Elections in California |
---|
California Proposition 19 (also known as the Regulate, Control & Tax Cannabis Act) was a ballot initiative on the November 2, 2010, statewide ballot. It was defeated, with 53.5% of California voters voting "No" and 46.5% voting "Yes." [1] If passed, it would have legalized various marijuana-related activities, allowed local governments to regulate these activities, permitted local governments to impose and collect marijuana-related fees and taxes, and authorized various criminal and civil penalties. [2] In March 2010, it qualified to be on the November statewide ballot. [3] The proposition required a simple majority in order to pass, and would have taken effect the day after the election. [4] Yes on 19 was the official advocacy group for the initiative and California Public Safety Institute: No On Proposition 19 was the official opposition group. [5]
A similar initiative, "The Tax, Regulate, and Control Cannabis Act of 2010" (California Cannabis Initiative, CCI) was filed first and received by the Attorney General's Office July 15, 2010, assigned 09-0022 that would have legalized cannabis for adults 21 and older and included provisions to decriminalize industrial hemp, retroactive expunging of criminal records and release of non violent cannabis prisoners. It did not make it onto the ballot.
Supporters of Proposition 19 argued that it would help with California's budget shortfall, would cut off a source of funding to violent drug cartels, and would redirect law enforcement resources to more dangerous crimes, [6] while opponents claimed that it contains gaps and flaws that may have serious unintended consequences on public safety, workplaces, and federal funding. Even if the proposition had passed, the sale of cannabis would have remained illegal under federal law via the Controlled Substances Act. [7] [8] [9]
Proposition 19 was followed up by the Adult Use of Marijuana Act in 2016, which successfully passed a ballot initiative with 57% of the vote. [10]
According to the State of California's Legislative Analyst's Office, the law would have had the following effects. [11]
Except as permitted under Proposition 215 and SB 420 laws, persons age 21 and older may:
Local governments may:
The State Board of Equalization estimated that imposing a $50 per ounce levy on cannabis sales could generate $1.4 billion a year in new tax revenue, thus generating a large amount of revenue at a time when the state was experiencing financial pressure. [12] [13] This estimate came from the BOE's 2009 analysis of California Assembly Bill 390 based on a 2006 report entitled "Marijuana Production in the United States." These statistics were based on production estimates derived from marijuana eradication efforts from 2003 to 2005. [14]
According to the States Legislative Analyst's office, passage of the proposition could have a significant fiscal impact, including: [15]
In regard to potential savings from the reduction of incarcerated individuals, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations, 1,639 state prison inmates were in prison for marijuana-related crimes at a cost of $85 million per year. [16]
Several arguments were used in support of passing Proposition 19. Supporters argued that legalizing marijuana in California would help alleviate the drug war in Mexico. Based on the theory espoused by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy that up to 60% of Mexican drug cartels’ profits come from sales of marijuana, legalizing the drug in nearby California would drastically cut their funding. As a result, supporters of this argument believed that legalization would lead to a decrease in drug-related violent crime in Mexico. [17]
Also cited were expected financial benefits of passing the measure. Economists lauded an analysis by Jeffrey Miron predicting $7.7 billion in projected savings on law enforcement expenses related to marijuana offenses, as well as expected revenues of up to $6.2 billion annually in taxes. These revenues were calculated based on marijuana sales taxes structured similarly to alcohol and cigarettes. [18] In 2008, California police made 78,500 arrests related to marijuana. [19]
Some civil rights groups lauded Proposition 19 as a way to reduce the disproportionate number of arrests of African-Americans and Latinos in California, many of which were related to marijuana possession. A study released by the New York-based Drug Policy Alliance found that despite having lower marijuana consumption rates than young whites, [20] young Latinos and African Americans were arrested for marijuana possession at much higher rates than whites in the 25 largest California counties. [21]
Supporters also argued that passing the measure would result in additional benefits including tourism and spinoff industries such as cafes and paraphernalia. Based on California's wine industry, proponents of this theory anticipated that legalizing marijuana in the state could generate up to $18 billion, including the creation of 60,000-110,000 jobs. [22]
