WHY PRO-POT ACTIVISTS OPPOSE PROP.

19: 19 REASONS TO VOTE KNOW

People think it s legalization, it s being sold as legalization even though it s the oppo
site of legalization. - Dennis Peron, author of Prop. 215 that legalized medical
marijuana in California

Dragonfly De La Luz

When most marijuana activists, growers and consumers first heard about an initia
tive that would legalize cannabis in California, they thought it was a pipe drea
m come true. To many, legalization implied that it would no longer be a crime to
possess, consume or distribute marijuana. Cannabis consumers rejoiced at the id
ea of being able to buy from their neighbors or at parties just as they already do w
ith no legal retribution. Small-time growers envisioned being free to sell their
product to those who sought them out, with no legal repercussions. Marijuana ac
tivists thought it meant that people would stop getting arrested for pot, and th
at the drug war would finally be over. But now that the initiative is headed to
ballot, many pro-legalization supporters are coming out against it. Why?
Simply put, the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative does not reflect m
ost people s ideas of what legalization would be. The media often incorrectly repo
rts that this initiative calls for full legalization of marijuana. It does not. In
fact, it reverses many of the freedoms marijuana consumers currently enjoy, pus
hes growers out of the commercial market, paves the way for the corporatization
of cannabis, and creates new prohibitions where there are none now. Apparently,
to be pro-legalization and pro-initiative are two different things entirely.
The late-Jack Herer, legendary marijuana activist known as the father of the leg
alization movement, vehemently opposed the initiative. In the last words of his
impassioned final speech, moments before the heart attack that would eventually
claim his life, he urged people not to support it.[1] Proposition 215 author, De
nnis Peron, likewise denounced the initiative, saying it is not legalization, bu
t thinly-veiled prohibition. [2]
Compared to the present status of cannabis in California, many marijuana activis
ts see this initiative as a giant leap backward. Ironically, it appears that mar
ijuana is more legal in California today than it would be if this initiative were
to pass.
The initiative itself is a hazy maze of regulations and controls, some of which
are ambiguous and confusing even for those well-versed in marijuana law. Underst
andably, many who have entered the discussion seem to have bypassed the initiati
ve altogether and gone straight to their own assumptions of what an initiative t
hat claims to legalize marijuana might entail, injecting the debate with as many
misconceptions as facts. But for an issue that would have such a direct and unp
recedented impact on our daily lives, it s crucial to decide your vote based on kn
owledge, rather than assumption.
To clarify a few of the most glaring myths about the Regulate, Control and Tax C
annabis Initiative, I have compiled this guide to help you VOTE KNOW!

Myth #1: The initiative will end the War on Drugs and substantially reduce marij
uana arrests, saving millions in prison costs.
Fact: Hardly. The federal drug war will continue to drone on, of course, and gro
wing or possessing any amount of marijuana would still be illegal under federal
law. Anyone growing or possessing cannabis without a doctor s recommendation would
still be subject to arrest and seizure by the federal police although on the brig
ht side, the Obama administration recently announced it will no longer raid indi
viduals who are operating in compliance with medical marijuana law.[3]
Contrary to popular assumption, the drug war in California will not end, nor wil
l it be impacted much by the initiative. This is because the initiative doesn t ca
ll for full legalization; it proposes to legalize possession of only up to one o
unce. And in California, there is no drug war being fought against possession of u
p to one ounce, because marijuana is already decriminalized.
The penalty for carrying an ounce is a mere citation and maximum $100 fine.[4] M
oreover, possession of one ounce is on its way to being downgraded from a misdem
eanor to an infraction, because the state Senate voted in June to reclassify its
status. [5] No one goes to jail for having an ounce or less in California, and
no one gets arrested, because it is not an arrestable offense.
One often-quoted statistic in the initiative debate is that misdemeanor marijuan
a possession arrests reached 61,388 in 2008.[6] However, it is important to note
that this statistic does not refer to any arrest demographic that the Regulate,
Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative would affect. This statistic refers only to
possession of more than one ounce, possession by minors and possession on schoo
l grounds offenses which the initiative will not legalize. It does not refer to nor
does it include marijuana arrests for possession of one ounce or less, because
this is not an arrestable offense. Therefore, the initiative would have no impac
t on reducing these arrests rates.
Statistically, the demographic that accounts for nearly one-quarter of total arr
ests for marijuana possession in California happens to be those in the 18-20 age
group. But because the initiative explicitly makes it illegal for even adults a
ge 18-20 to possess marijuana, these arrests will not decrease, and the drug war
against young adults will rage on.
Furthermore, since the initiative would keep possession of amounts greater than
one ounce illegal and likewise maintain the illegality of private sales of any a
mount, the overall impact that the initiative would have on ending the drug war,
reducing arrest rates and saving on prison costs would be negligible, at best.
