Pubdate: Sun, 26 Sep 2010
Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Page: A - 1, Front Page
Webpage:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/26/MNC21FJMOQ.DTL
Copyright: 2010 Hearst Communications Inc.
Contact: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/submissions/#1
Website: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/388
Author: John Wildermuch, Chronicle Staff Writer
Referenced: The Field Poll http://drugsense.org/url/I7MkxkYG
Cited: Proposition 19 http://yeson19.com/
Bookmark: http://mapinc.org/find?272 (Proposition 19)

Marijuana Legalization Measure Gets Big Lift

In a dramatic shift of sentiment, nearly half of California's likely
voters now want to legalize marijuana use in the state, according to a
new Field Poll.

"The numbers have flipped (on Proposition 19) since our July poll,"
said Mark DiCamillo, the poll's director. "That's a major change in
the direction of public feelings on legalizing marijuana."

The survey results being released today are especially meaningful
since the first ballots for the Nov. 2 election will be cast in a
little more than a week from now, starting Oct. 4.

The poll also found that voters remain strongly opposed to Proposition
23, which would suspend AB32, the state law limiting greenhouse gas
emissions. Proposition 25, which would end the two-thirds requirement
to pass a state budget, holds a solid lead, but the race appears to be
rapidly tightening.

But it's California's effort to become the first state in the nation
to legalize the sale and use of recreational marijuana for adults 21
and older that's being watched across the country.

Forty-nine percent of those likely voters now support Prop. 19, with
42 percent opposed. In a July poll, 48 percent of those surveyed
planned to vote against the ballot initiative, with 44 percent backing
legalization.

The reversal came despite a total absence of paid advertising for
either side. Neither supporters nor opponents of the measure have
raised much money for the Prop. 19 campaign, so far relying on
word-of-mouth and media coverage to get their stories out.

That hasn't kept California voters from paying attention to the race,
however. The poll found that 84 percent had seen or heard about the
effort to legalize marijuana. By contrast, fewer than 40 percent of
the voters had heard anything about the other two ballot measures in
the survey.

Nine percent of voters are undecided on Prop. 19, which DiCamillo said
isn't much of a surprise.

"Everyone knows about it, and it isn't that complicated an issue," he
added.

For supporters, the bump in the numbers shows that their message is
getting through.

"Police, sheriffs and judges have been speaking out recently in
support of Prop. 19's commonsense solution to control and tax
marijuana like alcohol and tobacco - to allow police to focus on
violent crime," said Dan Newman, a spokesman for the Yes on 19 campaign.

Opponents of the measure, who include a number of law-enforcement
figures, are confident the numbers will change.

"Obviously, this is a volatile electorate, but that doesn't change the
fact that no poll has shown (legalization supporters) with the 50
percent they need to win," said Roger Salazar, a spokesman for the No
on 19 effort.

In 1996, California voters legalized the use of medical marijuana,
passing Prop. 215 with nearly 56 percent of the vote. A 1972 effort to
legalize marijuana in the state, also Prop. 19, was steamrolled,
collecting only a third of the votes.

More than 40 years of polling by Field shows just how dramatic the
shift on marijuana has been. In 1969, just 13 percent of California
adults wanted to legalize marijuana, while 49 percent called on the
state to pass new, tougher laws against the drug.

By 1983, 30 percent of registered voters favored legalization, but 32
percent still wanted to crack down on users.

Now close to 50 percent of registered voters want marijuana legalized
and only 14 percent want harsher laws.

Men and women have very different views of Prop. 19, as do the young
and the old. While 54 percent of men back legalization, only 44
percent of women support Prop. 19. Nearly 60 percent of the youngest
voters, those under 40, want to see marijuana made legal. Fifty-three
percent of those 65 and older oppose it.

"With a lot of people considering and reconsidering ... this is
probably not as solid a 49 percent (support) as can be," DiCamillo
said. "Turnout matters a great deal, and if the young voters don't
turn out, it could make a big difference."

Support for Prop. 19 also breaks along geographic and political lines,
with the heavily Democrat coastal counties 54 percent in favor while
the more Republican inland areas are 52 percent opposed. Not
surprisingly, the measure's strongest support comes from the Bay Area
and Los Angeles County, where just under 60 percent favor
legalization.

More than 60 percent of Democrats and decline-to-state voters plan to
vote for Prop. 19.

A Field survey taken in July found that 60 percent of Bay Area
registered voters said they had used marijuana, far above the 47
percent state average. Slightly more than half the state's men
reported using the drug, compared with 43 percent of women.

