Pubdate: Mon, 18 Oct 2010
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Page: Front Page, top of page, continued on page A8
Copyright: 2010 Los Angeles Times
Contact: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Website: http://www.latimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/248
Author: John Hoeffel
Cited: Proposition 19 http://yeson19.com/
Bookmark: http://mapinc.org/find?272 (Proposition 19)

Prop. 19 Has Buzz But Not The Bankroll

Marijuana Measures Has Generated Talk - Especially Amoung Students -
but No Major TV Ad Buys.

Proposition 19, which would legalize marijuana in California, is the
most talked-about ballot initiative in the country. If it passes, it
would revolutionize the state's drug laws, provoke a clash with the
federal government and fire up the movement to pass similar laws in
other states - even other countries. It's become a staple for
national talk shows and comedians.

But the high-profile issue is playing out in a surprisingly
low-profile campaign. With the competitive top-of-the-ticket races
siphoning away the big bucks, neither side has attracted the money to
mount a serious TV ad campaign, the most effective way to reach the
state's 17 million voters.

Political strategists consider ballot measures without much money to
be long shots, but supporters have pinned their hopes on a
grass-roots campaign that has cranked up in recent weeks, relying on
volunteers nationwide to canvass on college campuses and call swing
voters using a Web-based phone-bank system.

An influx of donations - more than $650,000 so far this month - will
allow the campaign to target young people, who overwhelmingly tell
pollsters they want to see pot legalized, and African Americans and
Latinos, who will be told the war on drugs incarcerates them at
higher rates than whites.

And the endorsement of the Service Employees International Union and
the United Food and Commercial Workers, which see legalized marijuana
as an industry that could create union jobs, means slate mailers will
reach about 900,000 members and hundreds of volunteers will make
calls and walk precincts.

Proposition 19 would allow people 21 and older to grow up to 25
square feet of marijuana and possess up to an ounce, and authorizes
cities and counties to approve commercial cultivation, retail sales
and taxation.

The measure has remained steadily ahead in most polls, with the
support of about half of the electorate. If it passes Nov. 2, it
might be due to the ardent believers, many in their 20s, who are the
ground troops.

Elizabeth Tauro and Matt Wolfrom, senior public policy majors at the
University of Southern California, recently waylaid students with
shouts of "Yes on 19! Legalize marijuana!" Michael Howard, who hopes
to open a delivery service, led eight volunteers ejected from the
Brewery ArtWalk in Los Angeles onto sizzling sidewalks, where they
cheerfully chanted and passed out literature for hours.

In the Oakland headquarters of Yes on 19, David Meiler, dubbed "Super
Dave" by the campaign, said he has called thousands of voters, many
of them middle-aged mothers, to "plant a little seed in their heads."
The campaign says it has more than 50 volunteers in Oakland and is
making about 6,000 calls a day.

The outreach may be too little, too late. The campaign's drive to
register college students, who can vote in California even if they
are from out of state, accelerated last week, but Monday is the deadline.

But some once-skeptical drug-reform advocates now believe the
campaign has a shot. Slow to back the proposition - the inspiration
of Richard Lee, an Oakland medical marijuana entrepreneur - they are
soliciting donations, lending staff and coordinating strategy. The
Drug Policy Alliance, which has raised millions for past California
initiatives, has reeled in more than $310,000 this month.

"Win or lose, this thing - for not a great investment of money - has
generated an extraordinary dialogue and debate," said Ethan
Nadelmann, the alliance's executive director. "Even if you accept
that it's not going to win, there's no better time to invest a dollar
to move the ball down the field."

Public Safety First, the main opposition campaign, is backed by state
law enforcement groups and the Chamber of Commerce, which sent a
letter to a couple hundred of its largest members. But it has much
less money and has been outraised by about a 10-to-1 margin this
month. "Our big focus right now continues to be trying to get some
money in the door," said Roger Salazar, a spokesman. He declined to
reveal the campaign's strategy, other than to say it plans a series
of media events throughout the state.

With election day two weeks away, both sides are relying heavily on
forums, news conferences and talk shows and have found the extensive
news coverage remarkable. "We probably lead the league in radio,
television and print media interviews," Salazar said. "It's out of
control," said Dale Sky Jones, a spokeswoman for Yes on 19. "I've
been on Fox News, like, seven times in eight days." Voters may yet
see mailers, Web videos, radio and cable TV ads and celebrity endorsements.

More than eight out of 10 voters have told pollsters they are aware
of the initiative. And a Public Policy Institute of California poll
last month caused a stir. It found that likely voters favor legal
marijuana more than they favor any of the candidates for governor and
senator, leading comedian Stephen Colbert to quip: "If Prop. 19 were
a human, it would be the most popular candidate in California."

Mark Baldassare, who supervised the poll, said he would not discount
the possibility that voters will approve Proposition 19. "They're
definitely giving it a look," he said.

That open-mindedness bucks heavy opposition. Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger and every major candidate for statewide office oppose
it. At least 38 newspapers in California have editorialized against
it. The presidents of Mexico and Colombia said it would disrupt the
fight against drug traffickers. U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric Holder has vowed
to "vigorously enforce" federal narcotics laws. The drug czar, Gil
Kerlikowske, has led the Obama administration's opposition but is
wary of triggering a backlash by coming to California. "The last
thing people want to see is someone parachuting into their state from
inside the Beltway," he said.

Proponents are putting tremendous stock in the youth vote. Democrats
have begun to study whether legalization measures on state ballots in
2012 could boost turnout for the presidential election.

But a visit to the USC campus suggests that might take some groundwork.

Young voters often do not show up for midterm elections. For every
skateboarder who skidded to an abrupt stop with a "Ho, yeah!" when
asked to support Proposition 19, many others walked, cycled or rolled
past without stopping or offered a curt "No, thanks." The most common
response among those who stopped: "Sure, why not?"

Tauro and Wolfrom, in shades and sandals, repeatedly stepped into the
stream of students, handing out brochures and stickers. They are two
of the three most active members of the fledgling USC chapter of
Students for Sensible Drug Policy. They were relentlessly upbeat.
Wolfrom watched as a student rode off with a "Yes We Cannabis"
sticker and steered toward a trash can. "He put it on! Good!" he said.

The national student organization is spending a $100,000 donation to
get college students to vote. And many chapters will host pizza
parties to call voters. Kyle Maddy, a junior at Missouri Southern
State University, set one up for Tuesday. "That one phone call could
be the difference," he said.

The campaign is also targeting black and Latino voters. The state
NAACP and the Latino Voters League back the measure, calling it an
issue of civil rights.

Alice Huffman, the formidable head of the state NAACP, steered the
group toward an endorsement, angering some black ministers. "I am not
advocating for a higher use of drugs. I am advocating for it not to
be a crime," she said. "I just want my young people not to go to jail."

She printed 500,000 copies of an eight-page newspaper on elections
important to minorities and repeatedly touts Proposition 19, calling
the war on drugs "a war waged against African American and Latino
children." It will be mailed to 150,000 voters and inserted in black
newspapers. She is also setting up a phone bank and sending letters
to 25,000 NAACP members. "If they are not ready to go, we're going to
whip them into shape," she said.

Antonio Gonzalez, who runs the Latino Voters League, plans to target
100,000 young and newly registered Latino voters with mail, e-mail,
text messages and calls. Some recent polls have shown Latinos
supporting the measure, a reversal from earlier surveys. "I think
we're catching the sails," he said.

But a recent festival for Latino voters in Los Angeles drew a sparse
crowd. Diego Perez, who ran a table for Proposition 19, had time to
engage in a long conversation with an elderly man. "He's probably got
grandkids and stuff," he said. "If we change his mind, oh my goodness."

The opponents include several homespun organizations such as Citizens
Against Legalizing Marijuana, about 15 people who printed 20,000
brochures, sent 250 "facts packs" to the media and speak at every
opportunity. "It's a mission of faith," said Carla Lowe, who became
involved in the issue as a PTA president in the late 1970s. "We're
doing the best we can, and at least we will never be guilty of not
having tried."

Alexandra Datig runs Nip It In The Bud 2010. She is the organization.
"I can tell you this campaign is killing me," she said. She has
raised a few thousand dollars, designed a website, e-mailed news
releases, debated and appeared on television. "I don't want to live
next door to a pothead and have pothead smoke coming into my house,"
said Datig, who said she used to be addicted to marijuana and other
drugs. "I really believe passionately with every fiber of my being
that this is a bad idea."

But it's Public Safety First that could stand between would-be
marijuana legalizers and victory. It's short on money but not on
savvy. It's run by the same strategists who were outspent two years
ago and still trounced a measure that would have loosened drug sentences.

The Proposition 19 campaign expects a major assault. "I am
anticipating that we are going to get hit and hit hard," Jones said.
"I think we are going to see the usual messengers freaking out soccer moms."
____________________________

Pubdate: Mon, 18 Oct 2010
Source: Daily Nexus (UC Santa Barbara, CA Edu)
Copyright: 2010 Daily Nexus
Page: 10
Contact: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Website: http://www.dailynexus.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2729
Author: Kevin W. McCarty
Note: Daily Nexus Drug Columnist Kevin McCarty's human spirit is more
buff than the Governator back in the day.
Cited: Proposition 19 http://yeson19.com/
Bookmark: http://mapinc.org/find?272 (Proposition 19)

PROP 19 PUTS THE PIPE (AND THE POWER) IN YOUR HANDS

ATTENTION: If you have changed houses since your last time voting,
you must re-register today, or else it might be your fault if weed
doesn't become legal in two weeks. It's a piece of cake: Google
"California election" and use the top Web site to fill out your name,
then print it and mail it. If you bring it to the Daily Nexus office
before 4:20 p.m., I'll even give you a stamp and mail it for you.

I won't presume to tell you who to choose for governor or
congressman, and I won't claim to have enough information to make a
public stand for any of the ballot propositions, except for one.
Proposition 19 is a wise financial decision for the state of
California, and it is every American's right to challenge the federal
authority on drug policy when its science is clearly flawed. As a
corollary, Measure T - a total ban on marijuana dispensaries within
the city of Santa Barbara - is a silly piece of legislation that
represents no rational economic viewpoint, but only the hopeless will
of mean old people to control the supreme glory of the free market.

If Proposition 19 fails and Measure T succeeds, will I have any
greater difficulty in obtaining pot? Not in the slightest degree.
Will California still have its debts to pay? Certainly, except its
regulators will have to search elsewhere for $1.4 billion in tax
revenue. Best of luck, chaps!

Thousands of years have passed and not a single man, woman or child
has ever lost their life as a result of this plant. If some asshole
is high on pot while he kills himself, he was a suicidal asshole
before he ever took a hit. This is my first point: Drugs are only
amplifiers of an existing psychological state.

My second point is that drug crime is a consequence of prohibition,
not a cause for it. I wrote last week that limitless junk food is as
addictive as heroin. I also showed how Portugal's decriminalization
of drugs has not increased their use among the population. Therefore
any evils associated with the market for marijuana (which is less
addictive than junk food) have been produced by its exclusion from
the free and open marketplace.

For example, if a plant (in our case, the marijuana market) is taken
out of the sunlight, it will deform itself in an attempt to break its
limitations and return to the light. A passerby might note that the
plant looked sickly during its time in the darkness. A brief time
back in the sun and that plant will be strong, healthy and
rejuvenated. Was its sickly appearance the fault of the plant, or of
the gardener? I blame the gardener for being such a dumbass.

Apparently the gardener thinks we're all dumbasses, too. On Thursday,
U.S. attorney general Eric Holder claimed that Prop 19 would
interfere with efforts to "target drug traffickers who frequently
distribute marijuana alongside cocaine and other controlled
substances." Is Holder joking? We're not talking about legalizing
cocaine. We're talking about legalizing marijuana so that there would
be more money to address problems like cocaine.

