Oregon Measure 91, Legalized Marijuana Initiative (2014)

Measure 91 Type Initiated state statute Origin Citizens Topic Marijuana Status Approved a

2014 measures November 4 Meausre 86 d Measure 87 a Measure 88 d Measure 89 a Measure 90 d Measure 91 a Measure 92 d Endorsements Polls • Expenditures Local measures

The Oregon Legalized Marijuana Initiative, Measure 91 was on the November 4, 2014 statewide ballot in Oregon as an initiated state statute, where it was approved. The measure legalized recreational marijuana for people ages 21 and older, allowing adults over this age to possess up to eight ounces of "dried" marijuana and up to four plants. Additionally, the measure tasked the Oregon Liquor Control Commission with regulating sales of the drug. The initiative was sponsored by the group New Approach Oregon. Anthony Johnson, the chief petitioner, hoped legislators would refer the measure to the ballot; however, they failed to do so before the 2014 session ended on March 10, 2014. Therefore, supporters moved forward with the initiative effort and successfully got the measure before voters. It was also known as the Control, Regulation, and Taxation of Marijuana and Industrial Hemp Act of 2014.

Aftermath

Josephine County federal lawsuit

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Preemption; whether or not state law can preempt local laws governing marijuana because of the conflict between state legalized marijuana and federal law (Note: This lawsuit also affects Oregon's medical marijuana initiative, Measure 67 (1998) and other state laws.)
Court: U.S. District Court of Oregon
Timeline: Filed in 2018 about a 2014 ballot measure
Ruling: A preliminary statement saying that the county, as a subdivision of the state, does not have standing to sue over a state law.
Plaintiff(s): Josephine County	Defendant(s): State of Oregon and Oregon Attorney General Ellen F. Rosenblum
Plaintiff argument: State law should not preempt Josephine County from regulating and restricting marijuana cultivation, sales, and use because marijuana is illegal according to federal law.	Defendant argument: An official response from the defendants was not available as of April 10, 2018.

  Source: Josephine County v. State of Oregon

On April 3, 2018, Josephine County officials filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court arguing that the state does not have authority to prevent Josephine County from regulating or restricting marijuana cultivation, sales, and use. The lawsuit explicitly uses marijuana's status as a prohibited Schedule 1 drug according to federal law to argue that the state cannot prevent the county from regulations.

The lawsuit arose after Josephine County voters approved an advisory question in 2017, voting in favor of prohibiting commercial, recreational marijuana cultivation in Rural Residential zones. Following the advisory question, the county board of commissioners passed an ordinance enacting restrictions on cultivation in residential zones, and it was challenged and overturned in court based on state law preemption. This 2018 lawsuit from the county calls attention to the conflict between Oregon law—including the approved medical marijuana (1998) and recreational marijuana (2014) initiatives and other state legislation—and federal law.

Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum was named as a defendant in the case, and her office stated that the attorney general would defend state law but had no other comments as of April 5, 2018. Will Patterson, an attorney in Portland, said that the lawsuit, if successful, could undermine state laws legalization marijuana. Patterson said, "This is Josephine County asking a federal court to terminate legal recreational and medical regimes." Wally Hicks, the county's attorney, said that the lawsuit is seeking to permit the county to regulate marijuana "in the way the that the people of the county and the governing body of the county have expressed that they would like to regulate it. [...] That's what's really at issue here. We’re asking the court to declare whether the state lawfully has that ability to limit those options."

On August 31, 2018, Judge Mark D. Clark released a statement and an official recommendation that the case be dismissed. The statement said that the county was a subdivision of the state and had no standing to sue over a state statute and that, if the county did have standing, there was no evidence that the state had actually acted to prevent the county from implementing its ordinance. The county was given 14 days to file objections to the official statement released by Judge Clark.

