cannabisnews.com: Marijuana Measure on Nov. 2 Ballot





Marijuana Measure on Nov. 2 Ballot
Posted by CN Staff on July 23, 2004 at 08:09:42 PT
By Bruce Gerstman, Staff Writer
Source: Contra Costa Times 
The Oakland City Council approved a measure for the Nov. 2 ballot that would make marijuana use the lowest priority for the city's law enforcement officers.Advocates of the measure say the law could reduce crime while raising and saving tax money. Critics, though, argue that the law is difficult to enforce and could lead to more youths being exposed to hard drugs.
Council members voted 6 to 2 on Tuesday to place the measure on the ballot, once the City Attorney's Office confirms the measure's language. Council members Larry Reid (District 7-East Oakland) and Henry Change (at large) voted against it, while council members representing some hills neighborhoods -- Jane Brunner, Jean Quan, Desley Brooks and Danny Wan voted for it -- along with Nancy Nadel (West Oakland).If Oakland voters approve the law in November, the city would enforce it in two phases. First, Oakland police would treat private marijuana use as the department's lowest priority. And the city would set up an oversight committee to oversee this process.Then, the city would lobby the state legislature to legalize private marijuana use for adults 21 and over, and to give local governments the option of levying a sales tax and issuing business licenses to stores that sell marijuana.But making marijuana available for non-medicinal purposes is a bad idea, said councilman Larry Reid."If you believe violence associated with marijuana is going to go away, you're crazy," he said. "I can't in good conscience support this initiative."Advocates of the ballot measure say that taxing marijuana sales would bring money to the city and save money now spent on the enforcement of marijuana laws. Regulating marijuana use could reduce public expenses that come from long-term incarceration, according to the Oakland Civil Liberties Alliance, the group that acquired more than 32,000 signatures in the hills and other parts of Oakland in order to place the measure on the ballot."I'm happy to see that it's on the ballot," said Judy Appel, acting director of the Drug Policy Alliance. "It's a really important next step for Oakland making this policy decision. Oakland residents want this."However, changing cannabis-related laws at the city level is purely symbolic, said White House Office of National Drug Control Policy spokesman Tom Riley. He said that as cities modify their local laws on drug enforcement, federal laws against marijuana still supersede them.Riley added that the potency of cannabis is stronger today than it was 20 years ago and that it is no longer a "soft" drug."(The ballot measure) perpetuates the myth that marijuana is not a dangerous drug," he said.Source: Contra Costa Times (CA)Author: Bruce Gerstman, Staff WriterPublished: Friday, July 23, 2004Copyright: 2004 Knight RidderContact: letters cctimes.comWebsite: http://www.contracostatimes.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Oakland Civil Liberties Alliancehttp://www.taxandregulate.com/ Casual-Pot-Smoking Measure is Certified http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19109.shtmlPot Initiative Backers Turn in 32,000 Signatures http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19043.shtmlOakland Pot Measure Seeks a Shift in Priorities http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19042.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #6 posted by FoM on July 24, 2004 at 11:31:18 PT
Dr Ganj 
Thank you! It's great to have hope isn't it? It's been a long time coming but it's getting closer. I can feel it deep down inside. This has been going on since 96 and it's time to complete what was started. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Dr Ganj on July 24, 2004 at 11:09:24 PT
FOM!
Thanks, FOM! Keep up the fine work, as very soon we're going to have legal marijuana in the U.S.!
George Bush out, marijuana bush in!
http://www.taxandregulate.com/
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by FoM on July 24, 2004 at 07:47:32 PT
Dr Ganj 
I believe you! I sure do! 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Jose Melendez on July 24, 2004 at 04:38:03 PT
where are the studies?
What I want to know is - where is the proof of harm?According to liars like Walters and Ashcroft and others gainfully employed to promote such rhetoric with the threat of arrest and incarceration, stronger pot will cause more accidents, more crime, death and destruction. Where is the proof? Where are the overdoses? Where is the evidence of correlation that can be proven as causation?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Dr Ganj on July 23, 2004 at 23:50:23 PT
November Vote
I grow some of the finest marijuana known to man, and when many of my friends smoke it, I can barely tell they are affected.
If anyone thinks just because today's marijuana is stronger than it was in the past, and that it should now be considered a "hard drug" is a total buffoon.
Hard drug to me, means if you do too much you'll die.
Smoke too much cocaine, you can die. Inject too much heroin, you can die. Smoke too much strong marijuana, and you'll probably fall asleep on your couch. Many people pay doctors a lot of money to do just that! 
It just boggles my mind when I read these articles, and I think about how totally ignorant, and misinformed these people are.It's just this easy folks- MARIJUANA IS GOOD. 
Marijuana is not a hard drug-just a hard plant to get legal.For anyone who really wants to read a magnificent article about this topic, please go to the link below! 
http://www.marijuananews.com/marijuana_prohibition_and_potenc.htm
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Virgil on July 23, 2004 at 08:32:09 PT
Vocabulary
Riley added that the potency of cannabis is stronger today than it was 20 years ago and that it is no longer a "soft" drug.The government position never claimed that cannabis was a "soft" drug. Now they are saying it is no longer a soft drug/plant. So anyway, there must be some dividing line in the government's mind that makes pot hard or soft and some would fall under the line and some over. Just because some plants are cared into higher THC concentrations does not mean all or most are. So what is the point it becomes a hard plant? Then should soft plants be legal? You cannot get honest questions answered by a government of treason that serves the corporate greed instead of the common good. The fact that we cannot get answers to basic questions from Walters and company on national television, should tell everyone that something is badly wrong.This more potent pot argument for ignoring the Constitution and supporting the most onerous laws ever made for something that is not even a crime by rule it does not inflict harm on someone else, is disgusting and quite old already. Where is that national debate Walters spoke of? It seems that only one side of the story is being presented most of the time- that is when silence cannot be maintained of course.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment