Sep 16, 2016 (San Diego) In our ongoing coverage of the proposals on the November ballot is Pro 64. You can find the text here. The state currently does not allow for the recreational use of marijuana, though we led the country with medical use. If passed, we would follow in the footsteps of Colorado and Washintong State, where recreational use is legal. K
From the proposal, we find that”
Currently in California, nonmedical marijuana use is unregulated, untaxed, and occurs without any consumer or enviromnental protections. The Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use ofMarijuana Act will legalize marijuana for those over 21 years old, protect children, and establish laws to regulate marijuana cultivation, distribution, sale and use, and will protect Californians and the enviromnent from potential dangers. It establishes the Bureau of Marijuana Control within the Department of Consumer Affairs to regulate and license the marijuana industry.
Marijuana is currently legal in our state for medical use and illegal for nomnedical use. Abuse of the medical marijuana system in California has long been widespread, but recent bipartisan legislation signed by Governor Jerry Brown is establishing a comprehensive regulatory scheme for medical marijuana. The Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (hereafter called the Adult Use of Marijuana Act) will consolidate and streamline regulation and taxation for both nomnedical and medical marijuana.
They go on to state that recreational use is only possible by breaking the law and accessing the illegal market. Nor is any of this taxed or regulated, which also cuts on money’s for the state, and makes this more dangerous for the users. It will also allow local government, like the Colorado legislation, to ban it in their jurisdiction. So local cities can mandate that no open sellers set up shop.
Just like tobacco it will forbid the marketing of marijuana to those under 21 years of age and the sale of it as well, Of course, if the person has a medical card they will be able to access.
According to Ballotpedia quoting the state fiscal analysis:
The size of the measure’s fiscal effects could vary significantly depending on:
(1) how state and local governments choose to regulate and tax marijuana,
(2) whether the federal government enforces federal laws prohibiting marijuana, and
(3) how marijuana prices and consumption change under the measure.
Net additional state and local tax revenues that could eventually range from the high hundreds of millions of dollars to over $1 billion annually. Most of these funds would be required to be spent for specific purposes such as youth programs, environmental protection, and law enforcement.
Net reduced costs potentially in the tens of millions of dollars annually to state and local governments primarily related to a decline in the number of marijuana offenders held in state prisons and county jails.
While not stated, this legislation would also reduce the prison population, and the support is widespread, not just among Democratic Politicians, but also by the American Civil Liberties Unions, and minority groups, that are affected disproportiately by the war on drugs.
Supporters state the following:
- The proposition has specific safeguards that would protect children while allowing responsible use of adult marijuana.
- The proposition would incorporate best practices from other states that already legalized marijuana use and would adhere to recommendations provided by California’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Marijuana Policy.
- The proposition would generate tax revenue and decrease law enforcement costs, providing funding for things like afterschool programs, drug prevention education and drug/alcohol addiction treatment, law enforcement training and research on impaired driving, and other programs.
- The proposition would prevent legislators from using generated revenue for their pet projects.
- The proposition would provide an environment where marijuana is safe, controlled, and taxed.
It is opposed by the Republcian Party, a series of law enforcement agencies, such as the California Police Chief’s Assocition, hospitals, and DUiD Victims Voices. Locally it is opposed by the Vista Community Clinic, and the Oceanside City Council. It is also opposed by State Senator Joel Anderson and Senator Dianne Feinstein, one a Republcian, the latter a Democrat.
Arguments against it are as follows:
- The proposition would result in more highway fatalities and more impaired driving.
- The proposition would allow marijuana growing near schools and parks, and would erode local control.
- The proposition would increase black market and drug cartel activity.
- The proposition would allow marijuana smoking advertisements to be aired.
- The proposition would hurt underprivileged neighborhoods.
- The proposition would put small marijuana farmers in northern California out of business.
Supporters have $11,470,778 dollars to spend, while the opposition is counting on $229,385.
Categories: November 2016 initiatives