2015 legislation

During the 2015 legislative session, the Oregon Legislature considered a 17 percent state sales tax on marijuana retail sales. Some legislators also sought to empower counties and cities to charge an additional 3 percent sales tax, which would bring the total possible sales tax on marijuana to 20 percent.

Additional legislation was designed to allow counties where 55 percent or more of voters opposed Measure 91 to ban marijuana sales. A total of 15 counties rejected the initiative by that margin, all of which are east of the Cascade Range.

Gov. Kate Brown (D) signed legislation on July 27, 2015, moving the first legal sale date for marijuana up a year to October 1, 2015.

Election results

Below are the official, certified election results:

Oregon Measure 91
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		847,865	56.11%
No		663,346	43.89%

Election results via: Oregon Secretary of State

Text of measure

Ballot title

The certified ballot title read as:

“

Allows possession, manufacture, sale of marijuana by/to adults, subject to state licensing, regulation, taxation Result of "Yes" Vote: "Yes" vote allows possession, authorizes in-state manufacture, processing, sale of marijuana by/to adults; licensing, regulation, taxation by state; retains current medical marijuana laws. Result of "No" Vote: "No" vote retains laws classifying cannabis as a controlled substance, prohibiting most sale, possession, manufacture of cannabis; permitting production, possession of cannabis for medical use. Summary: Currently, cultivation, possession, delivery, sale of marijuana are unlawful, excepting regulated production, possession, use of medical marijuana. Measure allows production, processing, delivery, possession, sale of marijuana to adults, licensed, regulated by Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC). Marijuana producer, processor, wholesaler may deliver "marijuana items" (defined) only to/on licensed retail premises. OLCC collects tax imposed on marijuana producer at different rates for marijuana flowers, leaves, immature plant. "Homegrown marijuana" (defined) not regulated, taxed. Tax revenues, fees fund OLCC suspense account, Oregon Marijuana Account distributed: 40% to Common School Fund; 20% for mental health/alcohol/drug services; 15% for state police; 20% for local law enforcement; 5% to Oregon Health Authority. "Marijuana paraphernalia" (defined) excluded from "drug paraphernalia" laws. Other provisions

”

Full text

The full text of the measure can be read here.

Background

The 2012 elections proved to be groundbreaking for marijuana legalization support groups. Voters in Washington approved Initiative 502, thereby legalizing the recreational use of marijuana. Coloradans followed suit when they approved Amendment 64 during the same election. However, voters in Oregon rejected Measure 80, a similar, though slightly less stringent, marijuana legalization measure. Measure 80 would have allowed adults over the age of 21 to possess an unlimited supply of marijuana and given an industry-dominated board permission to regulate sales.

Support

Supporters

Individuals

• Former U.S. Attorney Kris Olson
• Former Oregon Supreme Court Justice Bill Riggs
• Rick Steves, travel entrepreneur
• Chief Petitioner Anthony Johnson

Organizations

• Drug Policy Action of Oregon
• New Approach Oregon
• Cascade Policy Institute
• American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 88
• AFSCME Local 328
• United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 555
• Northwest Oregon Labor Council
• Moms for Yes on 91

New Approach Oregon, "An Oregon Voice for a New Approach to Marijuana," July 1, 2014

Arguments

New Approach Oregon argued that the state's approach to marijuana prior to the initiative was a "hodgepodge" that was inconsistent in taxation and regulation. The group posited that this ultimately would cost the state in the following ways:

“	There are at least 12,000 arrests and citations for marijuana each year across Oregon counties. In addition to the financial cost, every marijuana arrest and citation takes time that a police officer could have used patrolling a neighborhood, preventing an assault or car theft, or solving a violent crime. Marijuana prohibition makes it harder to protect children. Right now, it is easier for junior high and high school students to get marijuana than a six pack. There is no real regulation and effective prevention programs are chronically underfunded. The current, failed approach also supports and increases profits for the criminal black market, including violent drug cartels waging a drug war on our southern border.	”
—New Approach Oregon

Campaign contributions

New Approach Oregon was the petition committee for this initiative. Additionally, the political action committee (PAC) Drug Policy Action of Oregon was supporting the initiative. The following totals of contributions and expenditures were reported for each PAC as of December 1, 2014.

