CNN: Arizona voters approve medical marijuana measure

[Bullet1987]

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/14/arizona.medical.marijuana/">Here

Well it was close, but it's official now. Passing by only 4,300 votes, all precincts are reporting and it's a go! Good news for Arizona, so there's still life in the marijuana debate. Even though Prop 19's defeat was hard, the fact that medical marijuana measures are still being passed around the country is a good sign. But what does that say? Does the medical argument just make people feel better about passing it? Or was there simply not as much effort put into defeating pro-weed legislation in AZ like there was in CA?

[Bobbieo]

1. It was the early voters - absentee ballots- mostly from senior citizense

that passed Prop 203 in Arizona. This is a very conservative, racist state and just goes to show that pain overrides politics.

[RainDog]

2. K&R n/t

[orleans]

3. isn't it a fed law being illegal?

so az passes it and says people can use it and the feds can still come in and put these patients in jail for growing and smoking it?

[RainDog]

5. the federal law is what's "illegal"

and needs to be changed to reflect current knowledge.

the federal law is based upon the lie that cannabis has no medical value (i.e. it is a schedule 1 drug.) this is a lie. 3 nations already have sativex, liquid cannabis extract, for sale in pharmacies for people with MS.

the law is based upon racism - the ENTIRE reason the federal law exists is because of racism that began in the late 1900s and continues to this day.

the law is wrong and needs to change. it will change when states continue to highlight the lie of federal law regarding cannabis. the federal govt reduces respect for the law when they continue to keep such racist-based laws current.

The DEA needs to hold the hearings that the AMA has requested to reschedule cannabis. The AMA knows more about medicine than the DEA ever will. They also opposed the initial criminalization of cannabis in 1937.

In the 1970s, the U.S. and several other nations convened special committees to look into the medical evidence used to make cannabis illegal. Our govt., Canada, The Netherlands... ALL found that the reasons for making this substance illegal were lies.

YET Nixon wanted a way to punish those on his enemies list so he ignored the findings that marijuana should be decriminalized - more than 30 years ago.

This situation is an example of abuse of power at the highest levels of govt and the way this abuse will be overcome is by voters and legislators acting at the state level to bring some sanity back to this nation.

[jancantor]

6. It's based on an "activist" reading of the commerce clause

The case is Raich. Interestingly, Thomas to his credit ruled the right way - that the feds regulating medical mj grown for personal consumption under state law is not enforcable via the commerce clause. Scalia, otoh.

If growing mj in your own house for your own consumption pursuant to a state authorized prescription affects "interstate commerce" then ANYTHING does, effectively giving the feds jurisdiction over anything via the "commerce clause"

Regardless, as a practical matter, the feds can't go after every medical mj patient, nor will they. Furthermore, Obama has said he will stop raids on medical MJ clinics, although his record is spotty on this.

[RainDog]

8. do you have any opinion or conjecture on how this will play out

(across the nation)

I look at the history of prohibition and see that NY, among other states, simply began to ignore the federal law and the feds did not have the resources to continue to enforce prohibition. I think that will be the course with CA, Oregon and CO probably leading the way. they are already leading the way, in fact.

it seems that critical mass is here, in terms of public opinion, if 70% of the American public, for more than a decade, support legal medical marijuana at the least. that's a long time for an overwhelming majority to disagree with the govt's continued prohibition... and of course, it's not just ten years... with the exception of the Reagan propaganda era of the 80s, public support, based upon actions/use/attitudes, for decriminalization has existed for forty years.

Arizona residents have had to vote to make their legislators honor the will of the people on this issue (yet again... after a decade.)

Washington DC residents have finally gotten Congress to fund implementation of their medical mm law after more than a decade...

Even tho Prop 19 didn't pass - that it got more than 40% of the vote for TOTAL legalization seems to indicate it's merely a matter of time there - CA hasn't regulated dispensaries very well and the long-term growers who have depended on cannabis cultivation for their livelihoods have to be taken into consideration to get their support behind legalization...

anyway - just wondering what you would speculate would be the course of events considering the overwhelming support for at least some level of decriminalization. Massive disregard for the law, ultimately, seems like that will be what ends this prohibition - some people will still be casualties of the drug war in the meantime.

Based upon what I've seen from the Obama administration, he's more worried that some right winger will try to make him look like he's not mr law and order than about the illogical application of the law or the support some sort of move toward decriminalization would garner for him among liberals and libertarians.

Do you have links on the Raich ruling that you think are particularly useful or worthwhile?

What remedy does the American public have for idiots like Scalia?

