California Proposition 19, the Marijuana Legalization Initiative (2010)

From Ballotpedia

Proposition 19, also known as the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, is a California ballot proposition which is on the November 2, 2010 California statewide ballot as an initiated state statute.

Proposition 19, if approved by voters, will legalize various marijuana-related activities, allow local governments to regulate these activities, permit local governments (but not the state government) to impose and collect marijuana-related fees and taxes, and authorize various criminal and civil penalties.^[1] Proposition 19 was certified for the November statewide ballot on March 24, 2010.^[2] The official proponents of the measure are Richard Lee and Jeffrey Wayne Jones. Tax Cannabis 2010 is the official advocacy group for the initiative.

Medical marijuana is already legal in California, due to the enactment of Proposition 215 in 1996. California's voters rejected a previous ballot initiative to legalize marijuana in 1972, when 1972's Proposition 19 was rejected by a margin of 66-33%.

Text and title

See also: Complete text of The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 (California)

Ballot title: Legalizes Marijuana Under California but not Federal Law. Permits Local Governments to Regulate and Tax Commercial Production, Distribution, and Sale of Marijuana. Initiative Statute.^[3]

Official summary: Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. Permits local governments to regulate and tax commercial production and sale of marijuana to people 21 years old or older. Prohibits people from possessing marijuana on school grounds, using it in public, smoking it while minors are present, or providing it to anyone under 21 years old. Maintains current prohibitions against driving while impaired.

Summary of estimated fiscal impact: Savings of up to several tens of millions of dollars annually to state and local governments on the costs of incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. Unknown but potentially major tax, fee, and benefit assessment revenues to state and local government related to the production and sale of marijuana products.

Effects of the bill

According to the State of California analysis, the bill will have the following effects.^[1]

Legalization

• Persons over the age of 21 may possess up to one ounce of marijuana for personal consumption.
• May use marijuana in a non-public place such as a residence or a public establishment licensed for on site marijuana consumption.
• May grow marijuana at a private residence in a space of up to 25 square feet for personal use.

Local government regulation

• Local government may authorize businesses to sell up to 1 ounce of marijuana and to regulate the hours and location of the business.
• Allows for the transportation of marijuana from one dispensary in one area to another without regard to local laws of intermediate localities to the contrary.

Local taxes and fees

• Allows the collection of taxes specifically to allow local governments to raise revenue or to offset any costs associated with marijuana regulation.

Criminal and civil penalties

• Maintains existing laws against selling drugs to a minor and driving under the influence.
• Maintains an employers right to address on-the-job consumption of marijuana that affects an employee's job performance.
• Maintain existing laws against interstate or international transportation of marijuana.
• Any person who is licensed, permitted or authorized to sell marijuana, who knowingly sells or gives away marijuana to someone under the age of 21 results in them being banned from owning, operating, or being employed by a licensed marijuana establishment for one year.
• Any person who is licensed, permitted or authorized to sell marijuana, who knowingly sells or gives away marijuana to someone older the age of 18 but younger than 21, shall be imprisoned in county jail for up to six months and fined up to $1,000 per offense.
• Any person who is licensed, permitted or authorized to sell marijuana, who knowingly sells or gives away marijuana to someone age 14 to 17, shall be imprisoned in state prison for a period of three, four, or five years.
• Any person who is licensed, permitted or authorized to sell marijuana, who knowingly sells or gives away marijuana to someone under the age of 14, shall be imprisoned in state prison for a period of three, five, or seven years

Fiscal impact

In the time leading to 2010, California's state government's budget deficit has grown to be the largest of all American states. The California legislature has estimated that taxing the previously untaxed domestically grown $14 billion marijuana market would produce $1.4 billion a year,^[4] Taxing marijuana, supporters say, could be a smart way to help alleviate pressure on the state budget.^[5]

According to the California Legislative Analyst's Office, the following fiscal impact would result from the bill.^[6]

• Result in significant savings to state and local governments, potentially up to several tens of millions of dollars annually due to reduction of individuals incarcerated, on probation or on parole.
• Cells currently being used to house marijuana offenders could be used for other criminals, many of whom are now being released early because of a lack of jail space.
• Minor reduction in state and local costs for enforcement of marijuana-related offenses and the handling of related criminal cases in the court system, providing the opportunity for funds to be used to enforce other existing criminal laws. The RAND Corporation has found that law enforcement costs for marijuana enforcement are relatively low.
• Potential increase in the costs of substance abuse programs due to speculated increase in usage of marijuana, possibly having the effect of reducing spending on mandatory treatment for some criminal offenders, or result in the redirection of these funds for other offenders.
• The measure could potentially reduce both the costs and offsetting revenues of the state's medical marijuana program as adults over 21 would be less likely to participate in the existing program as obtaining marijuana would be easier, thus making use of existing medical marijuana program unnecessary.
• There would be a reduction in fines collected under current state law but a possible increase in local civil fines authorized by existing local laws.
• The cumulative effect on fines is largely unknown.

