NEWS: ACLU Letter to Attorney General Argues There Is No Basis for Challenging California's Proposition 19

WASHINGTON - October 25 - The American Civil Liberties Union and its three California affiliates today sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Gil Kerlikowske, Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), arguing that there would be no legal basis for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to sue to overturn Proposition 19 should it be approved next month by California voters, and urging the Justice Department to not change its current law enforcement focus on major criminal activity in favor of new enforcement activities against California marijuana users.

The letter asks Holder and Kerlikowske to stop threatening costly litigation and the deployment of federal drug police to arrest individuals who might use marijuana if the state enacts the proposition, which would allow adults 21 and older to possess and grow small amounts of marijuana for their personal use and allow cities and counties to regulate and tax commercial sales. The letter calls such rhetoric "unnecessarily alarmist" and says it does little to foster a balanced discussion of a legitimate policy issue.

"Proposition 19 would remove state criminal penalties for certain adult marijuana use," says the ACLU's letter. "The new law would not require anyone to do anything in violation of federal law. There would be no positive conflict."

News reports have indicated that federal officials have not ruled out following a recommendation by nine former Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) chiefs to sue to overturn Proposition 19 under a wrongly-held belief that it would violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In a letter to the nine former DEA chiefs made public earlier this month, Holder said he will "vigorously enforce" federal laws against marijuana in California, even if Proposition 19 is approved.

The ACLU's letter argues that states do not have to march in lockstep with the federal government's prohibition of marijuana possession and that California can decide for itself whether it wishes to remove state criminal law penalties for adult marijuana use. An explicit clause of the Controlled Substances Act, passed by Congress in 1970, holds that preemption of state drug laws is limited to a narrow set of circumstances where there is a "positive conflict" between state and federal law "so that the two cannot consistently stand together."

The ACLU's letter also highlights the fact that African Americans and Latinos are disproportionately arrested for low-level marijuana possession in California and across the nation even though their usage rates are the same as or lower than those of whites.

"The ACLU took heart from Director Kerlikowske's acknowledgement that the 'war on drugs' has failed," states the ACLU's letter. "But instead of scaling back the rhetoric associated with that ineffective and out-of-date campaign, it appears the administration would resist California's modest attempt to begin dismantling one of the defining injustices of our failed drug policies: that the war on drugs has become a war on minorities."

A new report released last week shows that from 2006 to 2008, police in 25 of California's major cities arrested blacks at four to 12 times the rate of whites.

"The historical and racially disparate enforcement of marijuana laws is a primary reason why [the ACLU of Northern California, the ACLU of Southern California and the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties] have endorsed Proposition 19," the ACLU's letter reads.

The ACLU's letter to Holder also questions why the federal government's response to the enactment of Proposition 19 should be any different than its approach to the existence in California and 13 other states of laws allowing the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

"We commend DOJ's instruction last year to U.S. attorneys that prosecuting medical marijuana patients who comply with state laws should not be a federal law enforcement priority," the ACLU's letter reads. "The very same standards should apply if Proposition 19 is enacted. Regardless of the federal government's disagreement with California's choice to amend state criminal law, it makes no more sense for the federal government to waste scarce resources policing low-level, non-violent marijuana offenses after Proposition 19 passes, than before."

Californians have every right to enact Proposition 19, the ACLU's letter asserts, in an effort to curtail the wasting of criminal justice resources on the policing of low-level adult marijuana offenses and to help end the selective enforcement of drug laws.

"This is about priorities," the ACLU's letter reads. "Given the state of the economy, record unemployment and foreclosure rates, and thousands of troops deployed abroad, should voters enact Proposition 19, we hope the federal government will re-evaluate its priorities and use scarce federal enforcement resources wisely."

Source: CommonDreams.org

MERCHANT CREDIT CARD PROCESSING
New or Existing Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
Best Rates Available

Contact Tony Mosqueda
anthonymosqueda@sbcglobal.net
818.397.1078 (24 hours a day)

NEWS: Men's Wearhouse Founder George Zimmer for Legal Pot in California

You're gonna like the way California looks with marijuana as a legal substance. George Zimmer guarantees it.