[jancantor]

10. Nice post

My belief is that incrementalism is the way to go. The reality is that MJ possession is a de facto civil infraction almost everywhere. That took time, but it's a great step.

Iow, the worst you are going to face, unless you are a person on parole for a serious crime, is a piddly fine IF that, in most places in the US. I know a fair # of cops and it's common practice for them to tell people to dump the mj on the ground and they don't even bother with making a case, when it's just a joint. I went to college in California, and almost every apartment had a bong. The cops could not have cared less.

Attitudes are changing. Some jurisdictions have gone far enough to actually decrim (for small amounts). I think medical mj is going to be more and more accepted and it will help the incremental process towards more prop 19's.

I think the feds realize it's a losing battle, both as a practical matter (unenforcable) and as a public opinion matter. I think there will be lot of posturing by the feds when the first state legalizes it, a lot of idle threats (maybe) but the feds are certainly not going to send DEA agents to arrest simple recreational users.

Scalia is an idiot on stuff like this. Otoh, he is actually one of the better justices when it comes to SPEECH freedoms. He's just insane when it comes to drugs. I was pleasantly suprised that Thomas stepped outside his perceived Scalia follower role and said

from Thomas' dissent:
"Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
"

" The majority prevents States like California from devising drug policies that they have concluded provide much-needed respite to the seriously ill. It does so without any serious inquiry into the necessity for federal regulation or the propriety of “displac state regulation in areas of traditional state concern,” id., at 583 (Kennedy, J., concurring). The majority’s rush to embrace federal power “is especially unfortunate given the importance of showing respect for the sovereign States that comprise our Federal Union.” United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483, 502 (2001) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment). Our federalist system, properly understood, allows California and a growing number of other States to decide for themselves how to safeguard the health and welfare of their citizens. I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. I respectfully dissent."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html

It's clear that whatever one thinks about medical mj, iow even if one thinks it's a completely ridiculous sham and just part of the slippery slope towards legalization on the state level (and of course SOME proponents of medical MJ *are* for it for that reason), the issue here is one of the constitution and dare I say it... States Rights.

As to what can be done about Scalia? Apart from persuasion... nothing. I can stand behind him on most speech cases: He stood with the majority that it's not prohibitable to burn a flag whereas Stevens actually was amongst the dissenters. He clearly is more likely to side with a corporation against an individual, though.

What I think is really important is for people who are productive members of society and otherwise law abiding, make public pronouncements that yes, they smoke pot. Initially it would take some courage, a lot of businesspeople, doctors, etc. don't want to publically pronounce that they smoke pot. But I think it would snowball. Many of the people who are against it are against it culturally. It was initially criminalized because racists associated it with "black jazz musicians" and other "unsavory" types. When many of the no voters realize that lots of "normal" people smoke pot, that would make a big difference in changing their opinion.

[RainDog]

12. thanks for your reply!

interesting.

I think medical marijuana is absolutely a way to create a "slippery slope" toward the end of prohibition - and I support that. BUT I also think that recreational and medical use SHOULD be differentiated because I think that people who use cannabis medicine should not be taxed for it unless it's sold over-the-counter (as other such items are taxed.) I think there are legitimate medical reasons for people to use cannabis and I don't think the govt should deny people access to a safe and affordable medicine.

I don't think food or medicine should be taxed at all. Do most states tax prescription drugs?

I don't consider alcohol as food and I think recreational mj would fall into that same category for legal/taxation purposes. I know that cannabis is less dangerous than alcohol, so prohibition makes no sense for one substance unless it applies to the other, once people get past the propaganda. Both have been used for so long by so many diff. cultures. Neither will ever be eliminated from human society, no matter how strong the prohibition. Even in countries with sharia law, like Iran, people still drink alcohol, for instance. Maybe an alternate route would be to push for prohibition of alcohol here (again) to make the law more equitable... j/k. Or as a way to show how absurd this whole issue of prohibition truly is for adults.

Scalia is just strange, at least to me. Have you ever read his piece, God's Justice and Ours?" He talks about "post-Christian Europe" as some bad place and wrote that is why Europeans don't allow the death penalty - while this "good christian nation" kills people because that's what jesus would do. :crazy:

The only way I see such a public service program like you mention working for people who are not "protected" by fame or lots and lots of money would be if coalition of organizations set up a defense fund for those states that have regressive attitudes - and there are still quite a few of those around. I don't know, off the top of my head, the penalties that *might* be enforceable in various states - if people actually organized against the law rather than individually dealt with current law enforcement - but I do remember Eric Schlosser wrote, in Reefer Madness, that people still face the threat of loss of property - students still face the loss of student loans - parents still face fears of child custody issues if they admit to breaking a federal law...