Supporters

• The California NAACP endorses Proposition 19. California NAACP President Alice Huffman is painting it as a civil rights matter. "In California African Americans make up 7 percent of the population, but 22 percent of the marijuana arrests," she says. "I see it as a civil rights issue because so many of our young people get their start in the criminal justice system over a joint."^[7][8][9]

• Aubry Stone, President of the California Black Chamber of Commerce, endorses Proposition 19^[8]

• Retired Orange County Superior Court Judge Jim Gray endorses Proposition 19.^[10]

• The Communications Workers of America Local 9415, representing 1,800 members in California, Nevada and Hawaii, endorses Proposition 19. ^[11]

• The Oakland City Council endorses Proposition 19. ^[12]

• Gary Johnson, a Republican and two-term governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003, endorses Proposition 19.^[13]

• State Assemblymember Tom Ammiano endorses Proposition 19.^[14]

• Norm Stamper, Chief of Police of Seattle WA 1994-2000, endorses Proposition 19^[15]

• California NORML endorses Proposition 19 and estimates spin-off industries could amount to as much as $18 billion.^[16]

• Randi Weingarten, head of the American Federation of Teachers, supports legalizing cannabis.^[17]

• John Russo, City Attorney of Oakland, California, endorses Proposition 19^[18]

• Law Enforcement Against Prohibition endorses Proposition 19^[19]

• Tax Cannabis 2010 is the official advocacy group for Proposition 19. Richard Lee, the executive director of Oaksterdam University helped start Tax Cannabis 2010. Oaksterdam University is "a major medical marijuana dispensary and advocacy group" based in Oakland.^[20][21]

• The Marijuana Policy Project endorses Proposition 19.^[22]

• The Drug Policy Alliance endorses Proposition 19 (reference needed)

• The Republican Liberty Caucus of California supports Proposition 19 but opposes the taxation of cannabis^[23]

• The California Legislative Analyst's Office released a positive report on Proposition 19 ^[24]

• The California affiliates of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) endorse Proposition 19 ^[25]

Arguments in favor

If passed by the voters on November 2, 2010, supporters argue that Proposition 19 will:

• Reduce the racial bias in cannabis arrests^{[26][27][28][29]}

• Create between 60,000 and 110,000 new jobs in California^[16]

• Generate between $1.2 billion and $1.4 billion in new direct tax revenue annually^[16]

• Expand California's economy by between $16 billion and $23 billion annually^[16]

• Reduce crime in California^[13][30]

• Reduce violence in California and Mexico ^[31][32][33]

• Free up law enforcement resources to focus on violent crime and property crime.^[29]

• Reduce environmental damage to California's public lands from illegal grow operations.^[34]

• Reduce prison costs and prison overcrowding^[16]

• Reduce funding to drug cartels, who currently get about 70% of their revenue from illegal cannabis sales^[32][35]

• Reduce police corruption^[36][30][37]

• Improve the relationship between police and the communities they serve^[38]

• Reduce alcohol's cost to society by allowing adults to choose a safer alternative^[39]

Opposition

Voting on Marijuana
Statewide measures
Local measures
2010 • 2009 • 2008 2006 • 2004 • 2002 2000 • 1999 • 1998 1997 • 1996 1990 • 1972
Marijuana news

Groups who oppose Proposition 19:

• Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein

• Republican Gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman

• Democratic Gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown

• National Black Churches Initiative, representing 35,000 African American Churches nationwide

• Inter-Faith Based Coalition, representing 3600 inner city Churches in California

• Fight Crime, Invest In Kids

• National Association of Drug Court Professionals

• DARE America

• Coalition for a Drug-Free California

• California Narcotics Officers Association

• Kamala Harris, a candidate for California Attorney General.^[40]

• Chris Kelly, a former candidate for California Attorney General^[40]

• John Eastman, a former candidate for California Attorney General^[40]

• The California Bus Association^[41]

• Mothers Against Drunk Driving^[41]

• California Police Chiefs Association^[41]

• League of California Cities ^[42]

Arguments against

• Problems exist from tobacco and alchohol being legal, why add another to the mix?^[43]

• It may make it difficult for the legislature to to further restrict in the future if problems arise similar to what they tried to do with the limits on the 1996 ballot initiative which was later declared to be an "an unconstitutional amendment of a voter-approved initiative." ^[44]

• Legalization would likely bring with it additional substance abuse in the state, and the long-term public costs associated with that could vastly exceed the amount of new revenue legalized marijuana might bring in."^[45]

• It could would lead to an unintended side effect of additional regulation on how many plants a medical marijuana patient may grow and the possible pricing out of smaller distributors.

