Getting Ready For 2012 And 420.

LOS ANGELES - Despite Proposition 19's loss at the polls this month, marijuana-legalization advocates in California are already working on their comeback plan for 2012 and are almost giddy about their prospects.

They see the election as a trial run that could lead to a campaign with a better message, a tighter measure and more money.

Both the winning and losing sides say California's voters rejected this specific initiative but remain open to legalizing the easily obtainable drug.

The proponents have a huge head start compared with where they were two years ago. At that time, regulating and taxing marijuana was the dream of a handful of Oakland activists.

Now, the campaign has a broader base of supporters, including labor and civil rights leaders. Big-money donors have shown a keen interest. And the state's electorate and media have seriously debated the issue.

In addition, the presidential election is expected to draw far more young voters to the polls. If they had shown up Nov. 2, supporters say, Proposition 19 might have come close to passing.

Even so, they also point out with amusement, legalization outpolled Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina.

"The question about legalizing marijuana is no longer when, it's no longer whether, it's how," said Ethan Nadelmann, the executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, a national advocacy group that will play a pivotal role in any 2012 ballot measures in California and elsewhere. "There's a really strong body of people who will be ready to pull the lever in the future."

California voters rejected Proposition 19, 54 percent to 46 percent. But a post-election survey by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner found they favor legalization 49 percent to 41 percent, with 10 percent uncertain. And 52 percent said that marijuana laws, like alcohol prohibition, do more harm than good.

The consultants who ran the opposition campaign found that voters who were undecided were susceptible to arguments for legalizing marijuana. They also reacted negatively to "reefer madness" arguments that pot was inherently dangerous or a gateway drug. "Our best opportunity to beat it was on the merits of 19 itself," said Wayne Johnson, the strategist for the No on 19 campaign. Bankrolling the campaign

A key issue for legalization supporters in 2012 will be to find the money to run statewide television advertising. "The Yes campaign always has the burden of proof. We have to make the case that things should change," said Doug Linney, the strategist for the Yes on 19 campaign.

The campaign hoped to spend between $7 million and $15 million but brought in about $4 million. More than $1.5 million came from Richard Lee, the main proponent, who owns a medical marijuana dispensary, nursery and trade school in Oakland.

A few wealthy businessmen and young Silicon Valley entrepreneurs wrote sizable checks. "I think we found a lot of friends along the way that we will want to include from the get-go this time," Linney said.

A few days after the vote, Nadelmann told a conference on marijuana policy in Denver that the big donors who supported past measures would step up if the polls looked favorable. "They want to be in this to win," he said.

He noted that George Soros, the hedge-fund multibillionaire, donated $1 million to help Proposition 19 to clearly indicate his support for legalizing marijuana, and that Peter B. Lewis, a retired insurance company executive, has decided to focus his philanthropy on marijuana reform.

Lewis, who donated more than $218,000 to pass Proposition 19, paid for Greenberg Quinlan Rosner to poll California voters.

"Ballot measures are an option in 2012, but I can't speak to specific strategy at this time," Lewis said in a statement.

The next campaign in California will also start with a base of support.

The measure was backed as a job-creation plan by the state leadership of the Service Employees International Union and the United Food and Commercial Workers, but the unions were focused intensely on the races for statewide office.

The state NAACP and the Latino Voters League embraced Proposition 19 as a way to end a drug war in which blacks and Latinos are arrested at much higher rates than whites, although the California exit poll showed both groups voted against the measure. 'Poised to win'

The campaign had also counted on young voters. Voters under 25 supported Proposition 19 by two to one, but they did not turn out in big numbers.

The measure would have allowed adults 21 and older to grow and possess marijuana. "As a motivator, it was always a big question," Linney said. "I always thought myself it was a little overrated."

But Anna Greenberg with Greenberg Quinlan Rosner said that if young voters turn out in 2012 in numbers typical for presidential elections, legalization "is poised to win."

Legalization advocates are also rethinking the measure. A provision designed to protect people who smoke marijuana from discrimination was assailed by opponents who said it would prevent employers from firing stoned nurses or bus drivers. Speaking in Denver, Nadelmann said it might have to be sacrificed.

The Greenberg Quinlan Rosner poll found that voters, by 50 percent to 44 percent, think employers should be able to fire workers who test positive for marijuana even if they smoked it in their off hours.

The strongest message for Proposition 19, Linney said, was that it would control marijuana better than prohibition. But it allowed cities and counties to set the rules for marijuana sales and taxes, and opponents seized on that uncertainty to predict a chaotic patchwork of regulations.

Linney expects a vigorous debate among supporters over whether to keep a local approach. "That will be the central issue in drafting the next one," he said.

The Greenberg Quinlan Rosner poll found that the issue splits voters, with 44 percent trusting city and county governments more to control marijuana, and 38 percent trusting the state more.

Johnson, the opposition strategist, said undecided voters seemed most intrigued by the promise that the measure would raise billions of dollars in tax revenue. But he said they became disillusioned when they learned there was no way to estimate how much would be raised.

"When that went away," he said, "they went away."

MAP posted-by: Richard Lake

Croppled1 · November 30, 2010

This is not directed in anyway at the poster . I hope this isn't too far off the jist of this article ( I stray all the time ) but since it mentions taxes and I never miss a opertunity to point out :

I am 100% behind taxing recreational Cannabis the same as any other item but no different . I just get confused why people would consider a tax on medicinal when prescribed medicine is not taxed in our State ( or most ) , insurance won't cover any costs , and the very ill and or injured who most often can not work need onces a week .

It often seems like many Cannabis proponants want to accept being over taxed (IMHO corruption) as a means to our end . Cannabis stands on its own as a viable product - no sin tax is necessary and I myself believe sin taxes are Facist Govermental intervention in free markets and wrong ! I agree to disagree with those who think different or use the lessor of two evils theory to steady their waters .People forget how much would be saved by no longer enforcing prohibition , medication expense reduction to insurance plans that would occur and the myriad of other spill over benefits without any increase in costs to society . Thanks for the article . :thumbsu:

greenbuddha · December 1, 2010

Crop, I agree. Given a 'perfect' world we could get what we wanted, and if it was up to me, you could grow cannabis in your front yard (keeping it away from children of course ... but given the world we live in there may not be many other choices to relieve us of the endless 'Drug Wars' and the arresting and convicting of both 'medical' AND 'recreational' users other than to try and 'legalize' it, and of course the politicians will want to tax it if that were to happen.

Prop 19, the 'legalization' proposal on the ballot in California in November made it 'legal' for a person to grow their own (within limits) and it made sure that NONE of the rights of MEDICAL users would taken away from them, whatever those rights might have been, but many people felt it had too many loopholes in it which may have been one of the reason it didn't pass, and of course as long as it remains illigal the price will stay very high, which may also have caused certain people to vote against it.

But IMHO the best we may be able to do is get some form of legalization of cannabis on the books that treats it like alcohol is treated by taxing it and allowing an individual to grow certain amounts for 'personal' use WITHOUT any taxes.

Once it becomes legal at least then people won't be going to jail for 'personal OR medical' use and cancer patients can stop worrying about being kicked out of their apartments because they use cannabis to help reduce their pain, employers will have to come up with better reasons to fire someone for using cannabis and LEO will have to start busting 'real' criminals.

Thanks for your comments. Discussion of these ideas is the only way we will ever find solutions.

Sign In

Getting Ready For 2012 And 420.

Recommended Posts

greenbuddha

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Croppled1

Link to comment

Share on other sites

greenbuddha

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Archived

Forum

The MMMA Videos

Our Services

Medical Marijuana Library

Patient Information

Caregiver Information

Store

New Activity