California Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Initiative (2012)
|Not on Ballot|
| This measure did not or |
will not appear on a ballot
The initiative, if it had qualified for the ballot and been approved by the state's voters, would have decriminalized marijuana in California for those older than 21. It would also have taxed and regulated the cultivation, production and sale of marijuana using standards similar to those used in taxing and regulating the grape and wine industry.
Steve Kubby, a supporter of the initiative who is known as the co-author of Proposition 215, said, "We’re taking something that’s unregulated and we’re replacing it with a known successful program implemented by the California alcohol beverage control board. We know it works great with wine. It’s already in place."
Under the terms of the proposed initiative, law enforcement officers in California would have been prohibited from cooperating with federal DEA agents.
A poll of likely voters taken in January 2012 gave supports of the initiative hope that they could attract major donors to provide the funding that was necessary to collect signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot. Sponsor Steve Kubby said of the favorable poll numbers, "That shows funders we can win. Anytime you're polling over 60 percent, you command anyone's attention." On the other hand, Peter Lewis, who often funds marijuana-related ballot initiative campaigns, said in an email to a cannabis activist in late January, "I have done considerable research which leads me to conclude that the time has not yet come for legalization. I believe that if the issue you want to pass isn't polling well above 60% in favor before the election, there is no chance to pass it. California is not there yet."
The "Regulate Marijuana Like Wine" initiative was not the only marijuana-related initiative vying for a spot on California's November 6, 2012 statewide ballot. The others are:
- The Reduced Marijuana Penalties Initiative. Sponsors of this initiative did not file signatures by their April 5, 2012 filing deadline.
- The Repeal Cannabis Prohibition Act. This initiative, according to the Los Angeles Times, is "the one apparently with the most vocal support within the movement."
- The Cannabis Hemp and Health Initiative.
- The Medical Marijuana Regulation, Control and Taxation Initiative.
Because multiple marijuana-related initiatives are in circulation in California, they are all experiencing difficulty raising the funds necessary to qualify for the ballot. Steve Collett, who supports the Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Initiative, says, "We're all chasing the same dollars."
A group of people closely associated with the Proposition 19 effort, including Richard Lee, had also indicated that they might attempt to qualify a marijuana legalization initiative for the 2012 ballot. However, in September, Lee told a group at the International Cannabis and Hemp Expo in Oakland that this effort was falling apart: "It’s pretty much dead. The funders didn’t come through."
Text of measure
This is the ballot language for Version 11-0039.
The ballot title is:
- "Decriminalizes marijuana sales, distribution, possession, use, cultivation, and transportation. Dismisses pending court actions inconsistent with its provisions. Retains laws forbidding use while driving or in workplace. Establishes regulation of commercial marijuana trade to match regulation of wine and beer. Allows noncommercial production up to 24 flowering plants per household, or more with local approval. Authorizes retail sales of marijuana with THC level of .3% or more to persons 21 or older; if less, no age limit. Directs state and local officials to not cooperate with federal enforcement of marijuana laws. Bans development of genetically modified marijuana."
- See also: Fiscal impact statement
The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office says:
- "The fiscal effects of this measure are subject to considerable uncertainty depending on: (1) the extent to which the federal government continues to enforce federal marijuana laws and (2) the specific taxes applied to marijuana. Savings of potentially several tens of millions of dollars annually to state and local governments on the costs of incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. Potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in net additional tax revenues related to the production and sale of marijuana products."
- See also: Polls, 2012 ballot measures
|Date of Poll||Pollster||In favor||Opposed||Undecided||Number polled|
|January 2012||Fairbank, Maslin||62%||35%||3%||800|
Path to the ballot
- See also: California signature requirements
- James P. Gray, William McPike, Stephen Collett, and Steve Kubby submitted a letter requesting a ballot title for Version #11-0039 on August 30, 2011.
- The ballot title and ballot summary for Version #11-0039 were issued by the Attorney General of California's office on October 27, 2011.
- 504,760 valid signatures were required for qualification purposes.
- The 150-day circulation deadline for #11-0039 was March 26, 2012.
- Text of letter submitted to Attorney General, requesting a ballot title
- "Regulate Marijuana Like Wine" website
- Full Text of Act
- California Watch, "Ballot initiative would tax marijuana like wine," August 5, 2011
- SF Weekly, "Steve Kubby, Prop 215 Author, Drafts New initiative to Decriminalize Marijuana," February 28, 2011
- SF Weekly, "Marijuana Legalization Measure Courts Billionaires for Vital Campaign Cash," February 2, 2012
- Cannabis Warrior, "An open letter to rich folks who like weed…..," January 25, 2012
- Los Angeles Times, "Effort to put marijuana legalization measure on ballot is in disarray," March 10, 2012
- Los Angeles Times, "Marijuana legalization advocates organize to put new measure on California ballot," March 18, 2011
- The Weed Blog, "California Marijuana Legalization Effort Stalling According To Oaksterdam’s Richard Lee," September 9, 2011
State of California
|Ballot measures by year||
1910 | 1911 | 1912 | 1914 | 1915 | 1916 | 1919 | 1920 | 1922 | 1924 | 1926 | 1928 | 1930 | 1932 | 1933 | 1934 | 1935 | 1936 | 1938 | 1939 | 1940 | 1942 | 1944 | 1946 | 1948 | 1949 | 1950 | 1952 | 1954 | 1956 | 1958 | 1960 | 1962 | 1964 | 1966 | 1968 | 1970 | 1972 | 1973 | 1974 | 1976 | 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) | 2011 (local) | 2012 | 2012 (local) | 2014 | 2016 |
|State executive offices||
Governor | Attorney General | Secretary of State | Controller | Treasurer | State Auditor | Superintendent of Public Instruction | Commissioner of Insurance | Secretary of Agriculture | Secretary for Natural Resources | Director of Industrial Relations | President of Public Utilities |