How Home Growing Should Be Included In Legalization Efforts

[Hayduke]

Note the polling data comment and discount it a bit as it comes from MPP, who has consistently either been indifferent or opposed to home grows.  We still need 'em to realize "little" is subjective.  It appears the real reason to only allow "little" plant amounts is to benefit the tax and regulate crowd….

 

In any case, it is another baby step….

 

All Future Marijuana Legalization Initiatives Should Include Home Growing By: Jon Walker Thursday April 3, 2014 12:12 pm

  
Tweet6 

  

As marijuana legalization spreads to more states in the coming years activists should push to include a limited home growing provision in any bill or ballot initiative. It is going increasingly clear that the three major arguments against this are either weak or unfounded.

Popular Support – The main reason the Washington State campaign didn’t include home grow in Initiative 502 was because it modestly hurt the measure in their testing polling. They thought making sure some form of legalization was approved by voters in at least was critical so wrote it as tight as possible.

That milestone has now been crossed and the evidence indicates a home growing provision doesn’t seem to actually hurt legalization proposals popular support.

In Washington Initiative 502 won with 55.7 percent of the vote doing just 0.4 points better than Amendment 64 in Colorado, which contained a home growing provision, and won with 55.3 percent. Amendment 64 even seems to have outperformed Initiative 502 when you factor that Washington is significantly more liberal. As you can see Amendment 64 actually got more votes than Barack Obama that year while Initiative 502 got less.

In addition Quinnipiac recently surveyed several states about marijuana. They consistently found that percent of voters who would be bothered by one of their neighbors growing marijuana if it was legal was significantly smaller than the percent which oppose legalization in general.

Tax Revenue and the Market – One argument I have heard against home growing is that it would deny the state tax revenue and/or undermine trying to create a regulated legal market. We have seen in Colorado the legal market is doing very well and the state is collecting marijuana taxes at a rapid pace.

Looking at alcohol or tobacco for a comparison we see very few people actually choose to brew their own beer or grow their own tobacco. Most people are lazy and want convenience. The Netherlands actually has a very low rates of home growing by marijuana users compared to other countries because there is a convenient quasi-legal market.

Federal Interference – There was potentially some concern that allowing limited home growing could make the federal agencies more likely to crackdown on a state. The fact the federal government hasn’t said anything about home growing, hasn’t gone after home growers in Colorado and so far hasn’t treat Washington and Colorado differently seems to elevate that concern for now. Things could always change but a home growing provision hasn’t drawn extra federal attention.

How to treat home growing is one of the many policies decision that needs to be made when a state legalizes marijuana. While it is a modest provision that will effect a relatively small number of people that is exactly why it is important to get it right in the first place. Legislatures are busy and often slow to get around to fixing non-pressing issues. Because the end of alcohol prohibition didn’t legalize home brewing it took decades to earn that right.  It was only a year ago that Alabama and Mississippi finally became the last two states to make it legal to brew beer at home.

If it is not included from the start it could take years and possibly decades to get it added later.

Jon Walker is the author of After Legalization: Understanding the future of marijuana policy

 

 

[shishka]

"They thought making sure some form of legalization was approved by voters in at least was critical so wrote it as tight as possible."

 

I'm stuck on the 4th sentence. Does this make sense to anyone? Maybe I'm still sleepy but I don't comprehend.

[t-pain]

mpp still hasnt learned from michigan's courts on how the law was interpreted.

 

they still dont think its important to reschedule marijuana at the state level in mmj states.

[t-pain]

"They thought making sure some form of legalization was approved by voters in at least was critical so wrote it as tight as possible."

 

I'm stuck on the 4th sentence. Does this make sense to anyone? Maybe I'm still sleepy but I don't comprehend.

it means, write the law to appease both sides. moderation. tiny plants with tiny posession amounts.

why? so voters would vote for it.

 

it appears that theory was wrong.

my theory : voters want 100% decrim/legal/depenalyzation of marijuana now.

no more of this wasted war on drugs.

[t-pain]

making plants illegal just creates more black market.

 

marijuana has to come from somewhere.

[Hayduke]

yeah, unless you buy from a Walmart type of place, some just don't seem safe, I suppose.  Pretty backward thinking to me....

[mrd]

I saw this today . i think it leads to the that bill that was passed in the mi Leg. that says they would have pharmacies dispensing mmj and controlled grows. I would be concerned that this would be an emulation of what was done in Canada where grows were made illeagel. So what are we all going to do about it?

 

 

Obama Administration: We'll Work with Congress to Reschedule Marijuana

BY MIKE HUGHES · FRI APR 04, 2014

•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
• RSS

Attorney General Eric Holder revealed that the Obama administration is willing to work with Congress to reschedule marijuana. Cannabis is currently a Schedule I narcotic under the Controlled Substances Act – along with heroin and LSD. Schedule I is reserved for drugs that have a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical value.