The poll found little movement surrounding Prop. 23, even though it's
becoming a major battleground in the races for governor and U.S.
Senate. While the 45 percent who oppose suspending the greenhouse gas
rules dropped from July's 48 percent, support for the initiative also
slipped from 36 percent in July to 34 percent in the newest poll. More
than a fifth of voters now are undecided.

Support for the Democrat-backed Prop. 25 has skidded dramatically
since July, when it was supported by 65 percent of the voters. The new
poll has proponents of the measure with a 46 to 30 percent lead, but
more tightening is likely, DiCamillo said.

The July poll had 58 percent of Republicans supporting the change,
which party leaders argue will allow Democrats to pass a state budget
without any GOP votes. In the new poll, Republican support has dropped
to 30 percent, with another 30 percent undecided.

"This is a measure that is still in flux, and you can't really tell
where it will end up," DiCamillo said. "Republican voters are in
transition ... as they try to decide who the winners and losers will
be."

The poll is based on a telephone survey taken from Sept. 14-21 of 857
registered voters, including 599 identified as likely to vote in
November. The margin of error based on the sample is plus or minus 4.1
percentage points.
_________________________________

Pubdate: Mon, 27 Sep 2010
Source: Ventura County Star (CA)
Copyright: 2010 Sarah Lovering
Contact: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Website: http://www.vcstar.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/479
Referenced: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v10/n779/a10.html
Author: Sarah Lovering

MARIJUANA'S SOCIAL COST

Re: the Ventura County Law Enforcement Coordinating Committee's Sept.
25 commentary "Prop. 19 a bad law for California":

Sheriff Bob Brooks and his law enforcement colleagues were either
wildly uninformed or intentionally dishonest when they implied that
marijuana's social cost is anywhere near that of alcohol and tobacco,
both of which are far more harmful than marijuana.

Just last year, a Canadian study published in the British Columbia
Mental Health and Addictions Journal found that the healthcare costs
for alcohol users are eight times higher than those for marijuana
users. The cost for tobacco users is 40 times higher.

Tobacco contributes to the death of more than 440,000 Americans each
year. Alcohol: 35,000. Marijuana: zero.

The authors cite a study that finds "for every $1 collected in taxes
on alcohol and tobacco, $9 is spent in social costs." If that is true,
and if the costs for alcohol and tobacco are eight - or even 40 -
times greater than for marijuana, then by the authors' own
calculations, marijuana's revenue would far outweigh its costs. Even
if it didn't, isn't some tax revenue better than none, especially for
a product that is already used regularly by 3 million
Californians?

By voting for Proposition 19, Californians can ensure that local
governments - and not criminals - earn revenue from marijuana sales.
They also can give adults the legal option to use a substance less
harmful than alcohol or tobacco.

Sarah Lovering,

Development Officer

Marijuana Policy Project,

Los Angeles
_________________________________________

Pubdate: Mon, 27 Sep 2010
Source: Summit Daily News (CO)
Copyright: 2010 Creators Syndicate
Contact: http://apps.summitdaily.com/forms/letter/index.php
Website: http://www.summitdaily.com/home.php
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/587
Author: David Sirota
Bookmark: http://mapinc.org/find?272 (Proposition 19)

POT THREATENS BOOZE PROFITS

Here's a fact even drug policy reform advocates can acknowledge:
California's 2010 ballot initiative to legalize marijuana does,
indeed, pose a real threat, as conservative culture warriors insist.
But not to public health, as those conservatives claim.

According to most physicians, pot is less toxic - and has more
medicinal applications - than a legal and more pervasive drug like
alcohol. Whereas alcohol causes hundreds of annual overdose deaths,
contributes to untold numbers of illnesses and is a major factor in
violent crime, marijuana has never resulted in a fatal overdose and
has not been systemically linked to major illness or violent crime.

So this ballot measure is no public health threat. If anything, it
would give the millions of citizens who want to use inebriating
substances a safer alternative to alcohol. Which, of course, gets to
what this ballot initiative really endangers: alcohol industry profits.

That truth is underscored by news this week that the California Beer
and Beverage Distributors is financing the campaign against the
legalization initiative. This is the same group that bankrolled
opposition to a 2008 ballot measure, which would have reduced
penalties for marijuana possession.

By these actions, alcohol companies are admitting that more sensible
drug policies could cut into their government-created monopoly on
mind-altering substances. Thus, they are fighting back - and not just
defensively. Unsatisfied with protecting turf in California, the
alcohol industry is going on offense, as evidenced by a recent article
inadvertently highlighting America's inane double standards.

