Using Technology to Deepen Democracy, Using Democracy to Ensure Technology Benefits Us All

Sunday, February 21, 2016

On the Competing California Cannabis Legalization Iniatives: AUMA Ain't MCLR But You Better Believe I'll Support It If It's On the November Ballot

High Times:
I’ve been interviewing opponents of the now $2.25 million-funded Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) in California... Generally, their opposition to AUMA is that it is not True Legalization™, in that it doesn’t legalize enough. There will still remain laws and regulations, and the penalties for noncompliance will include possible jail. Therefore, they argue, it’s not True Legalization... some will posit that it should be rejected in favor of the Marijuana Control, Legalization, & Revenue Act (MCLR) or the California Cannabis Hemp Initiative (CCHI)... But I wonder what will actually make the ballot—the AUMA with its $2.25 million war chest, backing of the two leading national drug reform organizations, endorsements by major political players and conformance with the Cole Memo and Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom's commission, or the MCLR, the CCHI... The facts are that the AUMA initiative has the money to make the ballot and the language that’s moderate enough to make 50 percent +1 California voters approve it. Opposing this initiative puts one in the place of aiding and abetting the cops, rehabs, drug testers and prison guards who want to be sure legalization fails. [Emphasis added --d] And why on earth would anybody oppose this AUMA, when the prohibition California has NOW is so much worse?
NOW: Getting caught with an ounce of weed gets you a ticket.
AUMA: An ounce of weed in your pocket is perfectly legal.
NOW: Getting caught growing even one cannabis plant at home gets you a felony.
AUMA: Up to six cannabis plants in your home are perfectly legal.
NOW: Getting caught with over an ounce of weed in your home gets you a misdemeanor.
AUMA: You can possess at home all of the results of the harvest from your six plants.
NOW: Getting caught with any amount of concentrate can get you a year in jail.
AUMA: Possessing up to eight grams of concentrate will be perfectly legal.
NOW: Giving someone even a joint gets you a misdemeanor.
AUMA: You can share up to an ounce with another adult.
NOW: You’ve got to buy your weed on the black market from a guy who can get a felony for selling it.
AUMA: You can go to a retail shop and buy marijuana...
NOW: Your city can ban you from cultivating medical marijuana, indoors or outdoors.
AUMA: Your city cannot ever ban your personal indoor six-plant garden.
NOW: If you live in public housing or have an anti-pot landlord, you can’t legally use your medicine anywhere, because public toking is illegal.
AUMA: You can toke with other adults in a licensed pot lounge.
NOW: Your parental rights can be infringed upon because of your medical marijuana use.
AUMA: Medical marijuana parental rights are specifically protected.
If there is any part of the AUMA that makes things worse for a marijuana consumer or a medical marijuana patient than they are now, I can’t find it. But it’s interesting to see the attempts my opponents try to use to scare people. One tells me that the AUMA will cause the price of weed to rise to $500 per ounce, even though legalization with more restrictions in Colorado and no home grow in Washington, both with higher taxes than the AUMA proposes, has led to precipitous declines in the retail price of marijuana... Some are bothered by penalties for passing weed to minors or growing and selling without a license. Not only are these things already illegal, how well do you think voters would take an argument that we ought to be allowed to pass the weed to schoolchildren? ... So here’s my challenge to my opponents: Take the time you’d spend thinking of a clever new insult or name for me and find me just one part of AUMA where my life as an adult cannabis consumer with no medical marijuana recommendation gets worse after it passes.
I agree MCLR is better than AUMA. I agree it looks like it's going nowhere. I agree that you have to be bonkers to reject AUMA for the status quo. I agree with the forceful statement I emphasized above. I feel like arguments taking this imperfect equals evillest of the evil form are multiplying like hydra heads to annoy me.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm curious. Do you do pot? Please be honest in your answer.
-Katie L.

Dale Carrico said...

I will do a hell of a lot more pot when it is legal than I have done when it is not. But I will confess that I have had truly treasured experiences, not just recreational pleasures but intellectual insights, while high on pot. I don't smoke it, though -- I prefer edibles. I will also admit that my experimentation (much of it youthful) with substances has not been confined to cannabis.

Anonymous said...

Interesting. I would think that since you are a vegen and most probably practice other healthy living lifestyles that the carcinogens and toxic substances in marijuana would be an aversion to you. Oh well, to each his own.
-Katie L.

Dale Carrico said...

I'm just a vegetarian. I only sustained veganism so long as a vegan boyfriend (still a friend) cracked the whip on a regular basis. I can't say my lifestyle is particularly healthy, my vegetarianism is mostly ethical (which is why, for me, also no leather). What with the Hillary support and this lacto-ovo thing I fear I am disappointing you all over the place! Glad you're still sticking around, come what may. Have a good one.

Anonymous said...

Bad "legalization" laws are a real problem. In CA, the AUMA is a disaster. And, people are mistaken in he claims it will "let you grow your own", when it will really permit local governments to flat out ban outdoor grows, and will permit "reasonable regulation" of your indoor grow (and most folks cannot grow indoors for many reasons). This thing is a huge conglomeration of litigation-ready employment for cops and lawyers. We can't let the crappy be the enemy of the decent law we know is out there. The trick seems to be convincing some moneybag like Parker to back something worthwhile, and to convince the "pro pot lobby" to demonstrate a modicum of selectivity with their endorsements. The incremental "is it ANY better than what we have now (somewhat subjective, I might add) is threadbare at best, and probably harmful.
We are not beggars. Demographics are shifting fast. We don't need to settle for a crap sandwich.
http://californiacann.org/comp...
http://www.mikedonaldsonlaw.co...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=......
http://reformca.org/.../dear-s...

Dale Carrico said...

That you would prefer any facet of the present racist war on drugs and prohibition over an imperfect legalization of recreational use seems to me a revoltingly selfish and privileged position to take. How glibly you declare "somewhat subjective" the premise that life would be better and fairer for people who would NOT have their lives ruined by costly unjust disruptive drug busts based in palpably false assumptions of social harm that would cease to exist! It is truly hard for me to restrain the rage with which I greet your airy purity cabaret! You need not "educate" me on the issue -- this is the not the ballot initiative I preferred, I am not unaware of its problems, I am not indifferent to the compromised institutional conditions under which it has been promoted... and I fully embrace the better as the better that it is, I fully recognize the nature of political reform, I fully embrace the need to continue the struggle to build on imperfect reform to eliminate problems and keep on working for progress. Compromise doesn't make you a beggar it makes you a real activist and progressive citizen. Nobody embraces "incrementalism" as a doctrine, one simply recognizes that anti-incrementalism in a world shared by an actual diversity of stakeholders is a recipe for stasis and reaction masquerading as righteousness. It's complete bullshit. From the standpoint of purity cabaret politics is all crap sandwiches all the time all the way down. If you can't deal with that and still want to make the world a better place I suggest you try art or charity -- you may honestly lack the strength, patience, clarity, and character for real world politics.