The Yes on 19 campaign to legalize marijuana in the Golden State, via the Proposition 19 ballot measure that California voters will consider next week, is airing its first TV ad of the election cycle, and they're doing it, in part, with money from George Zimmer of Men's Wearhouse.

In the ad, retired San Jose Police Chief Joseph McNamara warns that the war on marijuana has failed and that Prop. 19 would help law enforcers focus on violent crime. The campaign has committed several hundred thousand dollars to air it and hopes to raise more to expand the purchase of air time. It will air first in the Los Angeles market.

At the end of the ad, Zimmer's name appears in the disclaimer. "Yes on 19, Tax Cannabis 2010. Sponsoered by S.K. Seymour LLC, a medical cannabis provider, DBA Oaksterdam University, a cannabis educator with support from George Zimmer."

Zimmer is one of a few big-time donors known as sympathetic to marijuana legalization. Others are George Soros and Peter Lewis, the chairman of Progressive Insurance. The Prop. 19 campaign has been waiting for much of the election cycle to see whether such big donors would support them.

Zimmer donated $50,000 to the campaign last week, according to Yes on 19's financial disclosures with the California Secretary of State's office. Lewis donated $69,500 the week before. Another donor, Peter Thiel of Clarium Capital, donated $70,000 last week.

There is "lots of interest" in supporting the campaign among big donors, according to a spokesman.

Internal polling currently finds Prop. 19 passing, though respondents polled by live interviewers appear to be skeptical. A Reuters/Ipsos poll showed Prop. 19 failing 53 - 43 percent in early October.

See the new ad below:



Source: The Atlantic

NEWS: California's next attorney general can't punt on marijuana

Steve Cooley and Kamala Harris appear reluctant to fully enforce Proposition 19 if it passes. No matter what happens on election day, drug policy is an issue California's next top law enforcement official must be ready to deal with.

Regardless of which candidate wins the race for California attorney general, voters expect that San Francisco Dist. Atty. Kamala Harris or Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley will respect the outcome of the election gracefully.

But they appear reluctant to extend that respect to Proposition 19, which would legalize the private, adult use of limited amounts of marijuana statewide and allow local governments to regulate commercial production and retail distribution. At their debate last week at UC Davis, neither Harris nor Cooley would state whether they would, as attorney general, enforce and defend Proposition 19.

Democrat Harris was ambiguous regarding what her actions as attorney general might be: "I believe that if it were to pass, it would be incumbent on the attorney general to convene her top lawyers and the experts on constitutional law to do a full analysis of the constitutionality of that measure ... and what action, if any, should follow."

Get the best in Southern California opinion journalism delivered to your inbox with our Opinion L.A. newsletter. Sign up »

Republican Cooley was more blunt: "I really am strongly opposed to Proposition 19 for many reasons. I would be inclined to advise that it is unconstitutional and preempted by federal law."

Given that the attorney general is sworn to uphold all of the laws of the state, not just the ones he or she supports, the candidates' responses were disconcerting. In both cases it appears that their personal biases against marijuana legalization could compromise their ability to objectively carry out their duties as attorney general.

Further, both candidates' statements exhibit extreme arrogance. On the one hand, both Harris and Cooley believe that voters should be empowered to choose the state's top law enforcement officer; but when it comes to amending the state's marijuana laws, Harris isn't sure that voters have the final word, and Cooley disregards them outright. Both candidates ought to know better; after all, voters pay for enforcing these criminal policies with their tax dollars.

Of course, such disregard for voter sentiment is nothing new. Former state Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren vehemently opposed Proposition 215, the 1996 initiative that legalized the physician-authorized use of marijuana, and he threatened to use the power of his office to oppose it. Fourteen years after Lungren's bluster, it is apparent that the law is here to stay irrespective of the verbal threats uttered by the state's former attorney general. One can expect history to repeat itself if voters endorse Proposition 19 on Nov. 2.

But even if the measure fails, there is a strong likelihood that California's next attorney general is going to have to face this issue head on. National surveys on marijuana laws show steadily increasing public support for legalization — from less than 20% in the late 1980s to just under half today. Support is even stronger on the West Coast, with nearly 60% of voters in this part of the country responding in a 2009 Zogby International poll that marijuana should be "taxed and legally regulated like alcohol." In other words, even if voters reject legalization this time around, they are more likely to support a similar measure in a future election.

