California's Marijuana Initiative: A Problem For Obama?

[jinx]

If California voters decide to legalize marijuana throughout the state, President Obama will have a decision on his hands.

 

Politically, it will be a tough one.

 

Polling now suggests that, if the vote were taken today, the Proposition 19 legalization ballot initiative would pass--Field Research shows 49 - 42 percent support, while Public Policy Polling shows Prop. 19 passing 47 - 38 percent--and pressure is already mounting on the White House to sue California if it does, just as Attorney General Eric Holder's Justice Department is now suing Arizona over its controversial SB 1070 immigration law.

 

Earlier this month, nine former administrators of the Drug Enforcement Administration sent a letter calling on Obama and Holder to sue if Prop. 19 passes, blocking the statewide legalization of possession and personal growth and the allowance of individual counties to license commercial sale and production of marijuana.

 

A lawsuit may not be so simple--the federal government may have a better case against Prop. 19's commercial provisions than its sections on personal use--but regardless, if Prop. 19 passes, Obama and Holder will have to decide what to do.

 

The pressure will likely be intense. Legalized marijuana is practically inconceivable to large swaths of the country, and one can see the broader coalition of social conservatives and concerned moderates reeling in shock on November 3, aghast at California's decadence and lawlessness, and turning to President Obama to put a stop to it.

Advertisement

 

Make no mistake: the legalization of marijuana in the country's largest state by population, with governmentally sanctioned commercial grow-houses and open storefronts (which will probably arise, according to one longtime marijuana advocate, in Oakland, West Hollywood, and maybe one other county) would be a major change in this country. Commercial distribution of medical marijuana already happens in a few places around the country, and it's allegedly pretty loose in California and Colorado. But outright legalization is a different thing entirely.

 

If Obama doesn't take action, he'll be seen as the president who let this happen. It could very well lead many people to vote against him in 2012.

 

At this point, it seems the Obama administration will sue California, but that's just an educated guess: the Justice Department has declined to comment. Obama's drug czar, former Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske, has weighed in firmly against legalization on the national scale, and he submitted an op-ed to the L.A. Times co-authored with several former drug czars (some of whom have taken a very hard line against medical marijuana) warning that Prop. 19 would increase social costs with more drug use.

 

But while standing on the sidelines would probably damage Obama with many voters, a lawsuit could bring its own political costs.

 

In California, Prop. 19 is backed by some of the voting blocs that handed Obama his victory in 2008, including Democrats, who support legalization by a 60 - 28 percent margin, according to Field; , independents, who support it by a 62 - 33 percent margin; 18 - 29 year-olds, who support it 59 - 33 percent; and 40 - 49 year-olds, who support it 53 - 38 percent support.

 

The only significant opposition to Prop. 19, according to Field, comes from older voters. 50 - 64 year-olds oppose it 47 - 43 percent,......".

 

I say Obama is in a lotof trouble. He CANNOT afford to alienate the youthful Democrats or the Independents who are hugely responsible for his big win. I say he takes a "hands-off" position.

 

http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2010/09/28/Californias-Marijuana-Initiative-Problem-Obama

[+Silverblue]

I saw an article that may be related, about who would really lose if Mj is legalized. And the loser is... (drumroll please!) ... TA-DA!!! THE ALCOHOL INDUSTRY! -Sb

 

http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20100924/NEWS/100929892/1068&ParentProfile=1056

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[1337Gr33n]

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

 

Friends don't let friends drink crappy beer!

 

sorry, couldn't resist.

[jinx]

I saw an article that may be related, about who would really lose if Mj is legalized. And the loser is... (drumroll please!) ... TA-DA!!! THE ALCOHOL INDUSTRY! -Sb

 

http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20100924/NEWS/100929892/1068&ParentProfile=1056

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Hi Silverblue !!!!

A great article...many thanks !!!!!

dr. jinx

[greenbuddha]

Yep, once California puts it out there the 'issue' will HAVE to be dealt with.

 

No more running away from taking a stand on 'cannabis' by our wonderful politicians... no matter WHICH group of bull shi**ers they come from.

 

It may not be pretty but at least some things will HAVE to 'CHANGE'..... FINALLY!

 

MY money is on California.

[DT61]

Pass it already - first there then nationwide - feel the momentum.

[jinx]

I still say Obama will NOT sue to prevent the full execution of Prop 19 when it passes in Nov.no matter what the previous Directors of the DEA say. He has to keep his eye on his 2012 Presidential rerun hopes and if he loses a lot of the young [under 50] Democrats and Independents, who are strongly for Prop 19, his chances for reelection will be significantly reduced. I am suggesting that young Democrats and Independents in California are to be found as well across the USA. They do NOT want their President to step on their lifestyle options.

Am I being deluded or what ?

dr. Jinx

[DT61]

Make no mistake - momentum is on our side as well as those who would otherwise vote against a pro marijuana measure are well, dying off and it is simply a matter of time and the politicians and LEO know it and that fact is staring them squarely in the eyes.

[greenbuddha]

I still say Obama will NOT sue to prevent the full execution of Prop 19 when it passes in Nov.no matter what the previous Directors of the DEA say. He has to keep his eye on his 2012 Presidential rerun hopes and if he loses a lot of the young [under 50] Democrats and Independents, who are strongly for Prop 19, his chances for reelection will be significantly reduced. I am suggesting that young Democrats and Independents in California are to be found as well across the USA. They do NOT want their President to step on their lifestyle options.

Am I being deluded or what ?

dr. Jinx

 

Sounds logical and I hope you are right, jinx.

 

But I think what Obama will do will depend on how NASTY the 'enforcement' people get with him. And they're are NOT going to give up all that MONEY and POWER that easily.

 

And so far the DEA has NOT listened to Obama... and when he didn't slap their wrist when they ignored his message to them to halt the 'raids' he as much as told them 'they can do as they please'.

 

That is the problem that Obama has displayed since his election... after paying lip service to an idea' he then 'IGNORES it and leaves it to others to sort out.

 

Yes... a president is a busy person... but there are some issues that have to be followed up on... and Obama doesn't do it... he's shown that on many occasions.

 

And when he has stepped forward he has GIVEN IN to the political pressures put upon him by the people that oppose him.

 

IMO he has turned out NOT to be the person I thought I was voting for.

 

I'm going to TRY and not be so foolish this November 2nd.

 

And believing that voting is going to change things... now THAT might be truly DELUSIONAL.

 

But I've always been a little 'touched' in the head so I'm going to vote again anyway.