Marijuana Legalization 2016: Is It Better Than Prohibition?
The test should be, “Is it better than Prohibition.” Does the proposal stop the arrest of smokers and establish a legal market where consumers can obtain their marijuana?

Keith Stroup | January 18, 2016

As we look forward to what should be a fantastically successful year for marijuana legalization, it is important that those of us who support legalization join arms and move forward in a unified manner. All political progress requires some measure of compromise, and legalizing marijuana is no exception.

Each state that legalizes marijuana, at least during this early stage of legalization, will still need to revisit the topic within a couple of years to fix things not covered in the original proposal (e.g., employment and child custody issues). We will need to expand and perfect these early models. But we must not permit the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

Supposed “Legalizers” Sometimes Opponents in Early States

In the first group of states to legalized marijuana, we witnessed some of our own friends and colleagues opposing the initiative in their state, sometimes serving as the primary opponents to the proposal, when they had the opportunity to end prohibition and stop the arrest of smokers. Their justification was always the same: the specific legalization proposal was not good enough.

Sometime their opposition was based on the failure of the initiative to permit home cultivation; sometimes it was because they opposed the DUID provisions; and sometimes they opposed the limits on the amount of marijuana one could legally possess or cultivate.

NORML has always insisted that consumers have the right to grow their own marijuana; we have led the efforts to require a showing of actual impairment before someone is convicted of a DUID; and, as consumers, we would be delighted if we were allowed to possess or grow larger quantities of marijuana, without the risk of arrest. But those are all political goals that we will continue to push for; not excuses for opposing legalization proposals that are less than perfect.

Is It Better Than Prohibition?

The test should be, “Is it better than Prohibition.” Does the proposal stop the arrest of smokers and establish a legal market where consumers can obtain their marijuana?

While it is understandable that those who have invested their time and energy, and sometimes resources, to advance a specific legalization proposal would feel a vested interest in seeing that version be the one that advances to the ballot, what is most important is that one good legalization proposal qualify for the ballot, and that the legalization movement both in-state and nationwide come together to embrace and support that proposal.

Although there have been competing versions of legalization advanced in most of the states where legalization is expected to appear on the ballot this November, there are encouraging signs that a consensus is forming in most of these states supporting one of the competing proposals, increasing the likelihood of ultimate success in November. There is still too much in-fighting in some of these states between different factions, but the trend looks positive.

Maine

In Maine, there were two competing initiatives (The Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol and Legalize Maine), and the one with the best funding has now merged efforts with the one comprised primarily of local activists, even accepting their language for the initiative,. The result is an apparent unified effort assuring that only one legalization proposal will appear on the ballot this fall, one that has an excellent chance of being approved by the voters.

This clearly required compromise from both groups, who were willing to make some concessions in the belief that the goal of legalizing marijuana was more important than the relatively minor differences between the two proposals. All parties should be commended.

Massachusetts

In Massachusetts, where there were two competing versions of legalization being circulated as potential voter initiatives, the qualifying process seems to have largely resolved the matter. One proposal, The Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, continues to meet the steps required to qualify for the ballot, and is expected to officially qualify shortly; while the other proposal, Bay State Repeal, the one that had been endorsed by the NORML affiliate in Massachusetts, MassCann/NORML, has failed to qualify. While not everyone previously involved with Bay State Repeal have agreed to support the remaining proposal, most have, suggesting the opposition in November will primarily come from the prohibitionists; not from disgruntled supporters of Bay State Repeal.

That willingness to accept a partial victory, in order to end prohibition, is the crucial element for success. Our friends in MA deserve our thanks for doing the right thing.

California

In California, the ultimate prize in the marijuana sweepstakes, and the state most of us presumed would be the first to fully legalize marijuana, the sheer size of the state has in the past resulted in several competing legalization proposals being advanced by different interest groups, and prohibition has continued in place, albeit a version tempered by the “anyone qualifies” medical marijuana system. The same potential was in play over the last year in CA, with as many as 8 different versions of legalization being filed with the Secretary of State, and no assurance that anyone would be willing to compromise.

But in fact, calmer heads prevailed this year in CA, with crucial leadership provided by Democratic Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, and a consensus has now formed around a single proposal, the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act. Once the sponsors were willing to accept some revisions in the language, the other leading effort, Reform CA, which enjoyed the support of CA NORML, agreed to withdraw its initiative, and most of the principles of that effort have now endorsed the Newsom effort. And it now appears likely California voters will approve marijuana legalization in November of 2016.

Again, kudos to those who saw the big picture and were willing to accept some compromises in order to end prohibition.