PAC info:

PAC	Amount raised	Amount spent
New Approach Oregon	$4,940,866.14	$4,969,540.54
Yes on 91	$4,055,307.95	$4,060,656.13
Drug Policy Action of Oregon	$250,000.00	$249,000.00
Total	$9,246,174.09	$9,273,848.49

Total campaign cash as of December 1, 2014
Support:	$9,246,174.09
Opposition:	$179,672.91

Top 5 contributors:

Donor	Amount
Drug Policy Action	$2,815,000.00
Yes on 91	$2,447,986.50
New Approach PAC	$1,850,000.00
New Approach Oregon	$905,409.95
Drug Policy Action Fund for Oregon	$249,000.00

Opposition

No opposition groups filed with the secretary of state before July 30, 2014. However, some hypothesized the "pharmaceutical companies who manufacture prescription painkillers could be the single economic interest that has the means and motivation to contest legalization." Afterwards, the group No on 91 came out in formal opposition to the measure.

Opponents

Organizations

• The Oregon Pediatric Society
• The American Academy of Pediatrics
• The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
• The American Medical Association
• The American Society of Addiction Medicine
• Oregon Republican Party
• Restore America
• Parents Opposed to Pot
• Oregon State District Attorney's Association
• Oregon State Sheriff's Association
• Oregon Narcotics Enforcement Association
• The Oregon Catholic Conference

Officials

• Judge Gary Thompson
• Judge Tom Kohl
• State Rep. John Huffman (R-59)
• State Rep. Gene Whisnant (R-53)
• State Sen. Tim Knopp (R-27)
• Dwight Holton, former U.S. Attorney for Oregon
• District Attorney Josh Marquis (Clatsop County)
• District Attorney Daina Vitolins (Crook County)
• District Attorney Eric Nisley (Wasco County)
• Sheriff Jason Myers (Marion County)
• Sheriff Pat Garrett (Washington County)
• Sheriff Jim Adkins (Jefferson County)
• Sheriff Tom Bergin (Clatsop County)

Arguments

The group No on 91 listed the following as arguments against Measure 91:

“	Vote No because Measure 91 has: NO established driving rules for marijuana impairment. NO legitimate way to regulate amount, as there’s no limit on # of growers or # of store locations permitted. NO THC-potency testing requirements on marijuana grown or edibles sold. NO packaging and labeling requirements on marijuana edibles (unlike what is required of other food and drug products). NO restrictions on marketing and advertising of marijuana edibles (which are appealing to kids).	”
—No on 91

Campaign contributions

As of October 17, 2014, No on 91 was the only group opposing this measure. The following totals of contributions and expenditures were reported for No on 91 as of December 1, 2014.

PAC info:

PAC	Amount raised	Amount spent
No on 91	$179,672.91	$179,672.91
Total	$179,672.91	$179,672.91

Top 6 contributors:

Donor	Amount
Oregon State Sheriffs' Association	$145,000
Oregon Narcotics Enforcement Assoc.	$20,000
Roger Nichols Music, Inc	$10,000
S.O.S. - Save Our Society from Drugs	$500
Shirley Morgan	$500
Tiffany Hicks	$500

Media editorial positions

See also: Endorsements of Oregon ballot measures, 2014

Support

• New York Times said,

“	Ideally, the federal government would repeal the ban on marijuana, so states could set their own policies without worrying about the possibility of a crackdown on citizens violating federal law. Even though a majority of Americans favor legalization, Congress shows no sign of budging. So it’s better for the states to take the lead than to wait for an epiphany on Capitol Hill that may never come.	”
—New York Times