As an example of how highly misunderstood this initiative and its potential impa
ct on the drug war is, the California NAACP recently pledged their support for t
he initiative based on the belief that it will put an end to the disproportionat
ely high number of African-American youth going to jail over a joint. [7] But in r
eality, the initiative will have no impact on this phenomenon whatsoever. As it
is now, the State of California does not jail people for having a joint; it is n
ot an arrestable offense. And, as mentioned above, possession of up to one ounce
is on its way to being reclassified from a misdemeanor to an infraction which car
ries no criminal-record stigma. The state does, however, incarcerate people for
selling small amounts of marijuana. And since this initiative keeps private mari
juana sales illegal, no matter the quantity, there will be no decrease in the nu
mber of African Americans or anyone else arrested for selling a joint.
Not only does the initiative do little or nothing to end the drug war, but ironi
cally, it could in fact expand the drug war, because it imposes new prohibitions
against marijuana that do not exist currently.
Contrary to the belief that it will keep people out of jail for marijuana, this
initiative actually creates new demographics of people to incarcerate. (See Fact
#2 and Fact #3) It is difficult to see how the government would save on court a
nd imprisonment costs if the initiative merely shifts arrests from one demograph
ic to another.
Myth #2: The initiative will keep young adults out of jail for using marijuana.
Fact: This initiative would put more young people in jail for pot. If it becomes
 law, any adult 21 or over who passes a joint to another adult aged 18-20 would
face six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. [8] (NORML's Web site reports that th
e current penalty for a gift of marijuana of 1 oz. or less is a $100 fine.[9])
Myth #3: You'll be able to light up freely in the privacy of your home.
Fact: That depends. Under the initiative, even adults consuming marijuana in the
privacy of their homes could face arrest if there are minors present (not somet
hing one would expect from an initiative that claims to treat marijuana like alc
ohol and tobacco)[10]. Current marijuana law contains no such restrictions. Than
ks to Prop. 215, which legalized marijuana for medicinal use, cannabis consumers
have been legally free to smoke in the privacy of their homes since 1997. This
initiative seeks to undermine that freedom, making it absolutely illegal to smok
e marijuana if there are minors present. (The initiative is ambiguous with regar
d to whether present means being in the same room as the consumer, the same house,
the same apartment building, or within wafting distance apparently leaving this u
p to the interpretation of judges.) There is no exception for medical marijuana
patients or for parents consuming in the presence of their own children.
Myth #4: Under the initiative, anyone 21 or over will be allowed to grow marijua
na in a 5 x5 space.
Fact: Not quite. This allotment is per property, not per person. If you share a
residence with other people, you ll be sharing a 5 x5 grow space, as well. Even if yo
u own multiple acres that many people live on, if it is considered one parcel, t
he space restriction of 5 x5 (3-6 plants) will still apply. [11] Plus, if you rent,
you will be required to obtain permission from your landlord which they may be un
willing to grant since doing so will subject them to forfeiture by the federal g
overnment.
Myth #5: Adults 21 and over will be able to possess up to one ounce of marijuana
without penalty.
Fact: Perhaps the most ironic piece of the puzzle is that the initiative to lega
lize marijuana actually makes it illegal to possess marijuana if it was purchase
d anywhere other than the very few licensed dispensaries in the state.[12] So if
this initiative passes, better not get caught carrying marijuana you bought off
your neighbor, your current dealer, or at a party; you could get arrested. And
if you do buy from a licensed dispensary, better keep your receipts, because the
burden of proof will be on you. Not only is this inconvenient, but it sets the
industry up to be monopolized.
What s more, if your city decides not to tax cannabis, then buying and selling mar
ijuana in the city limits would remain illegal. You would be permitted to posses
s and consume marijuana, but you would be required to travel to another city tha
t taxes cannabis to buy it.[13] This is a move towards decreased, not increased,
access. And since the initiative is so ambiguous that cities are destined to be
tied up in a legal quagmire over how to interpret it, many local governments mi
ght find it simpler just to opt-out and send its citizens elsewhere. Indeed, 129
cities did just that with medical marijuana, banning it outright, while still o
thers have established moratoriums against dispensaries. In fact, of the entire
state, only the city of Oakland has endorsed the initiative. A vote for the init
iative will therefore not ensure local access to purchase marijuana legally.
Myth #6: The initiative will free up cops to focus on bigger crimes.
Fact: Decriminalization has already achieved this. The California Police Chiefs
Association publicly admits that they do not waste their time on cases involving
an ounce or less.[14] Moreover, many cities have already passed measures that r
equire law enforcement to make marijuana possession their lowest priority.
What the initiative would do is create new prohibitions where there were none be
fore, obligating police officers to spend valuable time enforcing them. The case
s cops presently de-prioritize are minor offenses, like simple possession. But t
he initiative takes minor offenses and reclassifies them as more serious crimes
(e.g., passing a joint to an adult 18-20). Law enforcement s time is freed up by t
he elimination of prohibition, not by exchanging old prohibitions for new ones.
Myth #7: Marijuana tax revenue will go toward education and health care.