Which ultimately brings up the question: If a government's legitimate use of state power is based on the consent of the governed, then at what point does marijuana prohibition — in particular the federal enforcement of prohibition — become illegitimate public policy? Ready or not, California's next attorney general needs to be able to answer that question objectively and definitively.

Source: Los Angeles Times

Fact: If California Legalizes Marijuana, the Feds Can't Overturn It

Arguably the most plainly false argument to emerge in the debate over Prop 19 is that the new law could be "challenged in court" by the federal government if it passes. Obviously, opponents of marijuana legalization would like its supporters to believe their vote is pointless, but the truth is that Prop 19 would be just as legally binding as the medical marijuana law that came before it.

The latest example of this false claim comes from Bill Whitaker at CBS News:

Even if it passes, pot would still be illegal under federal drug laws, so it's likely Prop 19 will be challenged in court. That means the whole controversial issue could just go up in smoke.

This just isn't true. There is literally nothing the feds can do to change California law. If state laws had to be the same as federal laws, then the term "state law" wouldn't even be familiar to us. Each state has its own unique set of laws that are enforced by police and courts in that state. Federal laws are completely different and they only apply when you're dealing with federal police and federal courts.

Of course, it's also true that federal law can be enforced anywhere in the country, and that seems to be what's confusing people here. If Prop 19 passes, the closest the federal government can come to interfering with it is to make their own arrests and carry out prosecutions in federal court. This works fine for making an example out of someone they don't like, but it hardly lessens the impact of a major change in state law. Marijuana would remain legal in the eyes of California police, and that's what counts. Just look at the medical marijuana situation, where the feds made some busts, but still failed to prevent a massive industry from forming, because the feds can't realistically take over the role of local law enforcement.

It's critically important that voters (as well as journalists) understand how this works so that everyone knows the facts before the vote on November 2nd. If Prop 19 passes, the issue cannot and will not "just go up in smoke," no matter how badly the drug warriors in Washington, D.C. wish that such a possibility existed. Please consider contacting CBS to suggest a correction to their coverage.

Source: StopTheDrugWar.org

MERCHANT CREDIT CARD PROCESSING
New or Existing Medical Marijuana Dispensaries.
Best Rates Available.

Contact Tony Mosqueda
anthonymosqueda@sbcglobal.net
818.397.1078 (24 hours a day)

NEWS: Measure B would tax marijuana if voters approve Proposition 19

LONG BEACH — If California voters approve Proposition 19 on Nov. 2 to legalize recreational marijuana, Long Beach officials want to be ready to capitalize on it.

Long Beach's Measure B would create a new category of "marijuana business" and would tax the drug.

The measure would impose a tax of $150 per $1,000 of gross receipts for marijuana sales, and a tax of $25 per square foot on all improvements to a site used by a marijuana business to cultivate or grow marijuana.

Marijuana businesses that qualify as nonprofits under state law would pay $10 per square foot of improvements instead of paying a tax based on gross receipts.

The tax would be adjusted each year for inflation.

However, the tax wouldn't affect any marijuana facility that has a valid medical marijuana permit.

Medical marijuana is already legal in California, and Long Beach has created new regulations for medical marijuana collectives. City officials are in the process of granting permits to collectives that meet all of the qualifications, although some collectives have filed lawsuits challenging Long Beach's law.

Long Beach Director of Finance Lori Ann Farrell says that Measure C has the potential to produce millions of dollars in revenue for Long Beach, which has faced years of budget deficits and has more to come.

The revenue from the marijuana tax could be used to pay for police, firefighters, libraries, parks and other services, Farrell says.

The measure has no official opposition, though it is dependent on Proposition 19 passing. That state measure has plenty of advocates and opponents.

See the full text of the measure at the Long Beach City Clerk's website.

Source: Contra Costa Times

OP-ED: Marijuana legalization offers far more than meets the eye

Legally getting high is not the only reason to support marijuana legalization.