Some argued that legalization of marijuana could reduce drug-related violence, based on a study conducted by the International Centre for Science in Drug Policy. This study found that drug law enforcement contributes to increased levels of drug-related violence and suggests that "alternative models for drug control" may be necessary. [23]
Opponents of Prop 19 argued that legalizing marijuana in California using the current proposition would have numerous negative consequences. They cited current Federal laws banning the cultivation, sale, and use of the drug, and claimed that it would create complications with drug trafficking and arrests [24] as well as challenge Federal authority. [25] Opponents also argued that Proposition 19 would complicate regulation across the state by allowing local jurisdictions the power to determine their own laws regarding cultivation and possession. [26] Opponents claimed that this increased government activity would absorb much of the projected tax revenue. [26]
Opponents of the measure also argued that it posed a public safety risk, based on research showing an association between marijuana use and voluntary treatment admissions for addiction, fatal drugged driving accidents, mental illness, and emergency room visits. [27] Opponents also compared Prop 19 to current alcohol and tobacco regulation, arguing that the associated potential healthcare and criminal justice costs outweigh the tax revenue generated. [28]
In response to supporters' claims regarding Prop 19's tax revenue generation, opponents claim the potential benefit is vastly overstated. [27] Opponents also criticized the measure for failing to include specific accompanying tax proposals. [29] Opponents also rejected the argument that revenue increases from the measure would improve the state budgetary deficit, dismissing it as a short-term fix. [30]
Since California decriminalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana (under one ounce) in 1976, opponents reject the idea that legalization would free law enforcement to pursue violent crime in lieu of marijuana-related crime. [29] A RAND Corporation study found that passage of the measure would likely do little to curtail the drug trade and cartel violence stemming from Latin America. [31] Opponents also argued that passage would reflect softening attitudes in America toward drug consumption. [32] [33]
Supporters of medicinal marijuana use expressed concern that Prop 19 could burden growers with increased regulations. [30] Also cited were potential confusion caused by double selling rules and a potential threat to existing protections for medical marijuana users. [34]
The first cannabis prohibition laws in California were passed in 1913. [35] In the 1972 California November elections, a similar initiative to Proposition 19 which would have legalized cannabis was on the ballot, coincidentally also named Proposition 19. It failed to pass, with 66.5% voters voting "No" and 33.5% voting "Yes." [36] [37] In 1976 the passage of the Moscone Act changed small-scale possession of marijuana from a felony to a misdemeanor. [38] Two decades later in 1996, Proposition 215, which legalized medical marijuana, passed with 56% of the vote. In 2003 the California Senate Bill SB 420 clarified some of Proposition 215 to address critics and issues that arose since it was passed. In 2005, Oakland’s Measure Z, one of the first marijuana taxes, made marijuana possession one of the lowest law enforcement priorities. It was passed by 65% of the voters. In July 2010, Oakland approved a cultivation ordinance. [39]
Proposition 19's originator is Richard Lee, a marijuana legalization activist and medical marijuana provider based in Oakland. Lee named political consultant Chris Lehane as the head of the campaign to pass the measure. [40] In order to qualify for the ballot, the initiative needed 433,971 valid petition signatures. The initiative proponents submitted 694,248 signatures, and it qualified through the random sample signature check. [41]
In response to growing demand for a vote on the legal status of marijuana, California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said in May 2009, "I think it's time for a debate. And I think that we ought to study very carefully what other countries are doing that have legalized marijuana and other drugs, what effect it had on those countries, and are they happy with that decision." [42] However, in his signing statement for California SB 1449, which decriminalized possession of less than an ounce of marijuana from a misdemeanor to an infraction, Schwarzenegger said he opposed Proposition 19, calling it "deeply flawed" and claiming that its potential for generating tax revenue has been overstated. [43]
Color indicates the simple majority in a poll.
