Toke Up Marijuana Laws
California has four possible paths for ending marijuana criminalization this year. But can activists agree on a way to end the ineffective policy?
By Rachel Antony-Levine
October 5, 2009
In this May 13, 2009 photo, Jim Hill looks over the marijuana in Calif. (AP Photo/Eric Risberg)
Half of all graduating high school seniors have tried an illegal drug, according to a survey funded in large part by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institutes of Health. This means that one in two Millennial generation high school graduates (ages 18 to 29) could technically be classified as criminals, many smoking pot—committing their first crime—before finishing high school.
Marijuana may have become a cultural rite of passage, but it is non-white citizens who disproportionately pay the price for marijuana’s continued classification as an illegal drug. Those who end up going to jail are predominately young black men, even though, according to the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, African Americans aged 18 to 25 use marijuana at rates lower than whites. According to the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ), the overall arrest rate in California sank by 40 percent since 1996, but marijuana arrests have increased by 127 percent. The number of marijuana arrests of non-white citizens also rose from 3,100 in 1990 to 16,300 in 2008. People of all ages and ethnicities smoke weed, but it is young people of color that are disproportionately paying the price. The astounding rate at which the United States has incarcerated people since the 1970s for marijuana charges is sobering.
These facts reflect a reality that our country is confronting: the failure of the drug war. Gil Kerlikowske, head of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, even called for an end to the “war on drugs” in May.
Recently, however, California has been discussing four (count ‘em, four!) options for legalizing marijuana. Though drug policy reform organizations generally agree that passage of any one of these initiatives would be a positive and necessary step, the ways in which these bills differ bring the nuts and bolts of legalization into the limelight. Some activists are confused and divided about which initiative to support, or how adequate the proposed systems of regulation are in the proposed initiatives.
There is also a question of timing. Polling in the state has shown that 56 percent of Californians favor legalization. But some in the legalization movement believe that, to ensure a greater chance of success, the number in support of legalization should be higher before pushing legalization initiatives. Drug Policy Alliance California director Stephen Gutwillig explains the concern in this way: “The idea is that a defeat could set the movement back quite a bit. We don’t yet know if that’s true.”
Aaron Smith, California policy director of the Marijuana Policy Project, says, “It’s an issue of limited resources. Running a campaign like this could cost a lot of money.” If California’s opinion on legalizing marijuana is growing exponentially more positive every year (much as California’s opinion of same-sex marriage is), then waiting just a year or two could ensure the passage of a marijuana legalization initiative, and some activists believe it might be a smarter use of resources to wait. The target for the movement could be 2012, when more progressive and youth voters are expected to come out to the polls on a presidential election year. Apart from the timing issue, serious questions over differences among the four initiatives remain.
Both Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) and Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) have been working closely with California Assemblymember Tom Ammiano on his bill, introduced to the state legislature in February. Ammiano has been active in California politics since the mid-‘70s when, as one of the first openly gay school teachers in the country, he worked with San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk on fighting an initiative that would have allowed districts to fire teachers because they were gay.
Ammiano’s bill calls for an end to penalties for possession, cultivation, or selling of cannabis for anyone 21 years of age or older. The bill also grants the right for all adults to grow up to 10 mature plants on their own property. Ammiano’s bill and its amendments will be discussed at a public health hearing in the California legislature on Oct. 28.
Additionally, a voter initiative was announced by Oakland resident and business owner Richard Lee in the months following the introduction of Ammiano’s bill. The initiative is known internally as the “Oaksterdam Initiative.” Lee is also the founder of Oaksterdam University, the first cannabis college in the United States. The school offers classes and workshops to prepare individuals for the booming “marijuana industry” in California.
Richard Lee’s ballot initiative, called the Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, would decriminalize possession of less than an ounce of marijuana as well as personal cultivation of up to 25 square feet of marijuana plants. Lee’s initiative would also leave the current penalties for all other marijuana-related crimes in place, and would leave the details of regulation and taxation up to individual counties and cities in California. This could essentially lead to the equivalent of “wet” counties and “dry” counties in California, potentially making things complicated for California courts. But Lee feels that because the vast majority of marijuana arrests are for simple possession, it might save the state millions in court and prison costs, and boost state revenues through taxes.