Nevada

In Nevada, The Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol appears to have had a relatively unobstructed path to qualify for the ballot, without organized competition from other legalization supporters pushing their own version of legalization. That is a rare situation in the world of marijuana legalization today.

Arizona

Arizona may be the exception to the rule this year. While efforts were made to forge a general agreement on the terms of the legalization initiative, with early battles over whether to allow personal cultivation, there appears to exist a great deal of enmity between supporters of the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, and those supporting a competing proposal being circulated by Arizonans for Mindful Regulations, seeking fewer limitations.

The differences may not seem terribly important from a distance, but both sides are digging in, with little indication anyone is willing to compromise. There have been some steps taken to bridge the two camps by local activists, including efforts by Arizona NORML, but the two sides appear far apart.

The sometimes heated rhetoric and tactics between the competing factions has the potential to undermine a successful legalization effort in Arizona. Because the vote in Arizona appears to be close, it is most important that those who support marijuana legalization set aside their differences and agree to get legalization approved in the state. There will be time down the road, once the arrests have stopped, to come back and improve and expand these initial legalization provisions.

Tags: Adult Use of Marijuana Act, Arizona marijuana legalization, Arizonans for Mindful Regulations, AUMA, ballot iniatitives, Bay State Repeal, California marijuana legalization, Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol in Arizona, Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol in Maine, Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol in Massachusetts, Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol in Nevada, Control Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act, Election 2016, Legalize Maine, Maine marijuana legalization, marijuana legalization, Massachusetts marijuana legalization, Nevada marijuana legalization, NORML

RadarCB

Excellent article. We should note that many states do not allow all forms of alcohol to be produced in the home (especially liquor). And we know that history since alcohol prohibition ended has become more and more favorable to the boutique producer of alcohol, and personal producer of beer and wine, the initial laws were setup to benefit business and middle men. If we truly believe in the benefits of cannabis, and especially legal cannabis, then we should believe that the truth will set it free. Unfortunately the biggest fight now with legalization is corporate interests such as Big Pharma and Big Alcohol, who are now caught on the wrong side of history. So we shouldn’t continue to aid them. They could have fought for legalization on their terms with research that they funded, but instead they lied with pseudo-science. What’s happening is a continuance of the perpetual American spirit, which can not be put down by pseudo-science and crony politics. Let us look up to Jefferson who did not demonize commerce (read corporations), but helped defeat the corrupt government that passed the Sedition Acts and buddied up to the commerce that did it’s bidding.
Oliver Steinberg

That old claptrap about “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” is a warning sign that the so-called “good” is not what it’s cracked up to be.
NORML, of which I’m a member, led the reform movement’s short-sighted strategy of so-called decriminalization in the 1970’s. and consumers went into the closet, leaving growers and dealers still in jeopardy, which inevitably was an invitation to gangs and cartels to dominate the illicit commerce.
There was plenty of momentum for legalization in the 1970’s. There was far more popular consciousness of cannabis as a political issue, and awareness of the importance of grassroots political participation—rather than leaving politics up to the rich and well-connected, as so many are willing to do today.
But NORML’s leadership deflected the momentum. The rationale was the same as now. I thought then and believe now that “decrim” was a political miscalculation, one that was rooted in failure to understand the political process of true reforms, and failure to comprehend the implications of the racist origins and profound totalitarian purposes of drug prohibition.
In calling decrim a mistake, I intend no aspersions. Anyone can make mistakes—I’ve made more than my share. The thing is, what can we learn when a mistake is recognized?
It was said then, “These laws are not what we really want but they are all we can get and if we settle for this half-a-loaf, then full legalization is just around the corner, just a matter of a few years at most.”
Then the Reagan administration whipped up the “war on drugs” witch hunt, and it took sixteen years to begin to reverse that terror.
It wasn’t NORML, nor the counterpart of today’s johnny-come-lately millionaire speculators who reversed it; it wasn’t political trimmers and opportunists.
It was the despised homosexual victims of the fearful plague of AIDS, led originally by the incorrigible Dennis Peron, who put medical marijuana on the ballot, first in San Francisco and then in California in 1996, and let the voice of the people make the decision.

That first successful statewide ballot measure set the template for reform–give citizens the chance to vote for legalization, whether medical or personal-use; and the results showed that even when it lost, cannabis reform was always much more popular with the voters than with politicians and the power structure. The 1986 Oregon initiative got nearly 40% even during the most vicious days of drug hysteria.
If you seek reform, pay heed to the words of an incorruptible reformer, “Fighting Bob” La Follette: “It is usually better to be beaten and come right back at the next session and make a fight for a thoroughgoing law than to have written on the books a weak and indefinite statute. . . I believe in going forward a step at a time, but it must be a full step.”
The problem with “half a loaf” in legislation is that it can dull the hunger pangs without supplying the legislative nutrition needed to satisfy the community’s needs. Citizens think a problem’s been resolved and lose interest in it, or are distracted by the clamor about other issues. And so with merely a modest adjustment, the machinery of oppression grinds on.