I don't like to divide people, but here it goes: Some people are more
responsible than others. If marijuana is a 'gateway drug' for you,
then chances are you're irresponsible. There are a hundred actions in
the course of an American citizen's day that are more addictive and
destructive than smoking weed. To blame pot for one's failures as a
rational human being just fucks it up for the rest of us.

For those of us who are responsible, smoking marijuana can be a great
benefit. This is my final point: Drugs are weight training for the
human spirit. When I have work to do, I derive enjoyment in finishing
it so that I may have free time. At the end of the day when my work
is done, my mind no longer needs the full degree of its precision, so
I relax. When the sun rises again and the world's ripe for
conquering, I feel young, fresh and my mind is clear. Relaxation time
is mine, and so long as harm comes to no other, I'll smoke whatever I please.

Stand your ground. Smoke your pot. Speak the truth. Vote Yes on Prop 19.
____________________________________________

Pubdate: Mon, 18 Oct 2010
Source: New York Times (NY)
Page: A6
Copyright: 2010 The New York Times Company
Contact: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/lettertoeditor.html
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/298
Author: Randal C. Archibold
Note: Antonio Betancourt contributed reporting.
Cited: Proposition 19 http://yeson19.com/
Bookmark: http://mapinc.org/find?272 (Proposition 19)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Mexico
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Marijuana)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Felipe+Calderon
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Vicente+Fox

MEXICO WATCHES CALIFORNIA MARIJUANA VOTE

MEXICO CITY -- In two weeks, Californians will decide whether to
legalize small amounts of marijuana for recreational use, in a vote
that polls show could be close.

Now, for a change in the drug war, it is Mexico wondering about the
possible spillover, this time of an idea. Will such a bold step by
its neighbor to the north add momentum to a burgeoning movement here
for broad drug legalization?

The backdrop is the drug war, which has left Americans worrying about
many of the ills that spill over the border: kidnappings, murders
and, of course, drugs themselves. At the same time, Mexicans chafe at
the guns flowing in from the States, the nearly 30,000 people killed
in drug-related violence here in the past four years and the American
demand and consumption that largely sustain the drug trade.

Small steps toward legalization have already been taken on both sides
of the border. California, where medical marijuana has been legal
under state law since 1996, this month made the punishment for
possessing small amounts of the drug the equivalent of a speeding
ticket instead of a misdemeanor. Last year Mexico removed the penalty
for possessing small quantities of a range of drugs, including
cocaine, heroin and marijuana, though selling or producing them
remain prohibited.

But the similarities pretty much end there. Even those here who are
pushing for the legalization of drugs -- and in some circles "hard
drugs," like cocaine and heroin -- concede that any major change in
Mexico would probably be years away, regardless of what happens in California.

For one thing, President Felipe Calderon, who has expressed
frustration with the prospect of a "yes" vote in California as
another sign of Americans' failure to bring their drug consumption
under control, has not budged from his staunch opposition to legalization.

Because a rising number of intellectuals and some members of the
political elite -- including his immediate predecessor, Vicente Fox,
and ministers who served under him -- are advocating legalization,
Mr. Calderon has called for a debate on the subject.

That raised eyebrows, feeding speculation that a change could be
under way. But since then, Mr. Calderon has not done much to
encourage it. In fact, two weeks after Mr. Calderon called for a
debate, his health minister called legalization "absurd."

Few people in the corridors of power have promoted the idea, and most
polls show little support for legalization, particularly outside the
more liberal confines of Mexico City. But even if the populace were
clamoring for a change, Mexico, unlike California, is not known for
citizen-driven lawmaking.

"Reform issues in Mexico tend to be top-down," said Daniel Lund, a
pollster with the Mund Group here. "If nobody in authority is
championing an issue, it doesn't have oomph."

Advocates for legalization in Mexico and California insist the
motivation is not primarily to make it easier to get high.

In California, supporters of Proposition 19, which would allow anyone
over 21 to possess up to an ounce of marijuana and permit
municipalities to tax and regulate it, have pushed the notion that it
could raise $1.4 billion in taxes while diverting law enforcement and
prison resources to more serious crimes.

In Mexico, the main selling point has been that drug-trafficking
organizations would be crippled by the creation of a legal, regulated
market for their product that would cut off their illicit financial pipeline.

But as the vote in California draws closer, skepticism is emerging.

A study released last week by the nonpartisan RAND Drug Policy
Research Center in Santa Monica, Calif., cast doubt on whether
legalization in California would financially harm Mexico's drug traffickers.

It argued that cutting out the California market would reduce their
revenue only 2 to 4 percent, in part because much of the marijuana
consumed in California is already grown there, and the drug
organizations derive their income from many sources. The study did,
however, suggest that if low-cost, high-quality California marijuana
was smuggled across the United States, the cartels could lose 20
percent of their income from exports.

Federal officials in the United States hardly see the proposal as a boon.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said Friday that the Justice
Department would use federal law to prosecute "those individuals and
organizations that possess, manufacture or distribute marijuana for
recreational use," throwing into doubt whether legalization would
actually go forward.

Still, hardly a day passes here without some new wrinkle in the discussion.

Nexos, a magazine that has been sympathetic to Mr. Calderon's
approach, devoted its issue this month -- with a large marijuana leaf
beckoning from newsstands -- to advocating legalization. The
back-and-forth in California regularly makes headlines.

Jorge Castaneda, the foreign minister under Mr. Fox, is among the
chief promoters of legalization and says he believes the debate is
shifting in his favor. He notes that four of six presumed
presidential candidates for 2012 told Nexos that legalization should
be at least considered if California approved it.

Just as legalizing alcohol helped dismantle organized crime in the
United States in the 1930s, he says, legalizing marijuana could
devastate major drug trafficking organizations. While Mr. Calderon
and other political leaders do not seem to embrace legalization,
"what does he do on the morning of Nov. 3?" Mr. Castaneda asked.

