02:45:27 AM EST
    I can support concepts A and B because they right, while opposing concept C because it is wrong. You can't trick me into believing that some kind of convoluted federalist logic requires me to forget about what is right and wrong.

    either (none / 0) (#11)
    by azhealer on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 08:09:42 AM EST
    trying to overturn established federal law is "nullification" or it isn't.

    which is it?

    it is your prerogative to choose to support a policy.

    So I ask again-- do you support the IDEA that states CAN act to overturn established federal law?

    My guess is that you cannot answer this yes or no.


    How do you (none / 0) (#13)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 04:41:26 PM EST
    Get around the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution?), which states:

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    Investment Opportunity (none / 0) (#6)
    by msaroff on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:24:27 PM EST
    I'm going long on fig newtons and ice cream sammiches.

    It is surely a toss up (none / 0) (#7)
    by JamesTX on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:40:56 PM EST
    where all this is going. The federal system is not going to budge, because they are under control of the powerful pharmaceutical, organized crime, and law enforcement drug war lobbies. We've seen the best that can be accomplished in terms of reform against those kinds of forces in the struggle for health care reform. With Democratic control of the Executive and Legislative branches, the best Democrats could accomplish is a health bill written by Republicans to preserve the profits of insurance companies and loot the middle class. There is some serious breakdown in representative government, and the solution isn't clear. Translate the monumental failure of the populist health reform movement into what can be expected in terms of drug war reform, and the results don't look anything like "legalization" or "decriminalization". I can see perhaps a bill that requires middle class families to pay a "cost of drug abuse tax" in return for allowing medical marijuana to be prescribed under the current medical infrastructure, where it will be tightly capped in the way opioid pain medication is controlled (no scripts for hipsters with "anxiety" or "muscle pain", tiny quantities for terminal chemotherapy patients with triplicate forms and centralized online control of distribution, and doctors running scared from witnessing the federal crucifixion of colleagues who prescribe too much to the wrong people and get visited by the DEA). Obama made that clear from the get-go with lots of snickers and jokes: fugheddaboudit.

    The only solution I can think of when the federal system has blocked off input from he population is to clean out the barn and elect non-pro citizen pols to go get something done. That is why, I suspect, the supremes opened up the corporate funding channel for elections. That is the only weak link in maintaining the status quo. Populism in the future is simply going to require large scale rejection of the mainstream corporate media message and the current party system, but that machine is well built to be failsafe. Deep cultural divides have been manufactured to prevent positive and effective communication among citizens. All political rhetoric is brokered through the machine, and "causes" are designed to control outcomes. It would involve a deep cultural change of the type we saw in the sixties where large parts of the population simply quit believing in the TeeVee and conventional wisdom. That's a big job, and a lot to hope for. I'm not holding my breath.

    The 60's won't be repeated because ... (none / 0) (#10)
    by cymro on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 03:01:21 AM EST
    ... those wielding the power have become much smarter about how to distract, divide, and conquer. They must have realized that systematically killing off the leaders of the counter-culture was not helping their cause. Maybe they will eventually realize that the same principle applies in foreign relations too. In fact, come to think of it, maybe that's why Bin Laden has managed to "escape" capture all this time.

    i fully expect (none / 0) (#8)
    by cpinva on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 01:31:45 AM EST
    all law enforcement and penal industries to go bonkers, should this pass. they have wayyyyyyyyyy too much of a financial stake in it remaining illegal.

    good business for me (none / 0) (#14)
    by diogenes on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 06:34:46 PM EST
    Given marijuana's role in bringing out first breaks in schizophrenia and in causing recurrences of psychosis, I guess this will keep me in business for a long time.