Date of opinion poll | Conducted by | Sample size (likely voters) | Methodology | Yes | No | Undecided | Margin of error |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
April 20, 2010 [131] | SurveyUSA | 500 | Automated | 56% | 42% | 3% | ±4.4% |
May 9–16, 2010 [132] | Public Policy Institute of California | 1168 | Live | 49% | 48% | 3% | ±3% |
June 22 – July 5, 2010 [133] | Field Poll | 1005 | Live | 44% | 48% | 8% | ±3.2% |
July 8–11, 2010 [134] | SurveyUSA | 614 | Automated | 50% | 40% | 10% | ±4% |
July 23–25, 2010 [135] | Public Policy Polling | 614 | Automated [136] | 52% | 36% | 12% | ±3.95% |
August 9–11, 2010 [137] | SurveyUSA | 602 | Automated | 50% | 40% | 10% | ±4.1% |
August 31 – September 1, 2010 [138] | SurveyUSA | 569 | Automated | 47% | 43% | 10% | ±4.2% |
September 20, 2010 [139] | Public Policy Polling | 569 | Automated | 47% | 38% | 15% | ±3.9% |
September 26, 2010 [140] | Field Poll | 599 | Live | 49% | 42% | 9% | ±4.1% |
September 30, 2010 [141] | Public Policy Institute of California | 2,004 | Live | 52% | 41% | 7% | ±3% |
September 30 – October 3, 2010 [142] | SurveyUSA | 670 | Automated | 48% | 41% | 11% | ±3.9% |
October 2–4, 2010 [143] | Ipsos | 448 | Live | 44% | 53% | 3% | ±4.7% |
October 13–14, 2010 [144] | EMC Research | 704 | Live | 40% | 45% | 14% | ±3.7% |
October 13–14, 2010 [144] | EMC Research | 699 | Automated | 56% | 41% | 4% | ±3.7% |
October 10–17, 2010 [145] | Public Policy Institute of California | 1,067 | 44% | 49% | 7% | ±3.5% | |
October 15–18, 2010 [146] | SurveyUSA | 621 | Automated | 48% | 44% | 8% | ±4% |
October 13–20, 2010 [147] | Los Angeles Times /University of Southern California | 441 | Live | 39% | 51% | 10% | ±4.6% |
October 21–23, 2010 [148] | Public Policy Polling | 622 | Automated | 45% | 48% | 7% | ±3.9% |
October 21–24, 2010 [149] | Suffolk University | 600 | Live | 40% | 55% | 6% | ±4% |
October 21–25, 2010 [150] | SurveyUSA | 594 | Mixed | 44% | 46% | 10% | ±4.1% |
October 14–26, 2010 [151] | Field Poll | 1092 | Live | 42% | 49% | 9% | ±3.2% |
October 20–26, 2010 [152] | CNN/ Time | 888 | Live | 45% | 53% | 2% | ±3.5% |
October 26–31, 2010 [153] | SurveyUSA | 587 | Mixed | 44% | 46% | 10% | ±4.1% |
October 29–31, 2010 [154] | Public Policy Polling | 882 | Automated | 44% | 51% | 5% | ±3.3% |
Analysis of different polling techniques showed significant differentials in support for Proposition 19. Polls conducted by a live interviewer showed substantially less support for Proposition 19 than automated polls. It was suggested that there was a "social desirability bias" causing people to deny their support for Proposition 19 to live interviewers. [144] [155]
Another discrepancy was noted in the Action News/SurveyUSA poll taken in late October. Those interviewed via landlines opposed the initiative 53% to 43%, while those on cell phones supported it 54% to 29%. [156]
Choice | Votes | % |
---|---|---|
No | 5,333,359 | 53.5 |
Yes | 4,643,751 | 46.5 |
Total votes | 9,977,110 | 100.00 |
County (Major Cities) | Yes | No |
---|---|---|
Kern County (Bakersfield) | 34.9% | 65.1% |
Fresno County (Fresno) | 35.8% | 64.2% |
Stanislaus County (Modesto) | 36.6% | 63.4% |
San Joaquin County (Stockton) | 39.0% | 61.0% |
Sacramento County (Sacramento) | 41.2% | 58.8% |
San Bernardino County (San Bernardino, Upland, Fontana, Ontario) | 41.2% | 58.8% |
Riverside County (Riverside, Moreno Valley, Corona, Palm Springs) | 41.9% | 58.1% |
Orange County (Santa Ana, Anaheim, Irvine, Huntington Beach, Laguna Beach) | 42.2% | 57.8% |
Ventura County (Ventura, Oxnard, Thousand Oaks, Simi Valley) | 44.8% | 55.2% |
Solano County (Fairfield, Vallejo) | 45.5% | 54.5% |
San Diego County (San Diego, Chula Vista, Oceanside) | 46.9% | 53.1% |
Los Angeles County (Los Angeles, Long Beach, Glendale, Santa Clarita, Pomona, Palmdale, Pasadena, Torrance, Inglewood, Burbank, Carson, Santa Monica etc.) | 47.9% | 52.1% |
Santa Clara County (San Jose, Santa Clara, Cupertino, Gilroy, Palo Alto) | 48.1% | 51.9% |
Napa County (Napa) | 50.1% | 49.9% |
Santa Barbara County (Santa Barbara, Santa Maria) | 51.2% | 48.8% |