True, this may be the sole incentive for some voters to support Proposition 19, which will be featured on November's ballot. (See theusdvista.com for news coverage of this law).If enacted, the bill will legalize the use and cultivation of cannabis (more commonly known as marijuana) in California. However, if I were a California resident, I would cast my vote for Proposition 19 based on reasons beyond recreation.

Let's be honest with each other. Marijuana is a part of California culture. Even the text of Prop 19 acknowledges that "cannabis consumption is simply a fact of life for a large percentage of Americans." According to surveys cited by Prop 19, more than 15 million Americans have used cannabis in the past month. Some may be concerned that this high number may increase if marijuana is legalized. However, according to a recent study by the National Research Council, in the 11 states where marijuana is decriminalized, one step below full legalization, usage has not increased. In short, the people that want to use marijuana probably already do.

Now, some may throw up their arms and say, "There is a war against drugs in this country! Since marijuana is a harmful drug, it should be illegal!"

If this were the argument that drove our country's drug policy, then alcohol should still be illegal, as it was during the Prohibition. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, there were 23,199 alcohol-induced deaths in 2007. There has never been a marijuana-induced death (both of these figures leave out drug/alcohol related accidents).

Alcoholism is a major problem in this country, and we shouldn't forget about it just because it has been a legalized drug for the past century. Similarly, there will be people who abuse marijuana under this law, but the majority will not. Under Prop 19, marijuana use will be limited to those over 21 and it will be a punishable crime for them to smoke in front of minors or in public.

Also, it is no secret that California is in major trouble financially. The state's budget deficit is more than $24 billion. Taxing marijuana could generate $1.4 billion in tax revenue, according to the Los Angeles Times, more than many of the other proposed budget cuts, including closing state parks and removing medical insurance coverage for impoverished children. This is money our state needs in order to continue providing such wonderful programs to its residents.

The state would also save a tremendous amount of money by ignoring marijuana-related crimes. According to the Los Angeles Times, there were 61,000 arrests in California due to marijuana last year. This would also allow law enforcements to tackle some of our state's more troubling issues, like illegal immigration and gangs. The government would also be taking the power over marijuana away from the gangs, which would be a massive hit against their influence.

According to the text of Prop 19, illegal marijuana transactions generate $15 billion each year. The government will have the opportunity to stop this trend and create a safe access environment.

Prop 19 would also provide increased legal protection for medical marijuana patients adhering to Prop 215 as it would not undercut or override the patients' rights, as some have said. In fact, Prop 19 directly references Prop 215 in multiple areas of the bill and notes that it would not undercut those provisions.

Legalizing marijuana would also allow it to be studied for scientific research, which could amount to medical breakthroughs in the near future. New jobs and (legal) entrepreneurial opportunities may be on the horizon too, depending on how the new regulation system is implemented.

Marijuana is not a big scary monster living under California's bed. It is a substance that has been proven to be less toxic than alcohol, medically beneficial and has the potential to help save governmental programs that have benefited citizens here for years. Even if you don't think you'll choose to use cannabis once it is legal, consider the positive implications for our state. There are many more than may meet the eye.

Source: The Vista

NEWS: California Pot Initiative Opposed By Beer Industry

The California Beer & Beverage Distributors is spending money in the state to oppose a marijuana legalization proposition on the ballot in November, according to records filed with the California Secretary of State. The beer sellers are the first competitors of marijuana to officially enter the debate; backers of the initiative are closely watching liquor and wine dealers and the pharmaceutical industry to see if they enter the debate in the remaining weeks.

The opposition to pot among beer makers, however, is not unanimous among the CBBD's membership. Sierra Nevada and Stone Brewing Co., microbrews that began in California but have become popular national brands, both lashed out at the CBBD after news of the distributor's donation was reported on Celebstoner.com, a popular website focusing on marijuana-related news, and Alternet.com.

"Stone is not a part of this campaign in any way. This issue has caught us off guard," said a statement from the San Diego-based microbrewery, calling itself "merely a non-voting Allied Member of the CA Beer & Beverage Distributors (CBBD).As such, Stone Brewing does not/cannot participate in the political action decisions of the CBBD."