"It is going to be impossible to ask Mexican society to put up with
the number of lives at risk and the violence for a fight that
Americans, or at least Californians, would have said they don't want
to fight anymore," he said.

But some analysts think the debate here has given short shrift to
another fundamental question: Does Mexico, which has enough trouble
collecting existing tax revenue and regulating legal medications,
have the institutional capacity to take on regulation of marijuana,
let alone cocaine or heroin?

And there is the likelihood that any curb on the drug markets would
drive the cartels to expand their increasingly diverse rackets in
smuggling, extortion and kidnapping.

With a chronic lack of strong anti-addiction and anticonsumption
programs, Mexico would probably experience more people taking drugs
and provide little help for them, said Edgardo Buscaglia, a professor
at the Autonomous Technological Institute here who has studied
organized crime for years.

"To think organized crime would cease to exist is nonsense," he said.
"They are like any rational business, and they will go into other
businesses for the rate on return."

Marijuana and other drugs are readily available in several
neighborhoods here, "like candy," in the words of Victor Arroyo, 24,
who said he was addicted to marijuana. Without using it several times
a day, he said, he gets headaches and does not feel right.

The only change legalization would bring, he predicted, would be that
consumption would be more out in the open, something he laments,
since he has seen children as young as 9 smoking marijuana in the
public housing project where he lives.

"It would really be the same," he said, "or maybe worse."
________________________________

Pubdate: Sun, 17 Oct 2010
Source: Press Democrat, The (Santa Rosa, CA)
Webpage: http://mapinc.org/url/j4dWYCge
Copyright: 2010 The Press Democrat
Contact: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Website: http://www.pressdemocrat.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/348
Author: Guy Kovner
Bookmark: http://mapinc.org/find?272 (Proposition 19)

2 SIDES OF POT DEBATE

Would Prop. 19 Cut Crime And Boost Economy, Or Harm Public Safety,
Health

In his white cowboy hat, bluejeans and boots, John Pinches might seem
an unlikely champion for the legalization of marijuana.

Pinches, a Mendocino County rancher, businessman, grandfather and
two-term county supervisor who once called himself an "old hillbilly,"
has no personal taste for the intoxicating weed.

"To me, it's overrated, kind of like warm beer," he said, sitting in
his Ukiah office with family photos and maps plastered on the walls.

But with Proposition 19 on the Nov. 2 ballot -- and California a
majority vote away from the most sweeping embrace of marijuana in
modern history -- Pinches is in the spotlight.

The British Broadcasting Corp. and National Geographic have sought him
out, and Pinches is back to explaining his "common sense" conclusion
that people should be free to grow and smoke their own pot in peace.

"Isn't that what America is all about?" he asked, calling marijuana
use a "victimless crime."

"Shouldn't you have certain rights in your own home?"

Prohibition, including California law enforcement's seizure of more
than 17 million marijuana plants since 1983, hasn't worked, Pinches
said.

In Mendocino County, one of the nation's top illegal pot cultivation
spots, the seizures have been "the best farm-price support ever" by
curbing supply and keeping prices high, he said.

Michael Spielman, executive director of the Santa Rosa-based Drug
Abuse Alternatives Center, said he is leery of legalization because it
would increase youth exposure to marijuana.

"Use goes up, more kids get affected," he said.

Health officials point to evidence that marijuana can cause
respiratory damage, increased risk of heart attack and psychosis and
harm to fetuses in pregnant women who smoke pot.

Violent crime related to marijuana will likely continue and "may even
increase" with legalization, Sonoma County Sheriff Bill Cogbill said.

1 billion joints a year

Californians consume 500 tons -- or 1 billion joints, typically less
than half a gram each -- of marijuana a year, according to a RAND
Corp. think tank report on Proposition 19.

Legalization would cut the price of pot by as much as 80 percent and
could increase consumption by 50 percent to 100 percent or more, the
report said.

If marijuana use doubled, it would bring California close to the rate
of consumption in the late 1970s, when 13 percent of the population
reported using pot, the report said.

Proposition 19 would permit possession in public of up to an ounce of
pot, as well as cultivation for personal use. Cities and counties
would be allowed to authorize, and tax, commercial production and sale
of pot.

Several polls give the ballot measure a plurality of voter support,
but neither the "yes" or "no" faction is waging much of a campaign.

Campaign spending on Proposition 19, the brainchild of Oakland
marijuana entrepreneur Richard Lee, totals about $2 million for both
sides, a fraction of the more than $80 million spent on the
contentious battle over same-sex marriage in 2008.

Measure called vague

Opponents say that legalizing recreational marijuana use will
jeopardize public safety, thwart drug-free workplace measures and
provoke confusion because the ballot measure is overly vague.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said passage of Proposition 19 would
"significantly undermine" efforts to keep California communities safe.
The government will "vigorously enforce" federal prohibitions against
recreational marijuana use, he said.

Backers say it's time for a new approach to pot, that adults should be
free to grow their own and that California cities and counties should
have the right to regulate and tax the here-to-stay marijuana culture.

"It's rampant," said Valerie Brown, chairwoman of the Sonoma County
Board of Supervisors. "It's got to be controlled."

The board voted unanimously in August to oppose Proposition 19 because
it sets no standards for regulating commercial marijuana operations,
Brown said, but a turnabout will be needed if the measure passes.

Sonoma County, in that case, should "move fairly quickly" to develop a
regional policy with Lake, Napa, Marin and possibly Solano counties.
Mendocino and Humboldt counties might be included, too, but Brown said
they tend to be "less restrictive than we are" on marijuana matters.

Tax revenue eyed

Brown thinks most of California's 58 counties would permit pot sales
in order to reap tax revenues. "We're all hurting for funding right
now," she said.

Santa Rosa Mayor Susan Gorin said the prospect of pot revenue is
"somewhat attractive," but that legal and social concerns may
transcend economics.