Another voter ballot initiative, put forth by Omar Figueroa, a lawyer who specializes in marijuana cases, is very different than Lee’s or Ammiano’s proposals. Figueroa’s initiative would remove all state penalties related to marijuana, effective retroactively. This could release those currently serving a sentence in California for a marijuana-related crime. Figueroa was working with Lee on the Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act until he split off over disagreements of whether to take on state law and created his own initiative.
The fourth initiative has been introduced by activist and veteran John Donohue, who is from Long Beach, California. Donohue’s initiative is called the Common Sense Act of 2010 and would also repeal state laws that make it illegal to distribute, possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana; it also mandates local governments set up regulation and tax structures but allows them to determine how much, if at all, they want to tax marijuana use. The initiative would also bar state and local governments from using funds to enforce laws prohibiting marijuana-related offenses.
Both Gutwillig and Smith say that any change that moves California further away from marijuana prohibition is a good step. However, both the MPP and the DPA seem to be waiting to see what ends up on the ballot in January before they decide to help campaign for one initiative over another. Lee’s initiative is thought by Gutwillig and Smith to be the one that has the most resources, funds, and support to make it onto the ballot. And while some activists believe the timing isn’t quite right to push for legalization yet, others argue that while they delay, thousands more will be arrested for something California voters no longer think is wrong.
Lee’s initiative, though it seems likely to make it the furthest, does leave some things to be desired. If the goal is reducing the number of arrests, Lee’s initiative will certainly help. But others worry that leaving the penalties in place for other marijuana crimes beyond possession of an ounce or less will leave many “criminals” in the supply chain. Activists fear illegal activities under Lee’s initiative will fall on the underprivileged that resort to illegal activities in the face of inequality. “I’d personally rather see that legalization happen at the state level so that we have the same policy in Fresno that we do in San Francisco,” Smith says.
And many questions about how to effectively deal with decriminalization will be left up to California if any of the four initiatives actually make it into law. “The problem is that no one knows yet what a good regulatory policy [on marijuana] looks like,” Gutwillig says. “We just want to see legalization happen as quickly and effectively as possible.”
Rachel Antony-Levine is a junior at University of Massachusetts.
Social Bookmarking
--------
Comments
!
“others argue that while they delay, thousands more will be arrested for something California voters no longer think is wrong. “ That’s a Fact and it is a crime against democracy to continue to arrest and jail against the will of the majority. A good Lawyer should be able to challenge the “People VS” on court documents because simply put, it is NOT VALID.
— todd - Oct 5, 09:29 PM - #Nixon really did an amazing job of putting the wheels in motion on the biggest failure in US history. The war on drugs has been a complete failure and an incredible waste of resources in terms of: wated tax dollars on policing, time in court, incarcerating non-violent individuals, etc. If Marijuana is decriminalized California has the potential to save billions in Police spending while making billions more in revelue from the taxes generated on this harmless substance.
www.basinpipes.com
— Basin Glass - Oct 6, 02:53 AM - #What about the Jack Herer Initiative?
— Harry Hydro - Oct 6, 09:16 AM - #It’s all about maintaining a status quo that keeps 86% of all US capital in the hands of 12% of the population. The War on Drugs is a huge money maker for the government and corporations. It effectively takes money straight out of our pockets and give it to the elite.
The monster known as Nig Pharma is just one of the evil corporate entities that bank on continued prohibition. As long as prohibition blocks marijuana as medicine our health ins premiums will continue paying for overpriced and dangerous cancer medicines and pain killers.
There are numerous similar examples with industries such as alcohol and tobacco, textiles, lumbering, big oil, law enforcement and corrections – the list goes on.
Finally, the War on Drugs (like the War on Terror) provide the govt all the justification it needs to maintain paramilitary, SWAT-style teams of drug warriors geared and ready to violate our civil liberties at the drop of a dime. The War on Drugs has made the US into a police state where more people are going to jail then getting out….
— Mike R - Oct 6, 10:37 AM - #Abraham Lincoln said, “Prohibition… goes beyond the bound of reason
in that it attempts to control a man’s appetite by legislation and
makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law
strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was
— Mortamus - Oct 6, 05:05 PM - #founded.”