A statement from Sierra Nevada said that the company has "requested the CBBD to remove our name from their list of members, and also to disassociate the brewery from this and any future political actions."

The last thing a California microbrew needs is to be associated with the effort against legalizing marijuana. "We regret any implied association with this action by the CBBD, and maintain our independence and neutrality regarding matters of politics," the Sierra statement said. "The CBBD does not represent Sierra Nevada's political interests in any way, and does not represent the brewery's stance on the issue."

The CBBD did not return calls for comment; it donated $10,000 to Public Safety First, a committee organized to oppose the proposition, on Sept. 7, 2010, though the contribution was only recently made public. The alcohol industry has long seen illicit drugs as a threat to sales, as consumers may substitute pot for booze. A night spent on the couch smoking marijuana and watching television is a night not spent at the bar.

Public Safety First is largely funded by a different industry whose interests are threatened by the legalization of marijuana: law enforcement. Police forces are entitled to keep property seized as part of drug raids and the revenue stream that comes from waging the drug war has become a significant source of support for local law enforcement. Federal and state funding of the drug war is also a significant supplement to local forces' budgets.

The California Narcotics Officers' Association has donated $20,500; the California Police Chiefs Association has contributed $30,000. The Placer County Deputy Sheriff's Association, the California Peace Officers Association, the California District Attorney Association and the Peace Officers Association of Los Angeles County have all contributed, as well. Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca has been an outspoken opponent. Earlier this months, current and former heads of the Drug Enforcement Administration held a press conference in Washington to oppose the proposition and urge the White House to sue to stop it if it passes.

The pro-legalization forces, however, have caught at least one break: The prison guards are staying neutral. One of the most potent political forces in California is the California Correctional Peace Officers Association. The prison guards spent more than a million dollars in 2008 to defeat a proposition that would have sent some nonviolent drug offenders into treatment rather than to prison -- a law that would have cut down on overcrowding and overtime.

So far, the prison guards' bosses have gotten involved -- the California Correctional Supervisors Organization has given $7,500 -- but the guards themselves are on the sidelines.

Advocates for Proposition 19, meanwhile, are running the campaign on a shoestring budget. Wealthy individuals who generally bankroll the legalization movement such as Peter Lewis, the head of Progressive auto insurance, are sitting out.

Organized labor, however, is stepping into the breach. The Service Employees International Union, a major presence in California, has endorsed the proposition. The Teamsters in September made its first successful foray into organizing pot growers. The United Food and Commercial Workers is backing the initiative and organizing cannabis club employees in the Bay Area. The teachers union, citing the revenue that could be raised for the state, is also backing the initiative.

On Saturday, Roger Salazar, a spokesman for Public Safety First, was confronted on CNN over his group's alliance with the beer distributors. He blamed it on the forklift operators. "Let's keep in mind the beer and beverage distributors are the folks who deliver beer and beverage products. The truck driver, the forklift drivers, you know, the warehouse workers. You know, these are folks who have traffic safety and employee safety issues, first and foremost," Salazar said, though the beer distributors are the only distributor of any product to oppose the proposition.

Mason Tvert, head of the organization SAFER, which makes the case that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, told Salazar that driving or operating a fork lift while high would still be illegal if the proposition becomes law -- just as alcohol is legal but it's against the law to drive while drunk.

"With all due respect to this gentleman, he is a political consultant being paid by the booze industry to protect their turf," said Tvert. "We also need to consider the fact that this gentleman mentions all the jobs that are created by the alcohol industry. These are all jobs that can be created by the marijuana industry as well. And at the same time, we're giving Californians the ability to use a substance like marijuana that doesn't contribute to domestic violence and sexual assault and overdose... and all the other problems that alcohol contributes to."

Stephen Gutwillig, the state director for the Drug Policy Alliance in California, noted the irony of cops working together with the beer lobby. "Who knows better than law enforcement the violence, death and disease booze inflicts on our society? The Feds clock it at $200 billion a year, including alcohol's direct involvement in up to 30 percent of violent crime every year. Marijuana consumption has none of those associations. The cop-run No on 19 campaign getting in bed with the alcohol lobby would be amusing if the implications weren't so nauseating," he said.