Fact: As it is now, state budget cuts have resulted in the closing of state park
s, and health care for impoverished children has been revoked, not to mention th
ousands of government lay-offs. But marijuana taxes will not be earmarked for he
alth care, public education, the re-opening of state parks, or rehiring of laid-
off government employees. Instead, the initiative specifically states that any m
arijuana tax revenue can be used toward enforcing the new prohibitions that the
initiative enacts.[15] In this regard, not only does the initiative not end the
drug war, it apparently taxes the drug to fund the drug war.
Myth #8: Marijuana growers will be able to sell cannabis legally.
Fact: Currently, marijuana growers in California who have a medical recommendati
on can and do grow and provide marijuana legally. Entire economies in Northern C
alifornia exist on this industry. However, the initiative would make it illegal
for anyone to sell marijuana, unless they own a licensed dispensary.[16] (See Fa
ct #9)
Many have suggested that growers could open marijuana-tasting venues, similar to
wine-tasting at vineyards. A grower might have a chance of opening such a place
, but only if he gave his product away for free, because selling it would be ill
egal unless he successfully navigated the notoriously difficult and prohibitivel
y expensive process of obtaining licensure.
Myth #9: Anyone can obtain a license to legally sell cannabis and compete in the
market.
Fact: Few people will be able to compete in the multibillion-dollar marijuana ma
rket if the initiative passes. This is because the licensing process, engineered
in Oakland, is exceptionally restrictive. Of the more than a thousand dispensar
ies operating in California until a recent L.A. crackdown, only a handful were l
icensed. (Conveniently, Richard Lee, the millionaire behind the initiative, owns
one of them). In Oakland, the city that s setting the precedent in the tax cannab
is push, a license costs $30,000. Per year. Not to mention the rigorous applicat
ion process, in which even well-established, law-abiding dispensaries have been
denied.
Furthermore, Oakland has started a trend of capping the number of licensed dispe
nsaries allowed to operate (in Oakland, that number is four). This all but guara
ntees that the average, small-time marijuana grower will be shut out of this mul
tibillion-dollar industry, concentrating the profits of the potential economic b
oon in the hands of a small minority of wealthy entrepreneurs who are already ma
king moves to monopolize the industry. Under this initiative, the marijuana indu
stry will not be a free market in which everyone has a chance to compete. Instea
d, the initiative could mark the beginning of the corporatization of marijuana.
(See also Fact #15)
Myth #10: Medical marijuana patients would be exempt from the initiative.
Fact: This is not exactly true. While amendments were made ostensibly to prevent
the initiative from affecting current medical marijuana law, a careful reading
of the initiative reveals that this is not, in fact, the case. Certain medical m
arijuana laws are exempt from the prohibitions the initiative would enact, while
others are glaringly absent.
Cultivation is one such law that is noticeably non-exempt.[17] In spite of the f
act that the tax cannabis Web site says otherwise, the only medical marijuana ex
emptions that the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative actually makes a
re with regard to possession, consumption and purchase limits, which only ensure
 that patients would still be allowed to buy medicine at dispensaries. The word c
ultivate is conspicuously absent. Whereas today a person with a doctor s recommenda
tion has the right to grow up to an unlimited number of plants, the initiative w
ould drastically reduce that number to whatever can fit in a 5 x5 footprint (around
3-6 plants per property, not per person). This will force many patients to resort
to buying instead of growing their own medicine, because of the inconvenience c
aused by producing multiple grows a year rather than growing a year s supply of me
dicine at one time, as many patients currently do outdoors. And growing indoors wh
ich typically requires special grow lights, an increase in hydro use, and a lot
of time and attention is a comparatively expensive endeavor.
The initiative would further impact medical marijuana patients by banning medica
ting in the privacy of their own homes if there are minors present, as well as i
n public (currently perfectly legal[18]) an invaluable liberty to those with painf
ul diseases who would otherwise have to suffer until they got home to relieve th
eir pain.
Finally, the medical marijuana laws that are exempted from this initiative appar
ently only apply to cities. For medical marijuana patients who live in an area t
hat has county or local government jurisdiction, according to a strict reading o
f the initiative, medical marijuana laws are not exempt.[19]
Myth #11: Marijuana smokers will be free to smoke cannabis wherever cigarette sm
oking is allowed.
Fact: Actually, that's the way it is now in California. There is no law prohibit
ing medical marijuana from being smoked wherever cigarette smoking is permitted.
[20] Young adults taking bong hits in Golden Gate Park on a Sunday afternoon is
just part of the San Francisco scenery. However, if this initiative passes, that
freedom would disappear and we could see cops policing smoking areas to enforce
this law.[21]
Myth #12: Currently imprisoned non-violent marijuana offenders would be released
.
Fact: The initiative makes no call to release prisoners who are behind bars for
any marijuana offense, no matter how minor. In fact, because it introduces new p
rohibitions where none exist now, the initiative could potentially be responsibl
e for locking even more people up for marijuana.
Myth #13: Counties in which marijuana cultivation currently thrives will experie
nce increased economic growth.