6. It bugs me to say this but ironically the quickest and most effective way to legalize it would be to go riot in the streets, start flipping a few cars over, maybe beat up a few cops, create such mayhem people cannot ignore us… (I dont in fact mean this literally, just pointing out that it worked for the very same people that look down on us today when their precious alcohal was at risk) Of course smokers arent going to go riot, and because we are peaceful people we suffer this problem of marijuana being illegal.
— Tracy - Oct 7, 08:19 AM - #More than 6,000 people were murdered by the cartels last year mainly to protect their marijuana incomes from the U.S., this year they’ll kill at least 7,000 more. Many of their victims are children, police officers and politicians.
The ONLY way to end this slaughter is to legalize the production and sale of marijuana to adults, thus allowing us to undercut cartel prices and strip them of two-thirds of their incomes. In order to save the lives of thousands of people we’ll never meet we MUST demand the right to commercially produce marijuana.
Legalize, Save Lives!
— jway - Oct 7, 02:32 PM - #The author is on the right track but the article reads as if California arrets people for pot possession. It doesn’t. Cali—along with a dozen or so other states—only issues a traffic ticket. (I know, I just got one in the mail, and it comes from Traffic Court and not Criminal Court). There is a huge injustice in marijuana prohibition, especially in states that aren’t California, but it’s wrong to say that California is locking up people every day for cannabis possession, and that legalization would save prison and court costs. The $202 fine that Cali receives from people possessing one ounce or less of cannabis is a net revenue boost, and it is simply mailed in, so there are minimal court costs and no incarceration costs. Any bill that would legalize personal possession only is actually a net revenue loser… cultivation and sales taxes are the only way to actually increase revenue for this cash-strapped state, and that would require more full-blown legalization than just personal possession up to one ounce… it would require legalizing cultivation and distribution on a larger scale.
It’s important to get facts right and not just spout off self-righteousness. The movement loses credibility when people insist that hemp could replace oil and paper and everything almost instantly if we legalize it (read: it’s legal in Canada/Germany/France/UK/China/etc. and the oil and paper industries are doing just fine). It’s equally stupid to say all of our budget problems would be solved if we legalized yet… there might be a few billion extra dollars, but we’re in a multi-trillion dollar deficit as a nation and legalizing pot would be a drop in the bucket.
Apply your “severe injustice” arguments to states where pot has not yet been decriminalized and where the non-white-people-thrown-in-jail arguement is true (Louisiana, etc.). Don’t exaggerate. Make sense. Don’t make up facts. This is California, after all, and people know pot is pretty much legal here anyway and won’t beleive the hyperbole.
The movement will thank you.
— John - Oct 8, 01:15 PM - #The author is on the right track but the article reads as if California arrets people for pot possession. It doesn’t. Cali—along with a dozen or so other states—only issues a traffic ticket. (I know, I just got one in the mail, and it comes from Traffic Court and not Criminal Court). There is a huge injustice in marijuana prohibition, especially in states that aren’t California, but it’s wrong to say that California is locking up people every day for cannabis possession, and that legalization would save prison and court costs. The $202 fine that Cali receives from people possessing one ounce or less of cannabis is a net revenue boost, and it is simply mailed in, so there are minimal court costs and no incarceration costs. Any bill that would legalize personal possession only is actually a net revenue loser… cultivation and sales taxes are the only way to actually increase revenue for this cash-strapped state, and that would require more full-blown legalization than just personal possession up to one ounce… it would require legalizing cultivation and distribution on a larger scale.
It’s important to get facts right and not just spout off self-righteousness. The movement loses credibility when people insist that hemp could replace oil and paper and everything almost instantly if we legalize it (read: it’s legal in Canada/Germany/France/UK/China/etc. and the oil and paper industries are doing just fine). It’s equally stupid to say all of our budget problems would be solved if we legalized yet… there might be a few billion extra dollars, but we’re in a multi-trillion dollar deficit as a nation and legalizing pot would be a drop in the bucket.
Apply your “severe injustice” arguments to states where pot has not yet been decriminalized and where the non-white-people-thrown-in-jail arguement is true (Louisiana, etc.). Don’t exaggerate. Make sense. Don’t make up facts. This is California, after all, and people know pot is pretty much legal here anyway and won’t beleive the hyperbole.
The movement will thank you.
— John - Oct 8, 01:15 PM - #