Apparently oblivious to the issues the California campaign is now
raising, Businessweek just published an elated puff piece headlined
"Keeping Pabst Blue Ribbon Cool." Touting the beer's loyal following,
the magazine quoted one PBR executive effusively praising a rate of
alcohol consumption that would pickle the average liver.

"A lot of blue-collar workers I've talked to say 'I've been drinking a
six-pack of Pabst, every single day, seven days a week, for 25
years,'" he gushed, while another executive added "It's, like,
habitual - it's part of their life. It's their lifestyle."

Discussing possible plans to "develop a whole beer brand around
troops" - one that devotes some proceeds to military organizations -
the executives said their vision is "that when you see Red White &
Blue (beer) at your barbecue, you know that money's supporting people
who have died for our country."

Imagine marijuana substituted for alcohol in this story. The article
would be presented as a scary expose about workers smoking a daily
dime-bag and marijuana growers' linking pot with the Army.
Undoubtedly, such an article would be on the front page of every
newspaper as cause for outrage. Yet, because this was about alcohol -
remember, a substance more toxic than marijuana - it was buried in a
financial magazine and depicted as something to extol.

Couple that absurd hypocrisy with the vociferous opposition to
California's initiative, and we see the meta-message.

We are asked to believe that people drinking a daily six-pack for a
quarter-century is not a lamentable sign of a health crisis, but
instead a "lifestyle" triumph worthy of flag-colored celebration - and
we are expected to think that legalizing a safer alternative to this
"lifestyle" is dangerous. Likewise, as laws obstruct veterans from
obtaining doctor-prescribed marijuana for Post-Traumatic Stress
Disorder, we are asked to believe that shotgunning cans of lager is
the real way to "support our troops."

These are the delusions a liquor-drenched culture prevents us from
reconsidering. In a society drunk off of alcohol propaganda - a
society of presidential "beer summits" and sports stadiums named after
beer companies - we've had trouble separating fact from fiction.
Should California pass its ballot initiative, perhaps a more sober and
productive drug policy might finally become a reality.
____________________________________________________

Pubdate: Sat, 25 Sep 2010
Source: Joplin Globe, The (MO)
Copyright: 2010 The Joplin Globe
Contact: http://www.joplinglobeonline.com/zope/letter_to_editor.php
Website: http://www.joplinglobe.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/859
Author: Alexandra Nicolas
Bookmark: http://mapinc.org/people/Gary+Johnson
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)

FORMER NEW MEXICO GOVERNOR PUSHES FOR POT LEGALIZATION

JOPLIN, Mo. -- For former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, educating
the masses is a key component in changing marijuana laws.

Johnson, who was in office from 1995 to 2002, spoke in Joplin over
the weekend as part of the 2010 Cannabis Revival. He talked about why
he believes marijuana prohibition is failing, what the war on drugs
is costing -- both in dollars and in lives -- and what needs to be
done about it. The event was held in Landreth Park.

Kelly Maddy, director of the Joplin chapter of the National
Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Legislation and organizer of
the Cannabis Revival, said the weekend event was held as a way to
encourage public involvement in marijuana law reform.

According to Johnson, his interest in the drug war and the
legalization of marijuana peaked during his tenure as a governor when
he wanted to work to reduce New Mexico drinking and driving but was
told the state didn't have the resources to do so.

Johnson said roughly half of the money, court time and jail space
nationwide goes to dealing with drug-related offenses, something he
believes is not the best use of resources.

"Other people harming me, or having the potential to harm me, that's
real crime," he said.

Since then, Johnson has toured the country speaking on what he
believes needs to happen concerning marijuana laws.

Johnson and many of the members of national marijuana legalization
groups believe marijuana needs to be made legal, then regulated and
taxed just like alcohol. The former governor, who has experience
dealing with the issues of a border state, spoke about what not being
able to regulate the marijuana trade is costing society.

"Lives are lost by disputes being played out with guns instead of in
the courts," he said, citing the deaths that take place in connection
with the illegal marijuana trade.

Another issue Johnson thinks needs to be addressed is the current
political standpoint on drug laws.

"Politics is based on fear, and right now marijuana is looked at as
the cause of all evil," he said. Johnson said approximately 45
percent of the country favors legalizing marijuana, while no
politicians publicly do.

"Nowhere is there a disconnect as much as with drugs," he said.

Johnson believes the country is at a tipping point concerning drug
laws and believes the U.S. could see the legalization of marijuana in
the next 2 1/2 years, as the national opinion on marijuana and the
laws surrounding it shifts.