Fact: Entire economies could collapse in counties that currently rely on cultiva
ting marijuana. Right now, the multibillion-dollar marijuana industry is legally
subsidizing thousands of incomes in areas where unemployment is skyrocketing. F
or example, Mendocino County, the biggest pot-producing county in the U.S., repo
rts that a full two-thirds of its economy is dependent on marijuana.[22] Much of
this is due to current state medical marijuana laws, which allow people to lega
lly cultivate plants and provide them to marijuana pharmacies. But this economy
supports more than just farmers.
Many local store owners report that without marijuana farmers patronizing their
businesses with cash, they would go out of business. Moreover, legitimate medica
l marijuana growers employ tens of thousands of seasonal workers, mostly young a
dults, who have managed to eke out a living in a region where none other exists,
and who otherwise would have few local options to support themselves. The more
humble among them are able to make a living that sustains them modestly througho
ut much of the year. Thousands more are able to subsidize low-paying jobs, make
up for shortages in their college funding, and start creative projects such as f
ashion design, music production, or art. But because the initiative would limit
the number of plants one could grow from up to an unlimited amount to about six,
thousands of small-time medical marijuana farmers and the young adults they emp
loy would face economic displacement and hardship, or join the ranks of the unem
ployed. (For more on this, see Fact #15.)
Myth #14: The initiative will create an employment boon similar to California s wi
ne industry.
Fact: Comparisons with the wine industry are no true basis for determining the p
otential revenue recreational marijuana could create, because the wine industry
does not operate under the same restrictions the marijuana industry would face.
Namely, there s no cap on how many wineries can operate in California, or how many
grapes each vineyard can grow. There are currently almost 3,000 vineyards in th
e state, whereas since the April crackdown in L.A., there are fewer than 300 dis
pensaries (of which only a few are licensed). Moreover, if cities continue to fo
llow the trend set by Oakland and cap the number of licensed dispensaries allowe
d to operate, then the thousands of people currently legally employed by dispens
aries would dwindle drastically.
Myth #15: The initiative will limit the viability of Mexican drug cartels.
Fact: Mexican drug cartels are already being undermined tremendously thanks to t
he legions of small-time farmers growing in California. The Washington Post repo
rted on October 7, 2009:
Almost all of the marijuana consumed in the multibillion-dollar U.S. market once
came from Mexico or Colombia. Now as much as half is produced domestically, ofte
n by small-scale operators who painstakingly tend greenhouses and indoor gardens
to produce the more potent product that consumers now demand, according to autho
rities and marijuana dealers on both sides of the border. Stiff competition from
thousands of mom-and-pop marijuana farmers in the United States threatens the b
ottom line for powerful Mexican drug organizations in a way that decades of arre
sts and seizures have not, according to law enforcement officials and pot grower
s in the United States and Mexico. [23]
These mom-and-pop growers don t fit the stereotype of the gang-war era drug pusher
or Mexican drug cartel growing marijuana irresponsibly and setting forests on f
ire. Many of them are law-abiding citizens, legally growing medical marijuana un
der Prop. 215. They re the people you see at your local organic health food store,
or shopping in the community, putting much-needed cash directly into the local
economy while the national economy flounders in recession. These small-time mari
juana farmers use the money they earn from providing medicine to finance their k
ids education, help out their laid-off parents and put themselves through school.
In some cases, entire communities depend on them.
However, if this initiative passes, these growers that are single-handedly under
cutting the Mexican drug cartels would no longer be able to legally operate and
the face of the marijuana industry could change from the local one we recognize
to an impersonal corporate entity, leaving a spate of displaced marijuana farmer
s in its wake.
One corporation that is poised to take the place of the mom-and-pop growers is A
graMed. While Oakland s city council prepares to consider a proposal in July to li
cense four commercial indoor marijuana farms in the city, AgraMed has plans to b
uild a 100,000-sq.-ft. marijuana mega-farm near Oakland International Airport th
at, according to projections, could generate 58 pounds of pot a day and $59 milli
on a year in revenue. The company s president, Jeff Wilcox a member of the steering c
ommittee of the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative reportedly hopes to b
ring a degree of corporate structure to the marijuana industry. [24]
The language that backers of the initiative use itself is cause for concern amon
g pro-marijuana supporters. Instead of speaking out against the injustice of jai
ling people over a plant that is widely known not only to be harmless, but benef
icial, these multimillionaire supporters of the initiative speak only of their i
ntentions to corporatize marijuana. The owner of one leading marijuana dispensar
y that already earns well over $20 million a year was quoted in the New York Times a
s having aspirations to become the McDonald s of marijuana. [25] The proprietors of O
akland s new i-Grow hydroponics store want it to be known as the Wal-Mart of grow st
ores.[26] Meanwhile, Marijuana, Inc., a multimillion-dollar corporation, has pla
ns to build cannabis resorts in the Northern California counties that currently
survive off the medical marijuana industry.[27] They intend to create golf resor
ts with acres of marijuana gardens featuring hundreds of strains. (Apparently, u
nder this initiative, corporations would be permitted to grow quite large quanti
ties of cannabis, while cultivation would be restricted to 5 x 5 plots for everyon
e else.)