For example, Gorin said she could imagine a Santa Rosa resident
raising nuisance complaints over the aroma, perceived as a "stench,"
from a neighbor's outdoor pot patch.

"I don't think many jurisdictions are going to blithely allow this to
happen for the revenue considerations," Gorin said. "The old phrase
'penny-wise and pound-foolish' comes to mind."

Ann Peck, an attorney in the Sonoma County counsel's office, said the
ballot measure is vague but entrepreneurs will jump at the chance to
sell pot.

"I have no doubt they will come knocking on our door," she said. "At
this point I do not know what we would say to them."

Sebastopol's City Council, on a 3-2 vote in June, backed away from
putting a 5 percent marijuana business tax on the November ballot. No
other local agency has officially broached the idea.

San Jose, Berkeley and Sacramento have put marijuana taxes on the
ballot in anticipation of the initiative's passage.

"Uncharted territory"

"California would be stepping into uncharted territory," said Beau
Kilmer, lead author of the RAND report, titled "Altered State?"

No modern nation has legalized commercial marijuana production, Kilmer
said, leaving researchers with scant evidence for estimating the
proposition's impact on marijuana consumption or tax revenues.

The Netherlands legalized retail distribution -- giving rise to
Amsterdam's famous cannabis cafes -- but does not sanction pot production.

Legalization would cut the cost of weed by at least 80 percent, the
RAND researchers wrote, estimating the number of California marijuana
users at 4.2 million.

But how the price plunge would affect consumption, and the validity of
Proposition 19's promise of "billions of dollars for our state and
local government" remains uncertain, Kilmer said.

That California would be the first state to entertain pot legalization
was inevitable, said Elaine Leeder, a Sonoma State University
sociology professor.

Marijuana and same-sex marriage are social movements "whose time has
come," Leeder said. Both are in the third phase of movements, known to
academics as institutionalization.

Abolition of slavery, woman suffrage and civil rights are movements
that migrated over time from society's margins to mainstream
acceptance, she said.

A Gallup poll last year found that 44 percent of Americans favored
marijuana legalization, the peak in a fairly steady climb from 12
percent acceptance in 1970. Opposition over the same period has fallen
from 84 percent in 1970 to 54 percent in 2009.

In the West, a 53 percent majority favored decriminalization and
taxing of marijuana, the poll said.

"We are going to continue to battle over these quality-of-life
issues," SSU political scientist David McCuan said, predicting that
pot and gay marriage will eventually be sanctioned.

But Proposition 19 is largely a cipher, he said, intended to "raise
the issue" of marijuana legalization rather than change the law.

If it were to pass, McCuan said, the measure would be "tied up in
court forever."

Worry over teens

Spielman, a recovering addict who has worked at the local drug
treatment center for 30 years, said he is personally opposed to
Proposition 19.

He said that among teenage pot users, he observes "amotivational
syndrome," a diminished engagement in social relationships and schoolwork.

"I have seen enough kids affected by it, and that makes me nervous
about (legalizing) it," he said.

Proposition 19 would retain criminal sanctions for those under 21 who
use or cultivate marijuana.

The RAND report said there were 181 marijuana-related hospital
admissions and 32,000 drug treatment program admissions a year in
California. It also said that "serious, acute health problems" due to
moderate or even excessive marijuana use were rare.

According to the latest California Healthy Kids Survey, 26 percent of
Sonoma County high school juniors said they were using marijuana in
2008, well above the statewide rate of 16 percent.

Three-fourths of the students said that pot was "very easy" or "fairly
easy" to obtain.

Medical marijuana, legal since 1996 in California, helped make
cannabis commonplace, Spielman said. "The pot doctors advertise on
101, for God's sake," he said.

Robert Jacob, executive director of Peace in Medicine Healing Center,
a Sebastopol medical marijuana dispensary, said he has no objection to
Proposition 19.

The measure is about recreational pot use, and has "nothing to do with
medical cannabis," he said.

"With our current laws, we ruin people's lives for possession of
marijuana," Jacob said.

The California Chamber of Commerce came out against Proposition 19 in
August, contending that it "blurs the line" on whether employers must
tolerate workers showing up stoned or smoking on the job.

Drug tests at issue

Erika Frank, the chamber's attorney, said it's clear that employers
could no longer reject a job applicant who failed a test for marijuana.

What's troubling, she said, is the measure's provision that employers
can deal with marijuana use that "actually impairs" job performance.
"It's a standard that does not exist today," she said.

Pinches, who owns a 1,000-acre cattle and sheep ranch in the far
northeast end of Mendocino County, said there may well be marijuana
growing in secret on his land.

But since his livestock often run onto neighbors' land, he couldn't
complain about pot sprouting on his spread.

If marijuana is not legalized in November, he said, it will be back on
future state ballots.

"There is an insatiable demand for marijuana out there," Pinches said.
"People are going to get it."

[sidebar]

ON THE CUTTING EDGE

California was one of the first states to prohibit marijuana in 1913,
predating the federal Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 by nearly 25 years.
In 1975, California was one of the first states to reduce the maximum
sentence for possessing less than an ounce to a $100 fine.
In 1996, California was the first state to allow medicinal marijuana under
Proposition 215, approved by 56 percent of voters.
Effective Jan. 1, possession of less than an ounce of marijuana is an
infraction, like a speeding ticket, among the most tolerant pot laws in the
nation.
Source: Rand Corp., news reports.

How it works:

Proposition 19 allows:

Possession of an ounce of marijuana for personal use by anyone 21 or
older. Cultivation of marijuana on up to 25 square feet of private
property and possession of the harvested pot for personal use. Cities
and counties to authorize and establish standards for the commercial
cultivation, processing, transportation, retail sale and on-premises
consumption of marijuana. Taxation of commercial marijuana operations.
Employers to deal with marijuana consumption that "actually impairs
job performance." The measure prohibits: Marijuana consumption in
public, or by the operator of any vehicle, boat or aircraft. It does
not limit any law that "forbids impairment" while driving. Interstate
or international transportation of marijuana. Smoking marijuana around
children or bringing it to a kindergarten through 12th grade school.