No vote in Joplin

An initiative petition calling for the decriminalization of marijuana
up to 35 grams in the city of Joplin failed in 2008 to get enough
signatures to place the issue on the November general election ballot.
____________________________________________________

Pubdate: Sun, 26 Sep 2010
Source: Ledger-Enquirer (Columbus,GA)
Webpage: http://mapinc.org/url/hgIvc3V1
Copyright: 2010 Ledger-Enquirer
Contact: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Website: http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/enquirer/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/237
Pubdate: Sun, 26 Sep 2010
Source: Ledger-Enquirer (Columbus,GA)
Author: Mark Wohlsen

CALIF MEASURE SHOWS STATE'S CONFLICTED LINK TO POT

SAN FRANCISCO -- California has a long history of defying conventional
wisdom on the issue of marijuana, including its embrace of the drug in
the 1960s and its landmark medical pot law 14 years ago. So it may not
be all that surprising that a November ballot measure to legalize the
drug has created some odd alliances and scenarios.

Pot growers have opposed it. Some police have favored it. Polls show
the public is deeply divided. Only politicians have lined up as
expected: Nearly all major party candidates oppose the measure. And
hanging over the whole debate is the fact that marijuana remains
illegal under federal law.

As the Nov. 2 election nears, Proposition 19 has become about much
more than the pros and cons of the drug itself. The campaigns have
framed the vote as a referendum on everything from jobs and taxes to
crime and the environment.

The measure gained ground in a Field Poll released Sunday, pulling
ahead 49 percent to 42 percent among likely voters. The poll also
found that Californians have become steadily more permissive toward
the drug since pollsters began quizzing state residents about their
attitudes 40 years ago.

Proponents say the measure is a way for the struggling state and its
cities to raise badly needed funds. A legal pot industry, they say,
would create jobs while undercutting violent criminals who profit off
the illegal trade in the drug.

"I think it's a golden opportunity for California voters to strike a
real blow against the (Mexican) drug cartels and drug gangs," said
Joseph McNamara, who served as San Jose's police chief for about 15
years. "That would be a greater blow than we ever struck during my 35
years in law enforcement."

Supporters, including a group of former and current law enforcement
officials, have called attention to the failure of the so-called "War
on Drugs" to put a dent in pot production in California, and they say
police need to pursue more dangerous crimes.

To pull ahead, opponents will have to convince voters that legalized
marijuana will create a greater public safety threat than keeping it
illegal.

"If the price drops, more people are going to buy it. Low-income
people are going to buy marijuana instead of buying food, which
happens with substance abusers," said Pleasant Hill police Chief Pete
Dunbar, who also speaks for the California Police Chiefs' Association,
one of many law enforcement groups against the measure.

As a result, he said, legalizing marijuana would only encourage the
cycle of theft and violence driven by people who need money to buy
drugs. They argue that the wording of the proposed law would
compromise public safety by gutting restrictions on driving and going
to work while high.

The state district attorneys' group has come out publicly against
Proposition 19, as have many county governments, the editorial boards
of the state's biggest newspapers and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who
said the law would make California a "laughingstock."

Under the proposed law, adults 21 and older could possess up to an
ounce of marijuana for personal use and grow gardens up to 25 square
feet.

The proposal would allow cities and governments to decide for
themselves whether to tax and allow pot sales. Opponents say a vague,
disorganized patchwork of regulations would ensue and lead to chaos
for police and courts.

There's also the prospect of legal chaos, given the fact that pot will
remain illegal under federal law regardless of what happens. Every
former Drug Enforcement Administration boss is asking President Barack
Obama to sue California if the measure passes on the grounds that
federal law trumps state law - the same argument the administration
used in suing Arizona over its immigration law.

Proposition 19 is the brainchild of Richard Lee, an Oakland medical
marijuana entrepreneur who spent more than $1 million to get the
measure on the ballot. Also the founder of a trade school for aspiring
marijuana growers and retailers, Lee has pushed legal marijuana as a
boon to the state's economy and an important source of tax revenue to
help close the state's massive budget deficit. The Service Employees
International Union, the state's biggest union, has endorsed the
measure as an economic booster.

But analysts have said the economic consequences of a legalized pot
trade are difficult to predict. The state Board of Equalization last
year said a marijuana legalization measure proposed in the state
legislature could have brought California up to $1.4 billion in tax
revenue. On Friday, the agency said Proposition 19, which leaves
marijuana taxing decisions to local governments, contained too many
unknowns for its analysts to estimate how much the measure might generate.