The accusations that medical marijuana growers oppose the initiative out of gree
d are clearly grossly unfounded. It is obvious who has intentions of increasing
their bottom line. Small-time marijuana farmers simply want to continue making a
humble living off the land. They are the ones who built the marijuana industry,
but this initiative seeks to allow corporations to take their hard work and tur
n it into profits for themselves, locking farmers out of the industry entirely.
We have seen this trend before in the United States. Our history is replete with
small farmers being taken over by huge corporations. Hundreds of thousands of m
om-and-pop businesses have been forced out of business by conglomerates like Wal
-Mart, Starbucks, and Monsanto, which those who benefit from such takeovers have
justified by calling it progress. But is it? And is this the sort of progress we wa
nt to see take over the marijuana industry? Is this the world Peter Tosh had in
mind when he implored us to legalize it?
Marijuana may well be the final bastion of farmer-owned, worker-owned, business
autonomy in this country. Will we allow it, too, to go the way of nearly every o
ther homegrown industry in the history of the United States? We all hope for leg
alization. But must we have such a drastic, Faustian trade-off for this freedom?
And is it really freedom if we must lose our autonomy to gain it?
One farmer s response to the news of Marijuana Inc. s resort aspirations poignantly
sums up the pending reality should the initiative pass:
Marijuana, Inc., has big plans to invade the Emerald Triangle and surrounding cou
nties to really capitalize on marijuana tourism. Maybe that sounds like fun to p
eople that aren t from around here, but it is really going to take away a lot of o
pportunity from the locals who make this place what it is. I feel that the peopl
e here who created this industry are going to be left in the dust for the most p
art There is just too much money at stake and that is what these guys are all abo
ut. This is the equivalent of the giant hotels popping up on the Hawaiian Island
s and the locals being told, You can still work at the resort. We ll need maids and
groundskeepers who ll work for minimum wage... [28]
What is currently a small-time, largely organic industry on which entire economies
survive, and without which entire economies would collapse could soon become domi
nated by corporations if this initiative passes. The days of knowing your dealer a
nd what goes into your pot could soon be over, and marijuana, a sacrament to man
y, could become corporatized. Are corporations inherently evil? No. But if we ha
ve the option to keep millions of dollars in our own communities, spread out ove
r hundreds of thousands of people, it hardly seems sensible to outsource this em
ployment to corporations and into the hands of a few.
Is it possible to have marijuana legalization without legalizing corporate takeo
ver of the industry? Absolutely. Will those who are passionate about marijuana l
ive to regret voting in an initiative that treats marijuana as a publicly-traded
commodity and turns it into something as abhorrent as Wal-Mart and McDonald s? Ab
solutely. Do we have to settle for this? Absolutely not.
Myth #16: The price of marijuana will drop.
Fact: The value of marijuana might decrease if it becomes more commercially avai
lable and more people grow their own, but the price of a product depends less on
its value and more on the degree of competition that exists with regard to sell
ing it. Since your options for purchasing marijuana would be among only a handfu
l of licensed dispensaries in the state, there is no guarantee of a decrease in
price. Less competition means higher prices.
Indeed, by AgraMed s own estimation, in order to make $59 million a year off 58 po
unds per day, they would have to charge $175 per ounce wholesale (roughly $2,800
per pound) and that s if they produced 58 pounds 365 days a year. If they managed t
o produce that output only 5 days a week, that price would leap to $245 an ounce
(about $3900 per pound). With shelf-prices at dispensaries often set at double
the wholesale purchase price not to mention the compulsory tax added onto every ou
nce (which Richard Lee stated in an interview was "recommended" to be $50) the pri
ce of marijuana could potentially be higher than it is in our current market, in
which the price of a pound has already fallen to $2,000, according to a recent
National Public Radio report; a direct result of healthy competition, not its op
posite.[29]
Myth #17: We can vote in the initiative and fix the tangles as they come up.
Fact: Initiatives create permanent statutes. Once an initiative is voted into la
w, it cannot be reversed. It remains law forever. It is worth noting that this i
nitiative makes some unusual provisions with regard to amendments. For starters,
it allows the legislature (traditionally hostile toward marijuana legislation)
to amend the initiative without voter approval. Furthermore, it allows amendment
s, but only to further the purposes of the Act. [30] Under a monopolized, corporate
-controlled distribution process, the purposes might become more narrowly defined.
Many of the issues that pro-legalization supporters have with the initiative cou
ld be easily rectifiable with a few sentences and an amendment-submission to the
Attorney General s office. It would have required very little on the part of the
initiative authors to remove the vagueness from the wording that bans smoking ca
nnabis in any space where minors are present, for example, or to add an exemption fo
r medical marijuana patients and parents consuming in the presence of their own
children. It would have required very little to write into the initiative a line
that would exempt medical marijuana patients from the public smoking ban and pr
otect their right to grow medicine in amounts sufficient for their individual ne
eds. After all, these are items which should not be considered luxuries under le
galized marijuana; they should be rights. And we should settle for nothing less.
Unfortunately, the deadline to make changes to the initiative before the Novembe
r elections has already passed, and to achieve these changes via subsequent vote
r referendums would be a complicated and drawn-out process that could take years
. Making the initiative acceptable before voting it into law is therefore essent
ial.
