Marijuana Is Winning All Its Elections

[greenbuddha]

US CA: Column: Marijuana Is Winning All Its Elections

 

• Get Active
• Subscribe
• Support Us

URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v13/n547/a07.html

Newshawk: http://www.drugsense.org/donate.htm

Votes: 1

Pubdate: Thu, 14 Nov 2013

Source: Sacramento News & Review (CA)

Copyright: 2013 Chico Community Publishing, Inc.

Contact: sactoletters@newsreview.com

Website: http://newsreview.com/sacto/

Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/540

Author: Ngaio Bealum

 

MARIJUANA IS WINNING ALL ITS ELECTIONS

 

I heard marijuana was on the ballot in a few elections last week.  How did it go?

 

- -Weedwonk

 

Weed is winning.  And it's not even close.  The city of Portland, Maine, just legalized possession ( up to 2.5 ounces ) and use of marijuana for adults 21 and older.  Weed got 67 percent of the vote.  Over in Michigan, three cities ( Jackson, Ferndale, Lansing ) all passed initiatives allowing possession and transfer of up to 1 ounce on private property.  All the initiatives got more than 60 percent of the vote.

 

Add this to the recent Gallup poll showing that 58 percent of Americans are for marijuana legalization, and things are starting to look pretty good for people wanting to put an end to cannabis prohibition.  This also bodes well for the legalization efforts planned for 2014 in Oregon and Alaska.

 

Sidenote to actor Russell Brand, who once said, "I don't vote, as I believe democracy is a pointless spectacle where we choose between two indistinguishable political parties, neither of whom represent the people but the interest of powerful business elites that run the world": Any time someone tries to tell me that voting doesn't work, I show them my medical-cannabis card.  Voting works.  If it wasn't so important, Republicans wouldn't be trying so hard to keep people from doing it.  So, I offer congrats to the voters of Portland, Jackson, Lansing and Ferndale.  And I remind everyone else to get off of their stoner asses and vote.

 

I heard that although the state of Oregon is going to allow legal medical-cannabis dispensaries, some cities are still trying to ban pot shops.  What's the deal?

 

- -Joe Jefferson

 

You heard correctly.  Shortly after the Oregon Legislature passed the law ( House Bill 3460 ) allowing medical-cannabis facilities, the Medford City Council passed an ordinance prohibiting businesses that "violate federal law." Because distributing medical marijuana violates federal law, Medford thought it had a nice little de facto ban on medical-cannabis shops.

 

But Rep.  Peter Buckley, a Democrat, asked for a review of H.B.  3460 to determine whether local governments can do what Medford did.  And guess what? According to the OLC, cities in Oregon cannot try to get around state law by passing de facto bans.

 

Check this from Charles D.  Taylor, senior deputy legislative counsel: "We conclude that while a municipality may not be required to violate federal law to comply with a conflicting state law, a municipality may not act contrary to state law merely because the municipality believes that the action will better carry out the purposes and objectives of federal law." Furthermore, he states that H.B.  3460 "preempts most municipal laws specifically targeting medical marijuana facilities."

 

And while this statement from the OLC is nonbinding, it means that if a club wants to challenge the Medford ban, they have an excellent legal footing.  It's about time someone stood up to these prohibitionists and for medical-marijuana patients.  So thank you, Peter Buckley. 

MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom

 

[t-pain]

i think i said before that decrim efforts in individual cities were wastes of time.

but now i think they may help gain national attention to our state for a legalization run.

 

without homegrows its not legalization. just decrim.

[greenbuddha]

i think i said before that decrim efforts in individual cities were wastes of time.

but now i think they may help gain national attention to our state for a legalization run.

 

without homegrows its not legalization. just decrim.

 

At this point in time all of the decrim votes in the individual cities are just that; attention getting devices to help bring about changes in the MJ laws.

 

The votes for 'recreational use' in Colorado and Washington State did more than get people's attention, in January you can go into MJ stores in those states and legally do a purchase right in front of LEO with no after effects.

 

But major changes to the MJ laws are coming to other states as well as Michigan... just a short matter of time, and these decrim votes will help.

[Celliach]

If we are winning elections, why do we keep putting up referendums that restrict and/or tax marijuana?

[greenbuddha]

If we are winning elections, why do we keep putting up referendums that restrict and/or tax marijuana?

 

I give up... why are we?

 

The article just said cannabis was winning elections, its main points were not about what the legislation contained in terms of taxing or restrictions... the main idea, from what my limited awareness is able to glean from it, is that cannabis is gaining acceptability. 

 

Is that not a good thing?

[Celliach]

Yes it's a good thing.  What I'm saying is, that if we are winning elections, why do we keep putting up legislation with taxes, plant restrictions, and amount restrictions?  If our side is writing, and passing, the legislation, why do we keep screwing ourselves?  

[greenbuddha]

Yes it's a good thing.  What I'm saying is, that if we are winning elections, why do we keep putting up legislation with taxes, plant restrictions, and amount restrictions?  If our side is writing, and passing, the legislation, why do we keep screwing ourselves?  

 

Darn good question.

 

We'll have to do all we can to make whatever new cannabis laws that may be coming our way give us the legislation we think we should have.

 

But I can almost guarantee you can ask ten people here what the limit should be in terms of the # of plants we should be allowed to grow under a 'recreational use' law and you'll ten get different answers.

 

And that is probably why you're seeing such a wide range of restrictions and limitations in these new laws. 

[Celliach]

I think you're wrong.  I think 9 out 10 people would say they don't want any restrictions or limitations...........but they are willing to settle for less.  

 

I think we need to stop settling for less and reach for what we really want.  It's time to get out of the old paradigm that we have to restrict ourselves to get people to vote for it.

[greenbuddha]

I think you're wrong.  I think 9 out 10 people would say they don't want any restrictions or limitations...........but they are willing to settle for less.  

 

I think we need to stop settling for less and reach for what we really want.  It's time to get out of the old paradigm that we have to restrict ourselves to get people to vote for it.

 

That's the point, Cell. The 'reality' IS what people are willing to settle for, NOT what they dream of or wish for.

 

Do a poll of the average voter and I think  it would prove me to be right.

 

But I certainly also wish for and dream of a cannabis situation of 'no restriction or limitations'.

 

And new cannabis laws ARE coming our way, we'll just have to see how it plays out, won't we?

[Celliach]

That already have polled voters and a majority are for legalization.   These polls don't ask if it should be legal if taxed and well-regulated, just if it should be legal.  

 

It's time to toss out the old reality and start creating a new one....that's what I've been trying to say.

[greenbuddha]

That already have polled voters and a majority are for legalization.   These polls don't ask if it should be legal if taxed and well-regulated, just if it should be legal.  

 

It's time to toss out the old reality and start creating a new one....that's what I've been trying to say.

 

That's certainly where a lot of my time and whatever funds I have been able to throw together have been going toward.