“We’d be more than glad to work with Congress if there is a desire to look at and reexamine how the drug is scheduled,” Holder said during a House Appropriations Committee hearing on Friday.

“It is something that ultimately Congress would have to change, and I think that our administration would be glad to work with Congress if such a proposal were made.”

What Holder didn’t mention is that the attorney general has the power to reschedule or remove a drug entirely from the schedules without Congressional support. However, it appears the administration is unwilling to reclassify pot without broad consensus. 

The Drug Enforcement Administration, headed by Michele Leonhart, would likely resist any attempt at rescheduling. Leonhart recently admitted that she and her agents are inspired to “fight harder” in the face of marijuana legalization efforts. Nonetheless, despite DEA pressure, the Obama Administration has previously decided not to interfere with recreational legalization laws in Colorado and Washington.

In addition to easing restrictions on research, rescheduling would allow for tax deductions for businesses in the burgeoning cannabis industry. And while it wouldn’t legalize pot, it would bring marijuana’s federal classification somewhat closer to what is generally accepted as reality.

A recent attempt to reschedule marijuana was officially rejected by the DEA in 2011. That decision was upheld on appeal in early 2013. The court’s ruling highlighted a head spinning catch-22; there is a lack of “valid” scientific research to prove pot’s safety and efficacy so it should be a Schedule I drug, which almost entirely prevents “valid” scientific research that could prove pot's safety and efficacy. 

 

[t-pain]

medical is off the table, we've jumped that shark.

 

the only thing left is legalization. so it doesnt matter about prescriptions or being scheduled to schedule 2.

 

homegrows are still a question. i think the easier way to win that fight is to say 'make it home grows only, no corporation is allowed to grow marijuana, we dont want 'big marijuana' like 'big tobacco'

[zaphod]

Amen, Amen, Amen!

[bobandtorey]

They seem to believe that the voters think plants are bad, or that is the way they play it to those trying to support, get signatures, etc. whenever this comes up. I ask a handful of people about it routinely, and they are sticking with the story. In Michigan, it manifests itself as a blitzkreig of symbolic decrim going on this election season that still doesn't include plants. Somehow, they have continuously sold to us that the plants reduce the chance of passing. It doesn't make sense to me either.

 

It does, unfortunately, add up to the talking point that voters are in support of eliminating penalties for users possessing small amounts, while continuing to criminalize all other behavior. It is ultimately a great talking point for those that wish to commercialize, license, or otherwise monopolize marijuana production and sales, while continuing to criminalize it for regular people.

 

 

You hit it out of the park if you'll taking about money and control why would someone write a Law that included plants 

 

Thank you i'll keep the Law we have now its the best because of plants

[bobandtorey]

medical is off the table, we've jumped that shark.

 

the only thing left is legalization. so it doesnt matter about prescriptions or being scheduled to schedule 2.

 

homegrows are still a question. i think the easier way to win that fight is to say 'make it home grows only, no corporation is allowed to grow marijuana, we dont want 'big marijuana' like 'big tobacco'

Thanks

 

medical is off the table, we've jumped that shark ? what does this mean 

[bobandtorey]

 years of experimentation implementing medical cannabis laws has shown that not all medical cannabis laws are working equally for those who the laws are designed to aide and passing laws

 

on medical cannabis is only the first step 

[Restorium2]

The key is the attitude of the prosecutors across the State. If they don't want to investigate and prosecute then you are golden in that county. Use Genesee County Prosecutor David Leyton as an example; He doesn't want to investigate unless there is a real threat to the community. The last time I heard him talking bad about marijuana was when that guy ran over a little girl while he was transporting. We will never have a complete pass. But we can work on having a position of strength to work from. Legalization, with new penalties inacted to funnel the money into the pockets of those who are prohibitionists, is a step backwards. Decriminalization, with a nod from the prosecutor, is pure and fast acting relief. We need to have the prosecutors on board for anything to really work, so starting there is the only real solution.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Restorium2

[Wild Bill]

Cannabis needs to be descheduled completely so it has a neutral legal status.

[pergamum362]

Until there nod turns into a shake. Whats the plan with decrim? Where do i buy my bud from and what protects that guy?

[Restorium2]

Until there nod turns into a shake. Whats the plan with decrim? Where do i buy my bud from and what protects that guy?

You are too used to getting told what to do and staring too hard at the dispensary to see the beauty it blocks.

 

You buy it from anyone you want to. Hopefully you treated people right so they will sell to you. If not, then look on Craigs List. No one even cares about 'that guy' anymore unless he's endangering the community in other ways. Nosey people will have to find something better to do than snitch on the guy with cannabis.