Myth #18: This is our only chance to take a step in the direction of legalizatio
n.
Fact: This is only our first chance and it is NOT our only choice. This November,
volunteers for the California Hemp and Health Initiative (CCHHI) the initiative Ja
ck Herer supported so much he lent his legendary name to it will be collecting sig
natures to be placed on the CCHHI on the ballot in 2012. Some highlights of this
alternative to Prop. 19 include:
--The freedom to grow up to 99 plants per adult, 21 years of age and older (not pe
r residence as under Prop. 19) for personal use.
--Cannabis taxes shall not exceed $10.00 per ounce.
--The freedom to distribute cannabis among adults without a license. (Prop. 19 f
orbids distributing cannabis except for those who manage to obtain a prohibitive
ly expensive license.)
--The cost of a commercial license shall not exceed $1,000. (The cost for a comm
ercial cannabis vending license in Oakland is $60,000 per year. A commercial gro
w license is a whopping $211,000 per year.)
--No cannabis tax revenue will be allowed to assist law enforcement. (Prop. 19 s
pecifically allows for marijuana tax revenue to fund law enforcement.)
For those who have doubts about supporting Prop. 19 or the motives behind it, CC
HHI is a viable alternative. (For more on CCHHI, visit http://www.jackherer.com/
initiative and http://youthfederation.com/cchhi2012.html).
Myth #19: We can vote in Prop. 19, then vote in a better initiative later.
Likelihood: Although 2012 will offer us a brilliant alternative with the CCHHI/J
ack Herer Initiative, the more likely scenario is that by that time, big cannabi
s corporations will have all the money, power, and influence they need to thwart
any challenge to their monopoly. What do you suppose are the chances of voting
in an initiative like CCHHI--that emphasizes personal freedom over corporations
and seeks to fully legalize possession, cultivation, and distribution of marijua
na--after the cannabis corporations just spent two years multiplying their milli
ons legally under the monopoly Prop. 19 creates, keeping everyone else out of th
e market, and making it illegal for you to buy your weed from anyone but them? T
here IS no chance. For this reason, WE CANNOT VOTE FOR PROP. 19 NOW AND THEN VOT
E FOR CCHHI IN 2012 TO REPLACE IT. Because if Prop. 19 gets voted in, then once
it's in, big cannabis corporations will make sure it stays in, and that it conti
nues to serve them and not the people.
This is not our only chance to vote yes to legalization, but it may be our only
chance to vote no to the corporatization of cannabis.?
What now?
The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative is not the only path to legali
zation. We have come so far, and are now so close it is imperative that we let the
next step be the right one. Legalized marijuana is within reach, yet the moveme
nt could be set back with such a problematic initiative at the helm. Instead of
rushing to pass a measure that prohibits marijuana under the guise of legalizati
on, we can choose an initiative that calls for true legalization and that has th
e full support of marijuana law reform organizations and leaders of the movement
.
The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative is rife with ambiguity, expand
s the War on Drugs, undermines the medical marijuana movement, arrests more peop
le for marijuana, offers no protection for small farmers and insufficient protec
tion for medical marijuana users, has a high potential for monopolization, provi
des no regulations to prevent corporate takeover of the industry, cartelizes the
economy, and divides our community into poor, unlicensed, mom-and-pop gardener
versus rich, licensed, corporate farmer. And since the one thing that s clear abou
t the initiative is that it s vague, it could very easily prove to be a Pandora s bo
x of unintended consequences. Beyond its vagueness, which itself is problematic,
these side effects are inherently socially dangerous. The impact that such a fa
iled legalization initiative could have on the movement nation-wide could be dis
astrous.
This is not a question of whether to legalize or not to legalize. Legalization i
s the goal and it is inevitable. The question is whether we want to rush in and
settle for an initiative that is so poorly-worded as to be ambiguous, and so vag
ue as to be open to vast interpretation from judges or choose a better option, lik
e the Jack Herer Initiative, in 2012. If we hold out for a perfect initiative we
will wait forever. But if we at least hold out for an initiative that is direct
, unambiguous, well-defined and clearly written, we will have an unprecedented o
pportunity to inspire the world to join the movement to legalize marijuana.
Many pro-legalization activists are rallying behind the idea of taking the time
to choose an initiative that will be a clear step up from the current cannabis s
ituation of in California and will result in increased access not its opposite. Bo
th NORML and the MPP, the foremost cannabis law reform organizations in the coun
try, have suggested we wait and make another attempt at legalization during the
2012 elections. Dale Gieringer, Director of California s NORML, said, I do think it s
going to take a few more years for us to develop a proposal that voters will be
comfortable with. [32] Likewise, Bruce Mirken, MPP s Director of Communications, wa
s quoted as saying, In our opinion, we should wait and build our forces and aim a
t 2012. [33]
Ultimately, the decision is not up to any organization; it s up to YOU. How will y
ou vote? Read the initiative for yourself and just VOTE KNOW!