UPDATE: Rhonda Stevenson, a spokesman for the CBBD, said that the lobby does not oppose legalizing marijuana in principle, but objects to the specific proposition. She added that Sierra Nevada and Stone do not contribute to their Political Action Committee, so none of their money has been invested in opposition to the initiative.

"First and foremost, we are not opposed to the legalization of marijuana. We have no position on that...That's for the voters to decide. Second of all, we do not think of [marijuana] as a competitive product in the marketplace," she said. "That's not the issue. Our issue is it's a poorly written initiative. When prohibition was repealed, there was already a regulatory system in place to deal with the distribution or sale of alcohol. Under this initiative, there is not going to be anything in place state run. It's going to be 500-some different counties and cities" involved in regulating the sale and distribution of marijuana.

Indeed, when California legalized medical marijuana, regulation moved in fits and starts in different parts of the state. Oakland, where medical pot was more pervasive, moved to regulate dispensaries long before Los Angeles did, for instance. Different communities had different responses to legalization. If marijuana is legalized for recreational uses, as well, it's reasonable to assume that there will be accompanying regulatory failures and successes in various parts of the state. Localities, however, will be able to rely to some degree on the experience over the past 14 years with medical marijuana.

Ryan Grim is the author of This Is Your Country On Drugs: The Secret History of Getting High in America

Source: The Huffington Post

Dennis Peron ends his campaign against Prop. 19

Steve Kubby reports that Dennis Peron has decided to end his campaign against Proposition 19. Does that means he is on board? Change of heart? Will be teaching at Oaksterdam again? All or any of these would be great news. It is time to join together and push 19 over the edge to victory in November.

A message from Steve Kubby:

Friends,

I’ve asked Dennis Peron to cease his criticism of Prop. 19 and he has agreed. Dennis gave me permission to make a public announcement, but I have also asked him to draft his own announcement as well.

This should not minimize the validity and importance of the issues raised by Dennis, but should be viewed as a recognition by Dennis that it is time to build unity within our cannabis community. I respect Dennis even more than ever, for taking the high road, as we go into the final three months of this campaign.

Finally, I would like to again acknowledge Dennis Peron for his extraordinary leadership and vision. Indeed, I do not believemedical marijuana would be legal in any state, if it were not for his leadership and courage.

Those who might want to personally thank Dennis can reach him at .

Let freedom grow,

Steve Kubby

We await an official response from Dennis and will update the story as we get it…

UPDATE: KC Kimber reports he just got off the phone with Dennis who said he was not ending his crusade. We still await confirmation from Peron…

UPDATE cont: What exactly was said by Dennis to KC Kimber: ”Dennis said to me, and I suggest you call and verify for yourself. He doesn’t want 19 to lose by too much so he is done actively campaigning against it. Campaigning being the keyword.” via Facebook.

CW has not been able to reach Peron for a direct statement…

Source: Cannabis Warrior

NEWS: Jobs, Taxes and Crime: Keys to California's Marijuana Vote

Inside City Hall in Oakland, Calif., Jim Wilcox explained his plan for a commercial marijuana farm. "My idea was a Silicon Valley of cannabis," he told the city council recently. "An office park for pot." The council has approved the creation, licensing and taxing of four such medical marijuana farms inside Oakland city limits.

Four hundred miles to the south in Los Angeles, it's a completely different story. After four years running the Pure Life Alternative Wellness Center, Yami Bolanos fears her medical marijuana dispensary will be shut down. "The patients are the ones that are getting screwed royally by the city council."

Los Angeles is cracking down hard on the number of "collectives", which have grown like weeds in the last few years. By some estimates, there were 700 medical marijuana dispensaries a few months ago, more pot outlets than Starbucks in LA. A new law will reduce that number to 182. "The sale of marijuana has never been approved by voters," says Los Angeles Assistant Attorney Asha Greenberg. "Cities have the ability to restrict the numbers of collectives."

This tale of two cities reflects a divergence of opinion in California over the future of what may be its largest cash crop. Voters will decide in November whether to legalize marijuana for recreational purposes.