By the numbers:

10: Pounds of pot harvested per year from a 25-square-foot hydroponic
plot allowed by Proposition 19

26: Percent of Sonoma County high school juniors who use
marijuana

500: Tons of marijuana consumed annually in California

4.2 million: California marijuana users

17 million: Pot plants seized by California law enforcement since 1983 
___________________________________________________

Pubdate: Sun, 17 Oct 2010
Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA)
Copyright: 2010 San Jose Mercury News
Contact: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Website: http://www.mercurynews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/390
Authors: Dianne Feinstein and Lee Baca
Note: Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, is California's senior U.S.
Senator. Lee Baca is Los Angeles County sheriff. They co-chair the No
on 19 campaign and wrote this article for this newspaper.
Cited: Proposition 19 http://yeson19.com/
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion)
Bookmark: http://mapinc.org/find?272 (Proposition 19)

PROPOSITION 19 IS NO SOLUTION TO DRUG PROBLEMS

Supporters of Proposition 19 portray marijuana legalization as a
panacea for all of California's problems. They argue that it will fix
California's budget crisis, vanquish drug cartels, save law
enforcement resources and relieve prison overcrowding.

It will accomplish none of these things. Proposition 19 won't even
legalize marijuana, which would remain punishable by federal law. The
reality is that Proposition 19 is a poorly constructed and misleading
initiative funded mainly by the personal fortune of one marijuana
dealer. It will increase drug use among our youth, waste taxpayer
dollars and create new regulatory burdens for local governments.

There is no disputing the fact that recreational marijuana use is
harmful and habit-forming. Marijuana abuse causes dependency,
respiratory and mental illness, poor motor performance and cognitive
impairment. The chemical concentration of the drug's psychoactive
ingredient, Tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, has more than doubled since
1983, and marijuana intoxication resulted in 374,000 emergency room
visits nationwide in 2008.

Studies show that teen marijuana users are almost 26 times more
likely to use other illicit drugs in the future when compared with
teens that never used marijuana. What's even worse, by putting an
official seal of approval on recreational marijuana use for adults,
we would be telling children that marijuana use is OK.

Studies show that the illegality is a top reason teenagers cite for
not using marijuana and that legalization could increase general
marijuana use by 50 percent to 100 percent.

The last thing we need to do is make it easier for dealers to
increase their customer base by pushing pot on kids. Proposition 19's
backers don't want to confront these unsavory truths, so they have
tried to shift the focus of the initiative to the false promises of
increased tax revenue and decreased drug crime. But the tax argument
doesn't hold water because the tax provisions are not enforceable.

The Supreme Court decided in a 1969 case, Leary v. United States,
that it's unconstitutional to require anyone to pay taxes on
marijuana sales because anyone paying such a tax would be admitting
to a violation of federal law. So, it's unlikely that drug dealers
would forfeit their constitutional rights and rush to incriminate
themselves on federal drug charges by paying marijuana taxes.

Proposition 19 is more likely to be a drain on government coffers.
Millions of taxpayer dollars would likely be necessary to enforce new
bureaucratic mandates requiring the state to control marijuana
quality and ensure that it wasn't grown by criminal organizations.
According to the California Board of Equalization, it is impossible
to calculate exactly how much it will cost taxpayers to implement
every provision of Proposition 19 if it passes.

In addition to the false tax argument, Proposition 19 proponents also
assert that this measure will end Mexico's drug-related violence. But
the notion that these ultraviolent criminal organizations will simply
disappear is ludicrous.

At best, cartels would simply shift to other crimes, as they have
done in Mexico. If they lose ground in the marijuana trade, then
kidnapping, extortion, human trafficking and the trafficking of
harder drugs could increase. These violent criminals are not going to
seek legitimate and legal employment if marijuana becomes less
lucrative for them.

Proposition 19 is a risky experiment based on false arguments and
fake promises. Our state already has one of the most liberal
marijuana policies in the world. Anyone with a doctor's note can buy
medical cannabis, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has reduced
marijuana possession to an infraction on par with a traffic ticket,
so why not leave well enough alone?

Buying and consuming marijuana is already far too easy in California.
Proposition 19 is a big step in the wrong direction. We strongly urge
voters to avoid this costly experiment and vote "no" on Proposition 19.
__________________________________________

Pubdate: Sun, 17 Oct 2010
Source: Press-Enterprise (Riverside, CA)
Webpage: http://mapinc.org/url/VWzUsEHy
Copyright: 2010 The Press-Enterprise Company
Contact: http://www.pe.com/localnews/opinion/letters_form.html
Website: http://www.pe.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/830
Author: Jim Miller, Sacramento Bureau
Cited: Proposition 19 http://yeson19.com/
Bookmark: http://mapinc.org/find?272 (Proposition 19)

PROP. 19 BRINGS UP MANY QUESTIONS

For most California ballot measures over the years, the debate has
been about whether the initiative is good or bad for the state.

But what if supporters and opponents don't agree about what the
initiative says?

That's the case with Prop. 19. The measure, on next month's ballot,
would make California the first state in the country to legalize marijuana.

The measure would let people possess and cultivate pot for personal
use. It also would allow, but not require, local and state
governments to regulate and tax the commercial production,
distribution and sale of marijuana.

Supporters say the measure would raise millions in tax revenue while
ending an ineffective fight against a drug comparable to alcohol.

Opponents, including major party candidates for governor and attorney
general, call the measure a "jumbled, legal nightmare." They predict
it will lead to an increase in use, with unknown implications for
communities and the workplace.

California voters seem receptive to the measure. A Field Poll last
month showed Prop. 19 leading among likely voters, 49 to 42 percent.
That compares to a July survey that showed 44 percent for and 48
percent against.

Here are some questions and answers on Prop. 19 and how it could
work. If the measure passes, expect some busy lawyers.

Q: Are there any other places that have legalized marijuana?