The enemies of a reform know that they can often discredit it by enacting something under its name which is deliberately weakened or distorted so it will fizzle and fail when put into practice.
We saw that happen in Minnesota where the police lobbyists dictated the final version of the so-called medical cannabis law–a travesty which exploits the few patients who “qualify” and further criminalizes the 98% who are excluded.
So although I understand the rationale for Mr. Stroup’s opinions, I can’t agree. We are right to oppose those so-called legalization schemes which leave the police state in place. They don’t get to the root of the problem. Fortunately, the majority of voters showed more sense in Ohio than the persons and organizations who endorsed and promoted that fatally-flawed 2015 referendum.
Differences of opinion and approaches to the task of reform should be resolved with open debate, not attempts to impose conformity and squelch diversity. When we have the wind of public favor in our sails, there’s no political need to retreat when we encounter the blustering of the prohibitionists.
Let’s decide which FULL STEPS are essential to the people’s interests. If after a fair debate among ourselves we don’t have consensus, then let the voters choose.

As I stated at the 2013 DPA convention in Denver, the sine qua non of reform has two basic parts:

We must establish the right of home cultivation for personal use; and we must demand complete pardons and full amnesty for all present and past victims of marijuana prohibition laws, with total expungement of criminal records and no post-conviction civil penalties or other discriminatory treatment.
These are the fundamentals for which we should be fighting—the starting points. These are the essential FULL STEPS.

All of the issues of commerce and taxation and other regulations should be tailored around, and be politically subordinate to, these two basic human rights demands.
I have other goals of course–restitution for confiscated property; curtailing employment drug testing; abolishing the DEA; repealing the rest of drug prohibition; but much more education is needed before one can dream of those reforms.
For here and now in 2016, I reiterate: Marijuana is not the problem, prohibition is. The voice of the people calls for legalization, therefore let’s fight for it in a form which will serve the real needs of the people and the sacred nature of the herb.
The vegetable kingdom is ancient, inscrutable, and enigmatic.

If we capitulate to the forces which seek to utterly commercialize and economjcally cartelize the cannabis plant, in twenty-five years it may well become as toxic as tobacco.

2016 would be an excellent time to plant the seeds of a happy and free future society.
Let’s weed out the profiteers and political schemers from the legalization equation, and do so for the sake of our communities, our families, our planet, and our liberties.
Wasn’t it Bob Marley who taught us:

“Don’t gain the world and lose your soul; Wisdom is better than silver or gold.”
- Bob Cratchet
  
  Amazing post. Thanks 🙂
  - Chris Conrad
    
    Correction: It was George Soros who got medical marijuana on the California ballot in 1996, Peron blew it. Also, AUMA is a giant step forward and we should all be voting Yes.
    - Bob Cratchet
      
      No it isn’t. If one slogs through all 60+ pages, the problems leap right out at you if you’ve had even the slightest experience with intransigent local government, or the cops. There’s too many ways for it to be manipulated to our detriment, and it does very little to protect anyone (particularly the 215 crowd). What it does do could have been put on 1/10th the pages.
DrMesmer

All that and yet the main principle that the People don’t want overly-restrictive laws concerning Cannabis pushed on them by billionaires and “stake-holders” is the reason these fake “legalization” bills keep failing and floundering is missed completely.
The People are speaking in California and Arizona today with progressive and fair bills that respect and honor the Herbalists who have helped “win” the War On Cannabis that is over 100 years old in California.
We’re not holding our breathes over getting a formal apology…yet we are NOT willing to live as second class citizens for another 100 years either. Cannabis is good, we’re good people who have kept it alive through this historical horror…now give us a chance to show culture how it’s done with sustainable Cannabis Hemp.

You can fool some of the People some of the time…but you can’t fool Herbalists about Weed! #CCHI2016 #op420 #NeverGiveUp #NeverGiveIn
- Chris Conrad
  
  All good reasons to vote Yes on AUMA, the real legalization bill that really will be on the November 2016 ballot.
Bob Cratchet

The AUMA is a disaster. And, Keith is mistaken in that 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/compare-initiatives/

http://www.mikedonaldsonlaw.com/blog/2015/12/12/adult-use-marijuana-act

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s…

http://reformca.org/…/dear-sean-parker%E2%80%A6-go…/
- Chris Conrad
  
  Bob, your claims are wrong and your links are pointed to garbage info. The first one is about initiatives that did not make the ballot and leaves off key points like the fact that AUMA “legalizes marijuana” and “legalizes home grows” from the list, very biased. The second is simply out of date information. The third is a bad link. The fourth is a squatted site set up by the well known troll Mickey Martin to make people think it is another group, and woefully inaccurate in his allegations. You ought to delete this post, it makes you look bad.
  - Bob Cratchet
    
    That’s a pretty sharp comment, coming from someone who is not an attorney. Perhaps you’d care to expound on exactly how Mr. Donaldson (who has no involvement with any group at all) is incorrect?
    
