We in CA are on the verge of a historical change where the ethically and economically unsound National stance on Hemp may soon begin its final chapter. I would like to offer a compare/contrast for those who are seeking to #Pass19:
I volunteered for Initiative 622 in Washington State in 1994 mostly giving the campaign free access to K.A.O.S. shows I was involved in, and in composing OpEds for broadcast and publication (almost entirely in the CPJ [Cooper Point Journal]).
I tried to look up last night what the final vote count was, but I just recall we got hammered. So, what, do I recall, happened (or more accurately what went wrong);
(1) Message. 622 focused on I. Industrial, II. Medicinal, and III. Recreational usage all being simultaneously legal. This was before CA landmark 1996 Prop 216 passed. It was too much too soon for such an "omni" approach, but now we have seen that for over 14 years Medicinal Cannabis has been legal-- society continues unharmed, if not improved.
(2) Organization. WA 622 had no real backers in the legitimate world. Mostly individuals making a good effort (and arguably laying the ground work as the frontlinesmen and women for CA 216) in organized chaos, where the adjective "organized" is, from what I witnessed, generous. On the contrary, Prop 19 seems to be enjoying major support from Labor, Law Enforcement, Religious, and other "real world" groups.
(3) Backing. 622 was social science at the state capitol. 19 was one of three major ideas from the leading groups with over 16 years of experience, 14 years of success, and better than a dozen years of profits from the result of that success! Although there are small contributers, having Lee's Oaksterdam as a backstop (as opposed to the NORML or Herrer initiatives that didn't gather enough signatures, but could have also conceivably had the same effect phenomenally) is very important!
(4) Continuity. 622 was like the Zen koan, "when a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound?" There was no real community of beneficiaries. There were drug dealers and users, and that was all the opposition had to point out. And they won. Now, in CA with Prop 19, there is a network of patients, lawyers, activists, industrialists, not to mention local and state government(s) who have seen the benefits of this nascent industry ready to burgeon, blossom, and recover from it's manufactured retardation by almost seventy years of criminalization.
(5) Timing. Both the major parties are showing up this election year as moral debtors: Republicans are asking us to take them back, even though almost none of what they propose is any different from how we got into this economic situation; and the Democrats are typically diffusive and lackluster in handling major issues-- gradual change we can eventually expect technical results from (as opposed to "change we can believe in"). Our state is leading the nation, but unfortunately this time it's in disastrous budgetary management.
Again, nationally, by continuing unsound Bushian fiscal policy, Democrats are arguing for a ~$3T unfunded tax break, while the Republicans are arguing for a ~$4T unfunded tax break by extending the previously unfunded tax breaks instituted during the Republican control of House, Senate and Executive. Both fiddling as Rome burns, and both, as usual, talking not listening to each other to fashion COMPROMISE.
Our state can go from worst to first, regardless of what Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dumb do in DC, by reversing the effects of the originally state led ban on hemp. It was state led in 1931, so let it be state led again in 2010! There is no constitutional argument for or against the ban. As it stands today, the US Government continues to outlaw a multi-trillion dollar industry that would lead to major solutions for our current major problems!
WHAT HASN'T CHANGED
FARMS. Hemp will allow under-utilized and marginal farmlands to be productive without major water demands, giving the small farmer a fighting chance.
FAMILIES. By eliminating criminality, arbitrary and capricious arrests of predominantly minorities will become that much less prevalent; Our heroic enforcement workers can focus on legitimate threats that undermine our collective safety; Our state can restore funding for social netting that has all but vanished; and people will be put back to work!
JOBS. I talked to one Union official off the record, and their number is ~40,000 Union jobs within a year. I had speculated with the entire Hemp Industry coming back to life the number to be ~100,000, and either way this tracks with the rule of thumb that for every 1 Union job another ~1.5 are eventually created. No one has a crystal ball on this one, but in effect California should enjoy a major first mover advantage when Prop 19 passes!
TAXES. Cities that allow Industrial Hemp and Recreation Sales will gain, Counties that create taxes and regulations will gain, and the State non-partisan Legislative Analyst's Office has estimated an annual tax boon of ~$1.4BB for our bankrupted state. This is a sorely needed dose of the cure.
REGULATION. By creating rules and regulations, we will enable all citizens greater liberty, by creating avenues of access. Further, for those of us who feel that Business needs clear and simple rules, we can only hope that our input is asked for at the appropriate juncture. Regardless, by bringing into light the dark economy, which is presently CAs #1 crop, we can expect greater civility-- a nice way of saying the International Drug Cartels will have to line up behind citizens to get licenses, permits, and then pay proper taxes, like the rest of us!
Let's be clear: (a) No one is saying people under 21 should have access. As it is, they already have as good or better access to the recreational use (with no clear comprehension of the commercial uses) of cannabis than to alcohol. (b) No one is saying it is okay to be under the influence of cannabis and work, drive, or operate heavy machinery. Again, think of how we tax and regulate alcohol. (c) Although there is some confusion by medicinal users on this issue, no one will be able to bring the provisions of 215 under the taxation or restrictions imposed onto non-medicinal users by the passing of 19.
I await proper logical rebuttal, but have not heard one for over 16 years!