Monterey County (Monterey, Salinas) | 51.2% | 48.8% |
San Luis Obispo County (San Luis Obispo) | 51.5% | 48.5% |
Alameda County (Oakland, Fremont, Hayward, Berkeley) | 56.4% | 43.6% |
Marin County (San Rafael, Novato) | 62.3% | 37.7% |
San Francisco County (San Francisco) | 63.6% | 36.4% |
Santa Cruz County (Santa Cruz) | 63.7% | 36.3% |
Proposition 215, or the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, is a California law permitting the use of medical cannabis despite marijuana's lack of the normal Food and Drug Administration testing for safety and efficacy. It was enacted, on November 5, 1996, by means of the initiative process, and passed with 5,382,915 (55.6%) votes in favor and 4,301,960 (44.4%) against.
The Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) is the largest organization working solely on marijuana policy reform in the United States in terms of its budget, number of members, and staff.
Amendment 44 was a proposed amendment to the state statutes submitted for referendum in the 2006 general elections in the U.S. state of Colorado. The amendment proposed the legalization of the possession of one ounce or less of marijuana for any person twenty-one years of age and over, as long as marijuana use does not occur in public. The measure was eventually defeated at the polls by 59-41 percent.
Dennis Robert Peron was an American activist and businessman who became a leader in the movement for the legalization of cannabis throughout the 1990s. He influenced many in California and thus changed the political debate on marijuana in the United States.
In the United States, increased restrictions and labeling of cannabis as a poison began in many states from 1906 onward, and outright prohibitions began in the 1920s. By the mid-1930s cannabis was regulated as a drug in every state, including 35 states that adopted the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act. The first national regulation was the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.
The use, sale, and possession of cannabis containing over 0.3% THC by dry weight in the United States, despite laws in many states permitting it under various circumstances, is illegal under federal law. As a Schedule I drug under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) of 1970, cannabis containing over 0.3% THC by dry weight is considered to have "no accepted medical use" and a high potential for abuse and physical or psychological dependence. Cannabis use is illegal for any reason, with the exception of FDA-approved research programs. However, individual states have enacted legislation permitting exemptions for various uses, including medical, industrial, and recreational use.
Cannabis in Oregon is legal for both medical and recreational use. In recent decades, the U.S. state of Oregon has had a number of legislative, legal and cultural events surrounding the use of cannabis. Oregon was the first state to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of cannabis and authorize its use for medical purposes. An attempt to recriminalize the possession of small amounts of cannabis was turned down by Oregon voters in 1997.
In the United States, the use of cannabis for medical purposes is legal in 38 states, four out of five permanently inhabited U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia, as of March 2023. Ten other states have more restrictive laws limiting THC content, for the purpose of allowing access to products that are rich in cannabidiol (CBD), a non-psychoactive component of cannabis. There is significant variation in medical cannabis laws from state to state, including how it is produced and distributed, how it can be consumed, and what medical conditions it can be used for.
Oaksterdam University is an unaccredited trade school located in Oakland, California. It was founded in 2007 by marijuana rights activist Richard Lee. The school offers asynchronous, online, and in-person courses covering cannabis horticulture, the business of cannabis, cannabis extraction and manufacturing, and bud-tending.