I hope people find the hope and inspiration to broadcast this, understand (the in
itiative), read it, and know that it's a step backwards. And we can do better. W
e will do better. - Dennis Peron

Sidebar: What it Actually Says

About possessing marijuana bought somewhere other than a licensed outlet:
Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls
: (g) prohibit and punish through civil fines or other remedies the possession,
sale, possession for sale, cultivation, processing, or transportation of cannabi
s that was not obtained lawfully from a person pursuant to this section or secti
on 11300; [Section 11300: (i) possession for sale regardless of amount, except b
y a person who is licensed or permitted to do so under the terms of an ordinance
adopted pursuant to section 11301.]
About the punishment for giving marijuana to adults age 18-20:
Section 4: Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors: (c) Every person 21 ye
ars of age or over who knowingly furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to
furnish, administer or give, any marijuana to a person aged 18 years or older, b
ut younger than 21 years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county
jail for a period of up to six months and be fined up to $1,000 for each offens
e.
About smoking in the presence of minors:
Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls: (
c) Personal consumption shall not include, and nothing in this Act shall permit: (
iv) smoking cannabis in any space while minors are present.
About using marijuana tax revenue to fund law enforcement against pot prohibitio
n:
Section 11302: Imposition and Collection of Taxes and Fees (a) Any ordinance, re
gulation or other act adopted pursuant to section 11301 may include imposition o
f appropriate general, special or excise, transfer or transaction taxes, benefit
assessments, or fees, on any activity authorized pursuant to such enactment, in
order to permit the local government to raise revenue, or to recoup any direct
or indirect costs associated with the authorized activity, or the permitting or
licensing scheme, including without limitation: administration; applications and
 issuance of licenses or permits; inspection of licensed premises and other enfo
rcement of ordinances adopted under section 11301, including enforcement against
unauthorized activities.
About medical marijuana exemptions:
B: Purposes, 7: Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale o
f cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city s limits remain ille
gal, but that the city s citizens still have the right to possess and consume smal
l amounts except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362
.7 through 11362.9. (Note: The word cultivate is conspicuously absent here as well
as in the exempted Health and Safety Sections that pertain to medical marijuana
laws.)
About leaving medical marijuana cultivation law in the hands of local government
:
Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls: Notwithstanding any other pr
ovision of state or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances, regulati
ons, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit
or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following: (a) cultivation, proces
sing, distribution, the safe and secure transportation, sale and possession for
sale of cannabis, but only by persons and in amounts lawfully authorized. (Note:
This section provides no exemptions for medical marijuana law.)
About the right to cultivate:
Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls: (
ii) Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawfu
l resident or guest of the private property owner or lawful occupant, cannabis p
lants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than twenty-five squ
are feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel.

____________

[1] Bruce Cain. War Breaks out Within the Marijuana Legalization Movement (Part 1
), Examiner. Sept. 26, 2009
[2] J. Craig Canada. Proposition 215 author announces boycott of Blue Sky medical
marijuana dispensary, Examiner. Oct. 15, 2009
[3] Carrie Johnson. U.S. Eases Stance on Medical Marijuana, Washington Post. Oct.
20, 2009
[4] National Organization for the Reformation of Marijuana Laws.
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4525
[5] Matt Coker. State Bill Would Knock Possession of Less Than an Ounce of Mariju
ana to an Infraction, Orange County Weekly. Jun. 4, 2010
[6] Mike Males, PhD and Daniel Macallair, MPA. Marijuana Arrests and California s D
rug War: A Report to the California Legislature, Center on Juvenile and Criminal
Justice. 2009. Note: This study also reports the often-quoted statistic of misde
meanor marijuana possession arrests reaching 61,388 in 2008. However, it is impo
rtant to note that this statistic does not refer to any arrest demographic that
the Regulate, Control and Tax Initiative would affect. This statistic refers onl
y to possession of more than one ounce, possession by minors, and possession on
school grounds--offenses which the initiative will not legalize. It does not ref
er to nor does it include marijuana arrests for possession of one ounce or less,
because possession of one ounce or less is not an arrestable offense. Therefore
, the initiative would have no impact on reducing these arrests rates.
[7] Brian Braiker. California: Odd Bedfellows in the Pro-Pot Ballot Initiative, AB
C News. Apr. 5, 2010
[8] Section 4: Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors: (c) Every person 2
1 years of age or over who knowingly furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers
to furnish, administer or give, any marijuana to a person aged 18 years or olde
r, but younger than 21 years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the co
unty jail for a period of up to six months and be fined up to $1,000 for each of
fense.
[9] National Organization for the Reformation of Marijuana Laws. http://norml.or
g/index.cfm?Group_ID=4525
[10] Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Contro
ls: (c) Personal consumption shall not include, and nothing in this Act shall perm
it: (iv) smoking cannabis in any space while minors are present.
[11] Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Contro
ls: (ii) Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other
lawful resident or guest of the private property owner or lawful occupant, canna
bis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than twenty-fiv
e square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the par
cel.