• The Oregonian said,

“	Measure 91, far from revolutionary, would simply allow Oregon adults to obtain something they may obtain now, but without having to stroll through a "medical" loophole or drive over a bridge to a neighboring state. The measure would be worth supporting for reasons of honesty and convenience alone, but it also would raise millions of dollars per year for schools and other purposes. For that reason, it deserves support even from those who aren't normally high on taxes."	”
—The Oregonian

• The Skanner said,

“	Of all ballot measures facing voters in Oregon, this might be the most far-reaching. As the so-called War on Drugs has failed to stem their use and has filled our jails and prisons with low-level offenders – all at taxpayer expense – this measure might be the best chance we have to restore some sanity to the system. Legalize it, regulate it like alcohol, and create a new revenue stream for the state. We vote YES.	”
—Skanner

• The Portland Mercury said,

“	Naysayers' other main point is that marijuana could make roads less safe. This hasn't happened in Washington or Colorado, as far as anyone can tell. Speaking of those pioneering states, their experience will be crucial. As we've pointed out, the OLCC needs to do its research to avoid some of the pitfalls currently causing problems in Washington ["Supply and the Man," Feature, Sept 3]. With Measure 91, we've already arrived at a far less onerous tax structure, and the commission will have until 2016 to form up good policy. That's ample time to ensure Oregon carefully comes to its senses about marijuana—at long last.	”
—Portland Mercury

Reports and analyses

Infographic via ECONorthwest

ECONorthwest

A Portland firm, ECONorthwest, was hired by measure supporters before the election to estimate the potential tax revenues of a legalized marijuana industry in the event of the measure's approval. The firm found that the tax would generate revenues of $38.5 million for the state in the first year and $78.7 million by the end of the first biennium. The estimates were based on figures from Colorado's marijuana sales, accounting for a lower rate of taxation in Oregon under this measure. They also calculated that approximately 20 percent of the illegal marijuana trade would shift to the legal market. The report, however, did not consider the impact of marijuana legalization on courts, police or jail operations.

Read the full tax revenue estimate here.

Liccardo Pacula & Sevigny (2014)

A 2014 paper by Rosalie Liccardo Pacula and Eric L. Sevigny questioned how much can be understood about marijuana legalization efforts up to that point. However, they did note the following conclusions that they could glean from the available research:

• "[The] rescheduling of marijuana and provision of it through typical highly regulated medical channels would not lead to widespread increases in its use or harms."
• "[Legalization] would generate savings in terms of reduced criminal justice costs and improve social welfare by eliminating criminal sanctions for minor marijuana offenses."
• "[Marijuana] use will rise under legalization, in large part because legally sanctioned production and competition will drive down prices."

The authors also noted, however, that many outcomes cannot be predicted based on available information. Whether or not increased use will also increase associated harms will depend on many factors. The authors hypothesized that one of the most important will be "who ends up responding the most to price." They said,

“	If it is the casual adult user who enters the market and consumes in relatively small amounts, then the expected harms are very small. If it is new young users, more involved heavy users, or users of other substances, then the harms could be greater. The literature examining differential elasticities across the population of users is very thin for marijuana.	”
—Rosalie Liccardo Pacula and Eric L. Sevigny

Read the full paper here.

Columbia University (2012)

A 2012 study by Magdalena Cerda, Melanie Wall, Katherine M Keyes, Sandro Galea and Deborah Hasin at Columbia University examined how the legalization of medical marijuana laws have affected the use of, abuse of and dependence on marijuana. The authors noted that marijuana "is the most frequently used illicit substance in the United States." The study found that medical marijuana legalization directly correlated with higher rates of all three aspects, but that the increased risk for abuse or dependence was accounted for by the higher use rate. The authors did not note a causal relationship between medical marijuana legalization and these outcomes, and noted the need for further investigation on the relationships.

Read the full paper here.