Cannabis in California has been legal for medical use since 1996, and for recreational use since late 2016. The state of California has been at the forefront of efforts to liberalize cannabis laws in the United States, beginning in 1972 with the nation's first ballot initiative attempting to legalize cannabis. Although it was unsuccessful, California would later become the first state to legalize medical cannabis through the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, which passed with 56% voter approval. In November 2016, California voters approved the Adult Use of Marijuana Act with 57% of the vote, which legalized the recreational use of cannabis.
Initiative 1068 was a proposed initiative for the November 2010 Washington state general election that would have removed criminal penalties from the adult use, possession, and cultivation of marijuana in Washington. Sponsored by Vivian McPeak, Douglass Hiatt, Jeffrey Steinborn, Philip Dawdy, initiative I-1068 sought to legalize marijuana by removing marijuana offenses from the state's controlled substances act, but failed to gather enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.
Oregon Ballot Measure 80, also known as the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act, OCTA and Initiative-9, was an initiated state statute ballot measure on the November 6, 2012 general election ballot in Oregon. It would have allowed personal marijuana and hemp cultivation or use without a license and created a commission to regulate the sale of commercial marijuana. The act would also have set aside two percent of profits from cannabis sales to promote industrial hemp, biodiesel, fiber, protein, and oil.
Proposition 203, or the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act, was an Arizona ballot measure to legalize the use of medical marijuana without the normal Food and Drug Administration testing for safety and efficacy. Proposition 203 passed by a narrow margin, with 50.13% of the vote.
Proposition 19, also known as the California Marijuana Initiative (CMI), was a ballot initiative on the November 7, 1972 California statewide ballot. This was the first attempt to legalize marijuana by ballot measure in the history of the United States. If it had passed, the measure would have removed penalties in the State of California for persons 18 years of age or older for using, possessing, growing, processing, or transporting marijuana for personal use. The California Marijuana Initiative's organizers coordinated a huge grassroots organizing drive to place the measure on the ballot. The initiative qualified for the November statewide ballot in June 1972. The initiative was defeated by the voters with 66.5% No votes to 33.5% Yes votes.
The legal history of cannabis in the United States began with state-level prohibition in the early 20th century, with the first major federal limitations occurring in 1937. Starting with Oregon in 1973, individual states began to liberalize cannabis laws through decriminalization. In 1996, California became the first state to legalize medical cannabis, sparking a trend that spread to a majority of states by 2016. In 2012, Washington and Colorado became the first states to legalize cannabis for recreational use.
Oregon Ballot Measure 91 was a 2014 ballot measure in the U.S. state of Oregon. Its passage legalized the "recreational use of marijuana, based on regulation and taxation to be determined by the Oregon Liquor Control Commission".
The Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) was a 2016 voter initiative to legalize cannabis in California. The full name is the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act. The initiative passed with 57% voter approval and became law on November 9, 2016, leading to recreational cannabis sales in California by January 2018.
Cannabis in Arizona is legal for recreational use. A 2020 initiative to legalize recreational use passed with 60% of the vote. Possession and cultivation of recreational cannabis became legal on November 30, 2020, with the first state-licensed sales occurring on January 22, 2021.
Cannabis in Washington relates to a number of legislative, legal, and cultural events surrounding the use of cannabis. On December 6, 2012, Washington became the first U.S. state to legalize recreational use of marijuana and the first to allow recreational marijuana sales, alongside Colorado. The state had previously legalized medical marijuana in 1998. Under state law, cannabis is legal for medical purposes and for any purpose by adults over 21.
Arizona Proposition 207 was a voter initiative that appeared on the November 3, 2020, Arizona general election ballot to legalize cannabis for recreational use. Passing with 60% of the vote, the initiative legalized the possession of up to an ounce of cannabis, licensed sales at dispensaries, and personal cultivation of up to six plants. Along with Montana, New Jersey and South Dakota, Arizona is one of four states that legalized recreational marijuana via ballot measures in 2020.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(help){{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(help){{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(help){{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(help){{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(help)