It would seem to me that those professionals who support decriminalization in states that don't have the option of voter propositions would have more impact if they lobbied their legislatures to address the issue of medical mj - those states are the ones that, it would seem to me, will be some of the hardest to deal with because the law will be secondary to re-election concerns.

...but I've also read of some republicans in TX, even, who are starting to float the idea that medical mj should be permitted b/c of its use for Veterans (since the VA is now the first federal agency to permit medical mj for Vets who live in states that allow its use.) It is FAR safer than other analgesics that are prescribed for anxiety, night terrors, etc.

If Republicans thought they could peel off some voters by promoting medical mj, that might have an impact, too. For legislators... my cynical opinion at this time is that doing what's right is a concern only when their own jobs may be enhanced by such a stance. None of the national Democrats in CA came out in favor of Prop. 19, for instance. I can't believe that Jerry Brown really thinks it should be illegal either.

[jancantor]

14. I think looking at this as a partisan issue is a mistake

The National Review magazine came out for legalizing the stuff decades ago. Lots of conservatives, moreso the libertarian-cons and south park conservatives, but also the Goldwater types are for decrim/legalization.

Lots of common ground here to work with.

MORE importantly is to push the states rights issue. EVEN IF one is against medical mj or legalized recreational marijuana as a matter of policy, it is still resonant with many that it should not be within the realm of the feds to prohibit it. Iow, it is perfectly rational and consistent to be against medical mj, to be against recreational mj, but to see this as a states right issue. That will draw in more conservatives. Some are for it as a matter of policy, but others are for it as a matter of state autonomy. The same is of course true for Dems, but I would hazard a guess that a greater %age of dems support it.

I'm not aware of any state taxing prescription drugs. None that I have lived in do. I agree that medical mj should not be taxed, but recreational should.

Technically, alcohol does not count as food under most penal codes and regulatory schemes. However, unlike most drugs it is handled differently - among other things, unlike other over the counter drugs, it has an age limit, it is not regulated most by the BATF not so much the FDA (FDA primarily regs otc drugs, and DEA controlled substances).

Also, it is illegal to sell mix drugs and food. For example, a donuttery in Oregon got in trouble for selling a nyquil donut. Otoh, it is not illegal to mix alcohol and food, and thank god for that. My sauces would suffer :)

Alcohol is undoubtedly IF ABUSED , more dangerous than pot. Even most ardent mj warriors don't try to complain it's more dangerous than alcohol.

It was criminalized as a cultural matter, and it remains criminal, largely as a cultural matter. Images of Cheech and Chong, etc. do NOT help. Images of hard working businessman, laborers, teachers, etc. who have a joint after work instead of a beer would be better, but that's still shocking to many people.

fwiw, personally I do not smoke it, and have zero desire to. I am for decrim/medical MJ as a matter of policy, not because it would benefit me.

Sadly, the status quo is such that it's viewed as political suicide for a candiate for office to be pro legalization. They don't lose much by being against it, and no major party fronts candidates who will come out for it. Obama ridiculed it, etc. Sharpton and Ron Paul were about it, and they were far from 'real candidates'.

Dems don't see it as a plus (they think they will marginalize the middle and push them towards the repubs) and Repubs don't see it as beneficial either.

It's gotta come down to states with initiatives like California, WA, AZ etc.


Imo, there will be, to borrow a term, domino effect. As soon as a state passes it, Armageddon DOESN'T happen, they beging receiving more tax and tourist revenue, Law Enforcement admits it hasn't caused an upsurge in crime, etc. etc. THEN it will snowball and state after state will jump on board.

In a sense, the fact that it is de facto decrim'd makes it harder in a way. Most people don't think people should go to jail for smoking it, and the reality is - most people DON'T. So, there's not a big push to fight the "injustice" of a $100 fine or having a cop make you dump your weed on to the pavement. Peruse the local court docket around here. It takes an act of congress to go to jail for (low level) possession offenses. If Sally soccer mom was thrown in jail for her evening joint etc. then there might be more impetus, NOT that I think we should go back to draconian penalties.

In brief, it's going to happen. Soon, imo.

[RainDog]

16. Common ground

As you note, there is no incentive for national politicians to indicate support. I think there are a variety of reasons for this.