The State Board of Equalization estimates that pot in California is worth $15 billion a year. Taxing it could bring in $1.5 billion in much-needed revenues. But that's based on current prices. A Rand study suggests that if the November ballot measure passes, prices could drop 90 percent to $38 an ounce, while consumption could increase as much as 100 percent.

The November initiative, called Proposition 19, would allow California residents 21 years or older to grow marijuana at home for personal use, in an area no larger than 25 square feet. It would also allow adults 21 and older to possess and transport up to an ounce. Finally, it would allow local governments to license, regulate, and tax commercial growers and sellers. Like alcohol, sales to anyone under 21 would be banned.

"Look at all the people that are being killed in Mexico every day, as well as the home invasion robberies and other things that come from the inflated price that's caused by prohibition," says Richard Lee, who authored Prop 19. Lee runs Oaksterdam University in Oakland, a school which teaches people how to grow medical marijuana and run a dispensary.

Lee says the benefits of legalization go beyond sales tax revenues, and include "ancillary benefits such a tourism, jobs, and hotel rooms and transportation and food that would go along with the cannabis industry."

"They will probably two, three, four to one outraise us financially," says Covina police chief Kim Raney, leading the No on Prop 19 campaign, "but I think our message will be clear. I think our message will be the truth, and I think the voters in the state will understand that."

What is clear is that Prop 19 will again put California's marijuana laws in direct opposition to the feds. Because of that, the state's Legislative Analyst's Office says it's impossible to know how much money the state might bring in.

The LAO says savings to correctional facilities "could reach several tens of millions of dollars annually," and a new jobs-creating industry could let the state "eventually collect hundreds of millions of dollars annually in additional revenues." But with the federal government poised at any moment to snuff out any legalized pot business, "the revenue and expenditure impacts of this measure are subject to significant uncertainty."

Public opinion polls have delivered conflicting results on the initiative's chances for success. "I think in November, (voters) will realize the consequences and devastation that this act will have on their communities, and I think the voters will turn it down," says Chief Raney.

Richard Lee's pro-Prop 19 group has hired an Internet fundraising company used during the Obama campaign, and its Facebook page has well over 130,000 fans. The political battle will be fierce, and opposition may come from unexpected sources. "Two groups that have come out against (Prop 19) are growers who don't want to pay taxes," he says, "and the cops who want to keep getting the forfeiture money and seizure money, and job security from it."

Source: CNBC

NEWS: Proposition 19: Key Facts on California's Marijuana Legalization Vote

In November, California residents will vote on whether to legalize marijuana for personal use. If passed, the law would allow Californians over the age of 21 to grow and transport pot so long as it is for personal use. In addition, marijuana legally sold in dispensaries would be subject to state taxes.

But the ballot proposition raises numerous questions about what life would be like in a freely toking Golden State. After looking into the intricacies of Proposition 19, Surge Desk offers the following primer:

How much pot would a person be allowed to possess?

Up to one ounce, which, as CBS News points out, is "enough to roll dozens of marijuana cigarettes."

Would people be allowed to smoke pot in public?

No. Moreover, the law mandates that pot smokers over the age of 21 would be forbidden to light up in the presence of minors.

If Prop. 19 passes, can Californians drive while high?

No. Police would still be able to arrest anyone driving while impaired.

How much money can California hope to raise by taxing marijuana sales?

Estimates for increased tax revenue range from $1.2 billion to $1.4 billion per year. For a state that has been struggling to balance its budget in the wake of the recession, those numbers are hard to ignore. In addition, the decriminalization of marijuana would free up state resources used to process those arrested for possession.

If passed, how would Proposition 19 affect the price of pot?

According to the Rand Drug Policy Research Center, the price of marijuana could fall by as much as 80 percent if the drug were made legal for individual use. In the classic supply-and-demand formulation, however, a lower price and the erasing of the social stigma would mean that marijuana use is all but certain to increase.

Would the federal government challenge Prop. 19 if it became law?

Though the federal government has allowed each state to determine whether to legalize medical marijuana, it remains to be seen whether it would act against a law that focuses on personal use.

Source: AOL News