Polls

See also: Polls, 2014 ballot measures

Legend      Position is ahead and at or over 50%     Position is ahead or tied, but under 50%

• In early June 2014, Survey USA conducted a poll of 560 likely voters regarding upcoming election issues in Oregon. At the time of the poll, multiple marijuana measures were still in contention. The poll did not ask voters specifically about this measure, but rather their general attitude towards marijuana legalization. Support for legalization was higher among men, at 57 percent, than among women, at 44 percent. Support was highest among people aged 18 to 34 at 70 percent, but still over half of respondents aged 35 to 64 supported legalization. The exact question put to respondents was:

“	Oregon will also vote on several ballot measures. First, on the topic of recreational marijuana, there are three separate measures on the ballot. While each is different, in general, they would allow adults to use, possess, and grow marijuana for their own personal use, while allowing the state to regulate and tax the marijuana. In general, do you support? Or oppose? Allowing adults to use, possess and grow marijuana for their personal use, while allowing the state to regulate and tax marijuana?	”
—Survey USA

Oregon Legalized Marijuana Initiative (2014)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Not sure	Margin of error	Sample size
KGW/The Oregonian 10/26/2014 - 10/27/2014	44%	46%	7%	+/-5	403
Survey USA 10/23/2014 - 10/27/2014	52%	41%	7%	+/-4.3	552
DHM Research 10/08/2014 - 10/11/2014	52%	41%	7%	+/-4.3	516
Survey USA 09/22/2014 - 09/24/2014	44%	40%	16%	+/-4.2	568
Survey USA 06/05/2014 - 06/09/2014	51%	41%	8%	+/-4.2	560
AVERAGES	48.6%	41.8%	9%	+/-4.4	519.8
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Oregon

Supporters had to collect 87,213 valid signatures by July 3, 2014, in order to land the initiative on the ballot. The version of the proposed initiative that was circulated for signatures was the second version submitted to the Oregon Secretary of State by supporters. The first version, proposed initiative number 37, faced a legal challenge to its ballot language, which delayed its certification for signature gathering. After the final version, proposed initiative number 53, was submitted and approved for circulation, the petitioners withdrew proposed initiative 37.

Supporters of the initiative began collecting signatures on April 17, 2014. They announced that they had gathered 145,000 signatures on June 26, 2014, and submitted them to the secretary of state on the same day.

On July 22, the secretary of state certified the measure for the ballot with 88,584 valid signatures.

Related measures

• Alaska Ballot Measure 2 (2014) a
• Oregon Recreational Cannabis Amendment (2014)
• Oregon Recreational Cannabis Tax Act, Initiative 22 (2014)
• Washington Marijuana Legalization and Regulation, Initiative 502 (2012) a
• Colorado Marijuana Legalization Initiative, Amendment 64 (2012) a
• Oregon Cannabis Tax Act Initiative, Measure 80 (2012) d

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Oregon marijuana initiative. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Oregon Measure 91, Legalized Marijuana Initiative (2014) - Google News

See also

Suggest a link

• 2014 ballot measures
• Oregon 2014 ballot measures
• Laws governing the initiative process in Oregon

News stories

• Few initiatives for Oregon, but none for Arizona, July 3, 2014

External links

• Full text of proposed initiative 53
• Certified ballot title and summary for proposed initiative 53
• New Approach Oregon website, Facebook profile, Twitter feed & YouTube channel

Additional reading

• Portland Tribune, "Estimates differ on marijuana revenues," July 28, 2014
• Statesman Journal, "Battle lines drawn for November's 7 ballot measures," July 26, 2014
• Statesman Journal, "Will Oregon go to pot if it legalizes pot?" July 26, 2014
• The Boston Pilot, "Voters in two states to consider legalizing recreational pot in 2014," July 17, 2014
• The Register-Guard, "EDITORIAL: 2014 ballot takes shape; number of ballot measures well below average," July 9, 2014
• Associated Press, "Pot, immigration, food labels likely headed for Oregon ballots," July 5, 2014
• Crawford, S. S. (2013). The Political Economy of Medical Marijuana (Doctoral dissertation).