1) social conservatives in both parties (usually contained under the banner of religions),

2) political money from pharmaceutical cos who stand to lose market share and who are not particularly interested in medical mj b/c the plant cannot be copyrighted (tho component molecules may be),

3) the liquor industry lobby,

4) the private prison industry lobby,

5) persistent racism (this prohibition allows for voter suppression b/c of arrests for certain groups vs. other groups - Nixon knew this and so do other Republicans - so, there is some component of politics involved, it seems to me. And, yes, the knowledge that "marginal" politicians are the only ones who will indicate support makes it politically suspect to indicate a politician's honest view... Barney Frank is also one of those in his own way b/c he is marginalized b/c of his sexual orientation.

(I note a pol's "honest view" because Ryan Grimm's lobbying work indicated far more support among pols than would be assumed - but THEY assumed, incorrectly, that their constituents would not support medical mj - in an almost exact inverse relationship to reality.)

6) stereotyped views of users - Cheech and Chong or Snoop Dog - vs., say, the parents in Poltergeist (or the producer of the same.)

I agree that these stereotypes work against legalization. I noticed that when Prop. 19, or any medical mj research, was reported in the news over the few months, the headline and the reportorial "grabber" almost always made reference to some stoner stereotype. To me, that made the reporter look lame...like some geezer at a rave sort of lame.

7) The paper pulp, corn and cotton industries... because the prohibition of cannabis also means the prohibition of industrial hemp.

This last issue is one which I think is the MOST important reason to support legalization rather than decriminalization. While decriminalization removes personal use criminality, it does not address the problem that criminalization of production causes for farmers, manufacturers and retailers of non-psychotropic cannabis. It's possible to separate the two by allowing low THC seeds to be used/sold, but it seems like an entire waste of time to bother, unless people want more rather than fewer regulations and monies going to this sort of nanny state/hysterical fear b.s.

Decriminalization makes it possible for small farmers of psychotropic cannabis to continue to make a large profit (tho, apparently, this profit has decreased over the last 10 years) b/c of the cost of doing biz - so they don't have as much incentive for total legalization as cannabis hemp farmers do. If someone is willing to take the chance to engage in large-scale (tho small farmer) production, they're not going to be so easily convinced of the value of reducing their profit when they've invested in production costs already.

However, no professional farmer is going to plant hemp as a cash crop when all cannabis cultivation is illegal. Yet, prohibition makes it impossible for farmers to develop this area of agricultural commerce or for this nation to implement cannabis hemp as an alternative to crops that require a lot of pesticides (cotton and corn) or to industries that deplete CO2 consuming resources (like trees.) Hemp production, from what I have read, is carbon neutral, at the least.

Someone on this board posted information about cotton v. hemp production worldwide - hemp cultivation has lots of ground for expansion for a variety of products and has, imo, the cachet of "environmentally friendly" as part of its "brand" - no small thing when BP attempts to tout itself as a "green" oil co. As hemp has been legalized in various western nations, hemp production has increased. Since all hemp must be imported for manufacturing use here, there isn't a lot of incentive to develop hemp industries here.

It seems, tho, that the farm belt states that want legal industrial hemp don't necessarily want to be associated with those who support legalization of recreational cannabis - again, those stereotypes hurt both types of pro-cannabis groups.

So, in addition to your observation that states rights are important for recreational/medical mj, this framework is also important for industrial hemp. Maybe Rand Paul will do something good - push the industrial hemp issue for KY. He should, imo, b/c that's something that he'll find has support, as you note, across political boundaries.

If I were in a position to craft some sort of framework to present this issue over the next two years, across the states, I'd take your advice and go with:

1) States rights/individual liberty for both "marijuana" and hemp - in conservative parts of the nation, esp.

2) R&D for medical marijuana as an industry in states that get out in front of this issue - for places with strong biotech communities. Investors are already looking at the possible opportunities when legalization occurs. Some cos are already listed on the stock exchange.

4) Hemp production in farm states as a cash crop to compete with all other western nations that do allow cultivation and manufacture of hemp products - in ag. and rust belt regions. Opening a new market for a product is a good thing in a time when so many people do not have jobs or disposable income. Resurrecting Ford's hemp car would be a timely product, seems to me. One Canadian manufacturer is already doing this.

5) The ecological benefits of legalization - for those who don't deny global warming and who care about the world their children will inherit - and for those who don't want illegal cultivation in national parks with the run off of chemical fertilizers or the danger of coming upon some illegal grow when hiking, etc.

6) The crime reduction benefits of legalization - as evidenced by the end of criminal activity surrounding interstate commerce in alcohol after the end of prohibition. Along with this, producers can tout their "made in the USA" bud vs. Mexican brick.