    And no, the AUMA does NOT “legalize home grows”, because it permits local bans (which will vary from each county and city!) of ALL outdoor growing, and permits “reasonable regulation” of indoor grows – which is attorney Donaldson’s issue on analysis.
    
    I think that the comparison of initiatives is a fair discussion point – as well as the question as to WHY Sean Parker picked the biggest stinker of them all to back. Hard to have that discussion without the facts sitting before you, eh? But, as a wise man once said; “If you cant grow it yourself, it isn’t legal” – and I kind of doubt he meant “but that’s cool if its only indoors under expensive lights and with ‘reasonable regulations’ administered by the local cops”.
    
    I appreciate your pointing out the broken link – my apologies…then again, it isn’t my website.
    
    As to Mr. Martin being a “troll”, that may be, but on his own site, where he signs his real name, etc, I think he’s entitled to state his opinion, and I see that plenty of people besides me liked his take on the whole “Sean Parker, the Second Coming” thing, and i felt he raised some good points (even if in a way that was a bit spicy). I don’t know the man, and make no claims otherwise.
    
    I do hold an extremely negative opinion of Mr. Parker after looking at his history – particularly his wedding, and stealing from recording artists. I certainly do not trust him concerning the AUMA.
    
    But, this is the second post in the same thread where you just state in conclusory fashion that others are wrong, and offer no substantive argument. I think that, along with the fact that your wife is a paid performer in the road show for the AUMA, makes YOU “look bad”.
    
    Try and do better next time. I know you can.
Chris Conrad

I’m glad that the national leadership of NORML has the integrity to endorse legalization. The California Adult Use of Marijuana Act will be the best legalization initiative in the country when it passes, and yet we still have obstructionists who post lies about it to undermine support. Now that we know that AUMA will be the only initiative on the CA November ballot, the alternative is not to vote for something “better” (which means something different to each of us); you will either vote for AUMA or for the Drug War. I am a very solid YES vote on AUMA.
- Bob Cratchet
  
  Are you also glad that they are censoring anyone who posts anything critical of their take on the AUMA and other efforts they support, but the rank and file do not (think “Ohio”)? I have seen a large number of complaints about that, and was not allowed to post on their pages myself.
  
  I think NORML would do well to encourage people to have frank discussions on these topics, and to at least alleviate concerns. Acting like pricks gets nobody anywhere.
  
  But you are insane if you think the AUMA is better than OR’s new law (which allows you to carry 8oz, and grow 4 plants anywhere), for instance. The problem there is that they do not have the protections in their constitution that CA does regarding voter initiatives, although I see the AUMA left that door open also.

Marijuana Legalization 2016: Is It Better Than Prohibition?
The test should be, “Is it better than Prohibition.” Does the proposal stop the arrest of smokers and establish a legal market where consumers can obtain their marijuana?

DEA Removes Marijuana Misinformation from Website After Months of Public, Legal Pressure

The Challenge of Marijuana Legalization in the Trump Era

So We Have Attorney General Sessions. Whats Next For Marijuana?

New York City Marijuana Possession Arrests Spike in 2016

Marijuana Use Rates Have Not Changed in Colorado Post-Legalization

Get Active

Get Vocal

Get Stuff

Get Lifted

Get Heady

Vaporizers

Grow Your Own

More

Marijuana Legalization 2016: Is It Better Than Prohibition? The test should be, “Is it better than Prohibition.” Does the proposal stop the arrest of smokers and establish a legal market where consumers can obtain their marijuana?

DEA Removes Marijuana Misinformation from Website After Months of Public, Legal Pressure

The Challenge of Marijuana Legalization in the Trump Era

So We Have Attorney General Sessions. Whats Next For Marijuana?

New York City Marijuana Possession Arrests Spike in 2016

Marijuana Use Rates Have Not Changed in Colorado Post-Legalization

Get Active

Get Vocal

Get Stuff

Get Lifted

Get Heady

Vaporizers

Grow Your Own

More

Marijuana Legalization 2016: Is It Better Than Prohibition?
The test should be, “Is it better than Prohibition.” Does the proposal stop the arrest of smokers and establish a legal market where consumers can obtain their marijuana?