In July, the nonpartisan RAND Drug Policy Research Center forecast
that legalizing marijuana could send prices plunging by as much as 90
percent. Lower prices could mean less tax revenue even as pot
consumption rose, the group said.

The potential price drop has brought unexpected opposition, or at
least suspicion, from rural pot farmers who fear the loss of their
traditional, though legally risky, way of life.

Marijuana has become so crucial to rural economies along the state's
North Coast that even some local government officials are working on
plans for coping with a pot downturn.

The state's medical marijuana economy is thriving as hundreds of
retail dispensaries across California sell pot to hundreds of
thousands of qualified patients. And some medical marijuana supporters
have said Proposition 19 could undermine the credibility of the drug
as a medical treatment.

"I'm just against the whole concept of the recreational use of
marijuana," said Dennis Peron, the San Francisco activist who was the
driving force behind the 1996 ballot measure that legalized medical
marijuana.
____________________________________

Pubdate: Sat, 25 Sep 2010
Source: Missoulian (MT)
Webpage: http://mapinc.org/url/qHLjPj2O
Copyright: 2010 Missoulian
Contact: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Website: http://www.missoulian.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/720
Author: Mike Dennison

WHITE HOUSE DRUG POLICY ADVISER QUESTIONS MONTANA'S MEDICAL MARIJUANA LAW

HELENA - The Obama administration adamantly opposes legalizing
marijuana and has a dubious view of medical marijuana as well, a top
White House drug policy adviser told a Helena conference.

Kevin Sabet, special adviser for policy in the White House's Office of
National Drug Control Policy, said marijuana is a dangerous drug that
causes documented health and social problems, and should not be
subject to voter-approval for its use.

"Marijuana cannot be the one exception in the history of the world
that doesn't go through a scientific process to be approved as
medicine," he told the Montana Supreme Court administrator's annual
drug court conference in Helena. "It doesn't make any sense.

"How can we imagine that a dangerous, illegal drug like marijuana
should be voted on by the people? That's not how we do medicine in
this country."

Montana voters in 2004 approved a medical marijuana program for the
state of Montana, allowing people with debilitating diseases to get a
doctor's approval to possess and smoke or otherwise ingest marijuana.

The program had only a few thousand users until a year ago, when the
U.S. Justice Department issued a memo to federal prosecutors, telling
them that pursuing medical marijuana patients or their caregivers is
not a priority in states that have approved medical marijuana.

Since then, Montana's number of medical marijuana cardholders has
increased by nearly 20,000. Various traveling "clinics" have
crisscrossed the state, sometimes issuing hundreds of cards in a single day.

Sabet said the Justice Department memo has been "widely
misinterpreted" by the media and proponents of legalizing marijuana,
and that it does not give marijuana growers or suppliers a blank check
to produce pot in states with medical marijuana programs.

"If you actually read the memo, it's very sensible," he said. "It
didn't take more than a week for us to put out our own clarifying
statement: That people cannot hide behind medical marijuana as a guise
for legalization."

The memo, penned by Deputy Attorney General David Ogden last October,
says federal prosecutors shouldn't focus on medical marijuana patients
or caregivers who are "in clear and unambiguous compliance with
existing state law."

However, it also says this recommendation does not legalize marijuana
in these states, provide any legal defense to violation of federal
drug laws, or protect those using medical-marijuana laws "as a pretext
for the production or distribution of marijuana for purposes not
authorized by state law."

*

Sabet said he believes medical marijuana programs are part of a
strategy to legalize marijuana, and that the Obama administration is
staunchly opposed to legalization.

Research shows that marijuana use causes health problems, can be
addictive, and kills and injures people on roadways, among other
things, he said.

Legalizing marijuana will increase its usage, increase arrests for
drug-related behavior and won't eliminate a black market for the drug,
Sabet said.

"Our two legal drugs, tobacco and alcohol, serve as frightening
examples of legalization," he said. "Look at the alcohol industry. It
does not make money off the 10 people who drink one drink a week. It
makes money off of the one person who drinks 50 drinks a week.
Addiction is incentivized in this business."

Sabet also said legalization proponents have created a "false
dichotomy" by suggesting the only alternatives are legalization or a
harsh, punitive approach that emphasizes incarceration.

Those aren't the only options, and the Obama administration favors an
approach that pairs treatment with law enforcement, to reduce illegal
drug usage and addiction without sending people to prison, he said.
_______________________________________________

_______________________________________________
THS mailing list