7) A micro-brewery/Napa valley approach. Because of the advances in cultivation during Reagan's drug war era, it seems that buds, rather than cigarettes, are the top end of the market. If legalization would reduce overall price, the top end is where profit will be made for small farmers. Bricks also have fillers and contaminants - so people who market cannabis would, imo, be smart to tout their product's lack of pesticides, clearly identifiable strain, and a connoisseur's approach to the market. Brick mj/cigarettes v buds would be like Boone's Farm is to a pinot noir.

The current concerns about legalization that must be addressed are:

1) The fears of some that people will be under the influence of cannabis on the job (even tho there are existing laws regarding alcohol that easily apply to cannabis use at work.) This issue applies for both recreational and medical use - tho if we allow people to work who take barbiturates while performing a particular job, it seems that same performance-related concerns would apply to cannabis medicine. We wouldn't have bus drivers who are taking oxycontin ferrying children... or do we?

2) Effective tests for actual influence vs. the presence of metabolites and the end of drug testing for metabolites as a form of employment discrimination.

3) Myths about performance-related issues for those who are not under the influence who do use cannabis when they are not on the job. Myths about health-related issues as well (tho Jamaican studies, as well as studies in other nations, dispute much of the conventional "wisdom" already.)

4) Regulation of the location of cannabis businesses, much like the regulation of liquor stores, within x distance of schools, etc. Licenses to sell that limit the number of facilities, just as liquor licenses are distributed that limit the number of businesses that sell hard liquor in some cities - this is something people would get to decide at the local level. And, yes, just as with the liquor industry there would be political b.s. related to these licenses. No industry is exempt from corruption b/c no industry operates without humans at the helm.

5) Regulation of public intoxication - with alcohol, we don't allow people to stagger around on the street, but we DO allow consumption of alcohol in some venues, such as bars or some music venues. Cannabis should not be forced into private venues - this would mean, however, that concerns about particulates would need to be addressed for those who have such concerns - vaping patios could address this issue, however. Driving under the influence can be addressed in the same way that it is with people who consume alcohol. There is a legal blood limit that is acceptable. There are tests for hand/eye coordination, etc.

6) Limitation of sales or sharing of a controlled substance with minors.

7) Public service campaigns for responsible use as a way to normalize a cultural response.

8) Harm reduction for all persons with substance abuse problems - whatever the substance might be - as the most effective social policy route and the most cost-effective method of dealing with health issues.

The thing is, of course, is that all these issues have already been taken into account with various groups lobbying for legalization. What must be countered are the fear campaigns of those who refuse to accept that cannabis has a place within society that is not outside of the law.

[Kingofalldems]

15. Interesting.

[orleans]

11. yeah--i know it needs to be changed, but i remember

the feds coming in and busting people and going against state law because fed law trumps... god apparently

[RainDog]

13. yeah

no doubt the feds will continue to raid *a few* places and try to disrupt some lives - they're going to make a fuss when they can, esp. around election months, etc. But they cannot arrest everyone who would apply to use medical mj and -- imagine the public relations nightmare of putting a cancer patient in jail for possession when that person uses medical mj to stop vomiting. Or some mother with CP.

it seems like the state laws need to have some sort of provision that says state law enforcement will not be used to enforce federal law, and it would be good if state-level law enforcement could be called upon to arrest the feds who decide to override state law - to make that point. People in Arizona voted to make it impossible for their state legislature to overturn the law - people are serious about stopping this abuse of power at both the state and federal levels.

Do the feds really want to get into such a mess when, nationwide, an overwhelming majority of Americans want to allow people with various illnesses access to medical mj?

it's such a waste of resources. it will make people hostile toward agencies that might need public support for funding for other issues. it takes time and attention away from investigation of serious crimes.

those are the realities that will turn the tide for law enforcement. they know they arrest more people for social problems related to alcohol use than they do for cannabis use.

[John Q. Citizen]

4. a couple of things; The measure in CA wasn't written so well, and

the decline in younger voters numbers also hurt the passage.

[Bullet1987]

7. Who wrote the Prop 19 anyway?

[RainDog]

9. The founder of Oaksterdam, Richard Lee

he also funded the drive to get signatures to put the proposition on the ballot. If it had succeeded, he would have been the person who got credit. Now he's the person who gets "blame."

It took a while to get medical marijuana legislation passed - so the fact that Prop. 19 had majority support until the last few weeks before the vote bodes well, imo, for passage of a similar proposition in 2012.

That election will also bring out more younger voters. The voters who turned out, nationwide, for this election cycle that were unenthusiastic in the 2008 election cycle were older white males.

The elderly tend to oppose legalization more than any other group.