A: Not to the extent that Prop. 19 proposes. Portugal and the
Netherlands legalized small amounts of marijuana for personal use.
The Netherlands allows for the sale of small amounts of marijuana, 5
grams, at licensed coffee shops.

Q: What does Prop. 19 say about personal use?

A: If the measure passes, a person 21 or over could have up to 1
ounce for personal use and cultivate marijuana on up to 25 square
feet per residence.

The League of California Cities has said the initiative could allow
someone to fill an entire parcel with pot plants if there was no residence.

People could not use marijuana in the presence of minors or in
public. It also could not be used on school grounds.

Q: How would Prop. 19 govern the commercial production, distribution
and sale of marijuana work?

A: This is the second major part of Prop. 19. How it would translate
into reality is not as clear.

It would be left up to local and state governments to decide whether
to allow the commercial production, distribution and sale of marijuana.

Some state lawmakers who support the measure have said it's likely
that, if Prop. 19 passes, the Legislature will pass a statewide
regulatory regime. That would prevent an archipelago of different
local rules and regulations.

Some local governments, such as Oakland, already have passed
ordinances that would take effect if 19 passes.

Q: How much revenue would Prop. 19 generate?

A: Another unknown. That's because the initiative leaves it up to
local and/or state governments to set the regulation and tax rates on
commercial production, distribution and sale of marijuana.

"We don't know how many local governments would choose to do this,"
said Paul Golaszewski of the Legislative Analyst's Office last month.
"If local governments don't authorize commercial sales, there
wouldn't be any additional tax revenue."

Revenue also would depend on the pre-tax price of marijuana. A Rand
Corporation report last summer estimated that Prop. 19's approval
would cause pre-tax marijuana prices to drop by 80 percent.

Another consideration is tax evasion. Marijuana taxes that are too
high could give rise to a black market.

"There will be a sweet spot somewhere," state Sen. Mark Leno, D-San
Francisco, who supports Prop. 19, said at a September hearing on the measure.

Q: How would Prop. 19 affect the rules of the road?

A: The initiative bans consumption by "the operator of any vehicle,
boat, aircraft while it is being operated, or that impairs the operator."

Currently, someone is presumed drunk if the blood-alcohol level is
0.08 percent or higher. Critics of Prop. 19 note that the initiative
contains no comparable benchmark for marijuana.

"There's no medical statute for marijuana and none proposed. There
will be an increase in drugged driving," Pleasant Hill Police Chief
Peter Dunbar said at a legislative hearing last month.

Prop. 19 supporters said authorities already are trained to recognize
if someone is driving under the influence of a nonalcoholic
substance, such as prescription pills. Any stoned motorists would be
punished as such.

Q: How would Prop. 19 affect workers and employers?

A: The initiative reads that "no person shall be punished, fined,
discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege" because
they smoke pot or otherwise do what's allowed by Prop. 19.

The measure adds that "the existing right of an employer to address
consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee
shall not be affected."

To the California Chamber of Commerce, that means an employer
couldn't do anything about a potentially stoned employee until after
an accident.

Business groups also contend that Prop. 19 would leave employers
vulnerable to lawsuits. An employee dismissed for poor job
performance could claim that he actually was fired because his boss
disapproved of his occasional joint on the weekend.

Opponents disagree with those interpretations.

"Nothing in 19 allows someone to come to work under the influence,"
said Alex Kreit, a criminal-law attorney in San Diego working with
the Prop. 19 campaign.

As for fired workers who claim marijuana as the cause, he said.
"There might be some employees who try to push that argument. But if
I'm their attorney, they're going to have to show me some pretty
persuasive facts."

Q: What will the federal government do if Prop. 19 passes?

A: The Obama administration has generally taken a hands-off approach
to medical marijuana users and dispensaries. But federal authorities
won't stand by if California voters approve Prop. 19.

In a letter made public Friday, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder
said the Justice Department will continue to enforce the federal
Controlled Substances Act.

"We will vigorously enforce the CSA against those individuals and
organizations that possess, manufacture or distribute marijuana for
recreational use, even if such activities are permitted under state
law," Holder wrote.

Q: What about the Federal Drug-Free Workplace program?

A: Federal law requires drug-free workplaces for businesses that
contract with the federal government or receive federal grants.
Participating businesses must certify that they are drug-free.

At last month's hearing, skeptics said Prop. 19 would put employers
at risk of losing their contracts or grants.

Kreit, the criminal law attorney, said that isn't so. "Prop. 19
undoubtedly allows employers to have drug-free workplaces," he said.
______________________________________

Pubdate: Wed, 13 Oct 2010
Source: San Diego City Beat (CA)
Copyright: 2010 San Diego City Beat
Contact: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Website: http://www.sdcitybeat.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2764
Cited: Proposition 19 http://yeson19.com/
Bookmark: http://mapinc.org/find?272 (Proposition 19)

OUR ENDORSEMENT - PROP. 19

Of course we're endorsing Prop. 19, the ballot initiative to legalize
marijuana and allow local governments to tax it. We believe that it'll
boost California's economy, create new jobs and ease the budget
crisis. We believe that it will strike a blow to cartels and lift a
significant burden from our overtaxed justice system. And, yes, we
also disclose that legalization will a) help CityBeat's bottom
line-and consequently allow us to serve you better-and b) make our
nights and weekends way more fun. For those who value personal
liberty, yes on 19 is the only moral vote.