• Opposition to taxation of any kind on marijuana.

• Would lead people to consume marijuana without the advice or guidance of a medical professional.^[46]

• Allegations that the act does not do as the ballot title specifies and is misleading as written.^[47]

• Reports that using cannabis could increase their risk of developing a psychotic illness later in life. [6].

Federal laws?

Marijuana is illegal under federal laws. If marijuana becomes legal in California under state law, it will still be federally illegal. The U.S. Supreme has previously ruled that federal agents can arrest medical marijuana users and growers even though Proposition 215 makes that behavior legal in California.

Legal scholars, considering what might happen if marijuana is fully legalized in California, have said:

• The federal government would not be able to require California law enforcement agencies to help them enforce the federal law.
• Federal law enforcement officers can continue to arrest and prosecute the use, sale or possession of marijuana in California.
• As a matter of practice, most marijuana arrests are made by state law enforcement officers. In 2008, there were 847,000 marijuana-related arrests throughout the country. About 6,300 of these arrests were performed by federal agents. That's less than 1% of all marijuana arrests.^[48]

Polling information

See also: Polls, 2010 ballot measures

• The Field Poll released survey results in April 2009 which indicated that 56% of Californians support legalizing marijuana.^[49][50] In July 2010, a new Field Poll taken between June 22-July 5 showed that more voters oppose (48%) than support (44%) Proposition 19.^[51]

• A poll by EMC Research in January 2010 was said to show that so-called "soccer moms" support marijuana legalization, although exact polling information from this poll was not released to the public. EMC Research was retained to do the poll by legalization supporters. A newspaper report said that affluent suburban mothers support legalization because they believe their adult children can buy marijuana in greater safety if marijuana is legal.^[52]

• A poll by SurveyUSA of 500 adults in April 2010 showed 56% were in favor of legalizing marijuana.^[53]

• A PPIC poll on marijuana legalization in mid-May showed a very close match-up in sentiment between support and opposition. There were demographic differences, however: 62% of Latinos oppose legalization, men favor legalization more than women, and support for legalization declines with age.^[54]

• A poll by Public Policy Polling of 614 California voters shows that 52% polled are in favor of legalizing marijuana. Also according to the poll, 38% said they've smoked marijuana. 44% of those who haven't still support legalization. Democrats are more likely to support legalization. In contradiction to other polls, African Americans are the strongest supporters of legalization at 68:32.^[55]

Date of Poll	Pollster	In favor	Opposed	Undecided
July 8-11, 2010	SurveyUSA	50%	40%	11
April 20, 2010	SurveyUSA	56%	42%	3
May 9-16, 2010	PPIC	49%	48%	3
June 22-July 5, 2010	Field	44%	48%	8
July 23-25, 2010	PPP	52%	36%	12

Path to the ballot

See also: California signature requirements

Three different groups filed proposed initiatives with the California Secretary of State for 2010 ballot measures that would legalize marijuana, but the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 is the only one that qualified for the ballot.

• Richard Lee and Jeffrey Wayne Jones filed the language for 09-0024 on July 27, 2009. This measure is also known as the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010. Supporters of this measure will have collected close to 700,000 signatures by the end of 2009.^[56]
• Joe Rogoway, Omar Figueroa and James J. Clark filed the language for 09-0022 on July 15, 2009. They refer to their measure as The Tax, Regulate, and Control Cannabis Act of 2010. This measure was withdrawn on 2/4/2010 and is listed as "failed" on the Secretary of State website. ^[57]
• John Donohue of "Californians for Common Sense" filed the language for 09-0025 on August 4, 2009. He refers to his measure as the Common Sense Act of 2010.^[58]This initiative also failed to qualify. ^[59]

Supporters of the Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 turned in over 700,000 qualifying signatures to election authorities on January 28, 2010, versus a requirement of 433,971 signatures.^[60]

Supporters of the Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 campaign launched their signature-collection campaign in September in San Francisco at the annual gathering of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.^[61]

Masterson & Wright, a petition drive management company was paid $800,000 through December 2009 to collect signatures to qualify this proposition for the 2010 ballot.^[62]

The California Secretary of State published an interim report on the random sampling status of signature validating on February 12.^[63]

External links

Basic information

• Ballot label
• Ballot title and summary
• Legislative analysis
• Argument in favor, submitted for California Voter Guide
• Rebuttal to argument in favor, proposed for Voter Guide
• Argument against, for Voter Guide
• Rebuttal to argument against, for Voter Guide
• Text of proposed law
• Economist article containing overview of the Proposition, possible effects and Voter preferences

Supporters

• Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, endorses Prop 19
• California NORML endorses Prop 19
• National NORML endorses Prop 19
• Tax Cannabis 2010, official website of Prop 19 proponents
• Yes 19, articles, books, videos, and information about ending cannabis prohibition
• Students for Sensible Drug Policy endorses Prop 19
• Drug Policy Alliance endorses Prop 19
• Marijuana Policy Project endorses Prop 19

Opponents

• Public Safety First
• Nip It In the Bud
• Community Alliances for Drug Free Youth
• Committee Against the Legalization of Marijuana, a campaign finance committee.
• Opposition to the California Marijuana Legalization Initiative (2010), a campaign finance committee.