[12] Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Con
trols: (g) prohibit and punish through civil fines or other remedies the possess
ion, sale, possession for sale, cultivation, processing, or transportation of ca
nnabis that was not obtained lawfully from a person pursuant to this section or
section 11300; [Section 11300: (i) possession for sale regardless of amount, exc
ept by a person who is licensed or permitted to do so under the terms of an ordi
nance adopted pursuant to section 11301]
[13] B: Purposes, 7: Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the s
ale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city s limits remain
illegal, but that the city s citizens still have the right to possess and consume
small amounts. (Note: The word cultivate is conspicuously absent.)
[14] Brian Braiker. California: Odd Bedfellows in the Pro-Pot Ballot Initiative, A
BC News. Apr. 5, 2010
[15] Section 11302: Imposition and Collection of Taxes and Fees (a) Any ordinanc
e, regulation or other act adopted pursuant to section 11301 may include imposit
ion of appropriate general, special or excise, transfer or transaction taxes, be
nefit assessments, or fees, on any activity authorized pursuant to such enactmen
t, in order to permit the local government to raise revenue, or to recoup any di
rect or indirect costs associated with the authorized activity, or the permittin
g or licensing scheme, including without limitation: administration; application
s and issuance of licenses or permits; inspection of licensed premises and other
enforcement of ordinances adopted under section 11301, including enforcement ag
ainst unauthorized activities.
[16] Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Con
trols: (g) prohibit and punish through civil fines or other remedies the possess
ion, sale, possession for sale, cultivation, processing, or transportation of ca
nnabis that was not obtained lawfully from a person pursuant to this section or
section 11300; [(b) retail sale of not more than one ounce per transaction, in l
icensed premises, to persons 21 years or older, for personal consumption and not
for resale]
[17] Medical marijuana exemptions: B: Purposes, 7: Ensure that if a city decides
not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis
within that city s limits remain illegal, but that the city s citizens still have th
e right to possess and consume small amounts except as permitted under Health an
d Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9. (Note: The word cultivate i
s conspicuously absent.)
Although this refers to cities that decide not to tax marijuana, even in cities
that do choose to tax, the initiative explicitly supersedes medical marijuana la
w and gives local government control over how much patients can cultivate, as se
en in Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls: Notwithstanding any ot
her provision of state or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances, re
gulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate,
permit or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following: (a) cultivation,
processing, distribution, the safe and secure transportation, sale and possessio
n for sale of cannabis, but only by persons and in amounts lawfully authorized.
(This section provides no exemptions for medical marijuana law.)
[18] Proposition 215 (Compassionate Use Act): Section 11362.79: Nothing in this
article shall authorize a qualified patient or person with an identification car
d to engage in the smoking of medical marijuana under any of the following circu
mstances: (a) In any place where smoking is prohibited by law.
[19] Medical marijuana exemptions: B: Purposes, 7: Ensure that if a city decides
not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis
within that city s limits remain illegal, but that the city s citizens still have th
e right to possess and consume small amounts except as permitted under Health an
d Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.
[20] Proposition 215 (Compassionate Use Act): Section 11362.79: Nothing in this
article shall authorize a qualified patient or person with an identification car
d to engage in the smoking of medical marijuana under any of the following circu
mstances: (a) In any place where smoking is prohibited by law.
[21] Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls (c) Personal consumption shal
l not include, and nothing in this Act shall permit cannabis: (ii) consumption i
n public or in a public place
[22] Trish Regan. California's Emerald Triangle: Small Towns, Big Money, CNBC Mari
juana and Money Special Report. Apr. 20, 2010
[23] Steve Fainaru and William Booth. Cartels Face an Economic Battle, Washington
Post. Oct. 7, 2009
[24] Kate McLean. Pot: Semi-legal, Sold Everywhere, The Bay Citizen. Jun. 5, 2010
[25] Jesse McKinley. Don t Call It Pot in This Circle; It s a Profession, New York Time
. Apr. 23, 2010
[26] Matthai Kuruvila. IGrow: Walmart of Weed Opens in Oakland, San Francisco Chro
nicle. Jan. 28, 2010
[27] Staff. Marijuana, Inc Formerly Preachers Coffee Announces Name Change and 42
0 Friendly Resorts Division, Marketwire. May 26, 2010
[28] http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/s...,1318609.shtml
[29] Michael Montgomery. Plummeting Marijuana Prices Create a Panic in California
, National Public Radio. May 15, 2010
[30] Section 5: Amendment: Pursuant to Article 2, section 10(c) of the Californi
a Constitution, this Act may be amended either by a subsequent measure submitted
to a vote of the People at a statewide election; or by statute validly passed b
y the Legislature and signed by the Governor, but only to further the purposes o
f the Act.
[31] John Hoeffel. Measure to Legalize Marijuana Will be on California's November
Ballot, Los Angeles Times. Mar. 25, 2010
[32] Stu Woo. Legal-Pot Backers Split on Timing, Wall Street Journal. Oct. 3, 2009
.
[33] California Marijuana Legalization Initiative Effort Underway, Aimed at 2010
Ballot, Drug War Chronicle. Jun. 19, 2009