Don't believe the scare tactics from the opposition. Marijuana is no
more a gateway drug than miniskirts are a pathway to prostitution.
Our officials are quite capable of writing laws to regulate marijuana
and prosecute irresponsible behavior. The prevalence of
medical-marijuana collectives have had no major negative impact on
San Diego, and anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to get you
into church. People: Jesus loves the tokers, too. We'd like you to
vote yes on Prop. 19.
________________________________________

Pubdate: Sat, 16 Oct 2010
Source: New York Times (NY)
Page: A1, Front Page
Copyright: 2010 The New York Times Company
Contact: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/lettertoeditor.html
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/298
Author: Adam Nagourney
Note: Ian Lovett contributed reporting.
Referenced: Holder's letter http://mapinc.org/url/vXch8ePJ
Cited: Proposition 19 http://yeson19.com/
Bookmark: http://mapinc.org/find?272 (Proposition 19)
Bookmark: http://mapinc.org/find?258 (Holder, Eric)

ON MARIJUANA, CALIFORNIANS MAY IGNORE LEADERS' VIEWS

LOS ANGELES - The Department of Justice says it intends to prosecute
marijuana laws in California aggressively even if state voters
approve an initiative on the Nov. 2 ballot to legalize the drug.

The announcement by Eric H. Holder Jr., the attorney general, was the
latest reminder of how much of the establishment has lined up against
the popular initiative: dozens of editorial boards, candidates for
office, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and other public officials.

Still, despite this opposition - or perhaps, to some extent, because
of it - the measure, Proposition 19, appears to have at least a
decent chance of winning, so far drawing considerable support in
polls from a coalition of Democrats, independents, younger voters and
men as Election Day nears. Should that happen, it could cement a
cultural shift in California, where medical marijuana has been legal
since 1996 and where the drug has been celebrated in popular culture
at least since the 1960s.

But it could also plunge the nation's most populous state into a
murky and unsettling conflict with the federal government that
opponents of the proposition said should make California voters wary
of supporting it.

Washington has generally looked the other way as a growing medical
marijuana industry has prospered here and in 14 other states and the
District of Columbia, but Mr. Holder's position - revealed in a
letter this week to nine former chiefs of the Drug Enforcement
Administration that was made public on Friday - made explicit that
legalizing marijuana for recreational use would bring a whole new
level of scrutiny from Washington.

Mr. Holder did not fully spell out the reasons for the decision, but
he did allude to the reluctance of the federal government to enforce
drug laws differently in different states. "If passed, this
legislation will greatly complicate federal drug enforcement efforts
to the detriment of our citizens," he wrote.

The Los Angeles County sheriff, Lee Baca, who has been one of the
leading opponents of the measure, quickly embraced the Justice
Department's stance. He said that the initiative was unconstitutional
and vowed to continue enforcing marijuana laws, no matter what voters
do in November.

Supporters of the initiative have portrayed support for it as another
example in an anti-incumbent year of voters rejecting authority.

"Bring on the establishment," said Chris Lehane, a senior consultant
to the campaign pushing for passage of the initiative. "This
campaign, and the energy driving it, is predicated on the common
understanding that the establishment's prohibition approach has been
a complete and utter failure, as proven by the point that today it is
easier for a kid to get access to pot than it is to buy a beer or a cigarette."

But Roger Salazar, a political consultant who has been directing the
effort to defeat the proposal, said that Mr. Holder's statement
should reinforce deep concerns about the initiative, including the
way it was drafted and what he called inflated claims by its backers
of what legalization might do.

"This is sort of a shot across the bow from the federal government:
They're saying that, 'If this thing moves the way we think it is,
we're going to come after you guys,' " he said. "That gives
California voters one more reason to take a deep breath."

California's becoming the first state to legalize marijuana for
recreational use would provide a real-life test of theories that
proponents of legalization have long pressed: That it would provide a
new stream of revenues for government, cut down on drug-related
violence and end a modern-day prohibition that effectively turns many
citizens into lawbreakers.

As it is, no matter what voters or Mr. Holder do, marijuana use in
California these days appears, for all practical purposes, all but legal.

Mr. Schwarzenegger signed legislation last month that made possession
of an ounce of marijuana an infraction - it had previously been a
misdemeanor - punishable by a $100 fine. Medical marijuana
dispensaries are common in many parts of the state, and getting a
prescription is hardly challenging. Baby boomers who had not smoked
marijuana since college now speak openly at dinner parties of their
"medical" experimentation with the drug. The smell of marijuana is
hardly unusual at outdoor concerts at places like the Hollywood Bowl.

A Field Poll last month found that 50 percent of respondents said
that marijuana should be legalized; that is up from 13 percent when
the organization first asked the question in 1969. And 47 percent
said they had smoked marijuana at least once, compared with 28
percent when the question was asked in 1975.

"This is the first generation of high school students where a
majority of their parents have smoked marijuana," said Ethan
Nadelmann, the executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, which
has been pushing for passage of the initiative.

The presence of the initiative on the ballot has encouraged
Democrats, who argue it will lead to increased turnout among younger voters.

Notably, none of the major statewide candidates have endorsed the
measure. But perhaps just as notably, none have made the proposition
a campaign issue.

The state Republican Party has officially come out against
Proposition 19 and plans to urge people to vote no, said Ron Nehring,
the party chairman. He called repeal a "big mistake" and mocked the
notion that placing the proposition on the ballot would help Democrats.

"We call that their Hail Mary Jane strategy," he said.

John Burton, the chairman of the California Democratic Party, said
his party had decided to stay neutral on this issue. Asked if he
supported it, Mr. Burton responded: "I already voted for it. Why not?
Brings some money into the state. Helps the deficit. Better than
selling off state buildings to some developer."

Mark Baldassare, president of the Public Policy Institute of
California, noted that polls showed the measure breaking 50 percent,
but said that given the history of initiatives in the state, that
meant its passage was far from assured.

Opposition has come from a number of fronts, ranging from Mr. Baca
and other law enforcement officials to the Chamber of Commerce, which
has warned that it would create workplace health issues.

Still, the breadth of supporters of the proposition - including law
enforcement officials and major unions, like the Service Employees
International Union - signal how mainstream this movement is becoming.

"I think we consume far more dangerous drugs that are legal:
cigarette smoking, nicotine and alcohol," said Joycelyn Elders, the
former surgeon general and a supporter of the measure. "I feel they
cause much more devastating effects physically. We need to lift the
prohibition on marijuana."
_______________________________________

_______________________________________________
THS mailing list