Additional reading

• Smoke and Mirrors: The War on Drugs and the Politics of Failure, Dan Baum, Little, Brown & Co., 1996.
• Drug Crazy: How We Got into this Mess and How We Can Get Out, Mike Gray, Routledge, 2000.
• "Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants" United States Patent No. 6630507, owned by the US Governtment, October 7, 2003
• "Free Weeds - The Marijuana Debate", William F. Buckley, National Review, 2004.
• "Marijuana Ingredient Inhibits VEGF Pathway Required for Brain Tumor Blood Vessels", American Association for Cancer Research, August 15, 2004.
• "Budgetary costs of marijuana prohibition", Jeffrey A. Miron, Harvard University, June 2005.
• "Study finds no cancer-marijuana connection" Washington Post, May 26, 2006.
• "Marijuana use reduces risk of head and neck cancers", Cancer Prevention Research, August 2009.
• "Cannabis chemicals may help fight prostate cancer", Reuters, August 19, 2009.
• "2010 Will Be Even Better Than 2009 For Marijuana Advocates," National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, December 13, 2009
• "2010 Preview: Ballot initiatives are a way for citizens to settle an issue directly without state legislatures," World Magazine, January 16, 2010
• "After 40 years, $1 trillion, US War on Drugs has failed to meet any of its goals", Associated Press, May 13, 2010
• "Citing high black arrests, NAACP endorses pot legalization", Capital Weekly, June 29, 2010
• "Placemaking for Pot Smoking", Planetizen.com, June 28, 2010
• "Assessing the impact of cannabis use on trends in diagnosed schizophrenia in the United Kingdom from 1996 to 2005", Schizophrenia Research, in press.

Videos

• Milton Friedman Interview, America's Drug Forum, 1991

References

Marijuana in 2010

• Category:Certified, marijuana, 2010
• Category:Marijuana, Wisconsin, 2010
• Colorado Medical Marijuana Regulation Initiative (2010)
• Colorado Sale of Marijuana in a Regulated Market Initiative (2010)

v • d • e 2010 ballot measures I&R States Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Illinois • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington • Wyoming Non I&R States Alabama • Georgia • Hawaii • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Louisiana • North Carolina • Rhode Island • South Carolina • Tennessee • Virginia Political topics (Certified topics only): Abortion • Administration of government • Affirmative action • Bond issues • Business regulation • Campaign finance • Civil rights • Constitutional conventions • Earthquakes • Education • Elections • Eminent domain • Energy • English • Firearms • Gambling • Government accountability • Health care • Hunting • Initiative rights • Insurance • Judicial reform • Labor • Law enforcement • Marijuana • Natural resources • Property rights • Redistricting • State budgets • Taxes • Term limits • Tobacco • Transportation • Veterans • Water Other Scorecard • Petition drive deadlines • Polls • Litigation (Lawsuits) • Potential measures • Tuesday Count • Changes in 2010 to laws governing the initiative process • Certified but removed

	v • d • e State of California Sacramento (capital)
Ballot measures	History of I&R | City and county ballot initiatives | School district bond issues | Laws governing initiatives | Recall process |
Ballot measures by year	1912 • 1914 • 1916 • 1920 • 1922 • 1978 • 1980 • 1982 • 1984 • 1986 • 1988 • 1990 • 1992 • 1993 • 1994 • 1996 • 1998 • 2000 • 2002 • 2003 • 2004 • 2005 • 2006 • 2006 (local) • 2008 • 2008 (local) • 2009 • 2009 (local) • 2010 • 2010 (local)
Government	California State Constitution | Governor | Attorney General | Secretary of State | State assembly | State senate | Legislative Analyst's Office |
Elections	Recalls | Vote fraud | 2010 elections | Fair Political Practices Commission |
Judiciary	California Supreme Court | Courts of Appeal | Superior Courts | District Courts | Judicial selection in California | Judicial News |
Transparency Topics	Public Records Act | Transparency Checklist | Government corruption reports | Transparency Legislation | Open Records procedures | Transparency Advocates | State budget | Taxpayer-funded lobbying associations |
Divisions	State | List of counties | List of Cities | List of School Districts, A - L | List of School Districts, M - Y | Evaluation of county websites | Evaluation of city websites | Evaluation of township websites | Evaluation of school district websites |