Conservative Stephen Harper could win a majority government with as little as 34% of the vote on May 2. We must ensure this does not happen, or S-10, and mandatory minimums like it, will be law in 100 days. The most important thing you can do is VOTE on May 2!

WhyProhibition.ca is finalizing its list of strategic votes and will be releasing that with the latest poll information this weekend.

Why so late?

The NDP, led by Jack Layton, has been on an historic and unprecedented rise in the last few days, overtaking the Liberals for 2nd place nationally, and within 5% of the Conservatives as of Friday. Depending on how the votes split riding by riding, this could potentially yield a Conservative majority government but could also result in an NDP minority government. The outcome will likely be decided by who turns out to vote.

The NDP under Jack Layton has been the most positive party in the House of Commons on marijuana law reform and medical marijuana, and is truly a friend to our community. Jack Layton is a man we have personally met with many times, and he has always been honest, open and very friendly. He understands the failures of prohibition, and is not afraid to talk about them.

Beyond Prohibition Foundation and WhyProhibition.ca have no doubt that an NDP government would be the best electoral outcome for our community and would represent the best chance for cannabis law reform in Canadian history.

The Conservatives have spent this campaign using a strategy called “micro-targeting” which involves focusing on specific areas in specific ridings to get a majority government with the lowest percentage of popular vote, possibly as low as 34%.

We must ensure that Stephen Harper can not micro-target his way to victory.

By voting strategically, we can not only stop Stephen Harper from obtaining a majority, but could potentially usher in the a government ready to make substantial change to Canada’s marijuana laws.

Please, for our country, for our friends and for our future, get out and VOTE on May 2.

Source

Are the voters in Massachusetts ready to embrace marijuana legalization in 2012? Analysis of the vote on local marijuana legalization advisory ballot question strongly points to yes.

Massachusetts allows for citizens to place non-binding local “public policy questions” on the ballot. This year, in several precincts, voters weighed in on whether their local representatives should “vote in favor of legislation that would allow the state to regulate and tax marijuana in the same manner as alcohol.” On Tuesday, over 150,000 votes were cast on the issue across the state in districts containing around 8.5 percent of the total vote.

In the districts where it was on the ballot, the advisory question passed with an impressive 61 percent of the vote, but these districts were on the whole slightly more liberal and pro-reform than the rest of the state. To determine how these results might translate to a statewide marijuana legalization ballot question, I used two different metrics. Continue reading for the results.

2010 marijuana legalization advisory vote compared to 2008 decriminalization ballot initiative

First, I compared the results in these precincts for legalization to the 2008 results for Question 2, a sweeping marijuana decriminalization measure, which passed overwhelmingly statewide, 65 percent to 35 percent. These districts voted 70 percent for decriminalization, slightly higher than the state average. Assuming this relative level of support held true for legalization, you would expect that if the marijuana legalization question were on the ballot statewide, it would have passed this year with a vote of Yes 56.6 percent to No 44.4 percent.

2010 gubernatorial results compared to local marijuana legalization advisory question

The second metric I used was the total vote in these districts in the 2010 governor’s race–for both incumbent Democrat Deval Patrick and Green Party candidate Jill Stein–to find out how much more “liberal” these districts are than the rest of the state. There is a strong but imperfect correlation between voting for more liberal candidates and voters’ relative support for marijuana reform. In these districts, Patrick and Stein took 58 percent of the vote, compared to only 50 percent of the vote statewide. Using this liberal metric, I project marijuana legalization would have passed statewide with roughly a vote of Yes 53.1 percent to No 46.9 percent.

A small majority of Massachusetts voters likely support legalization

This analysis leads me to believe that a small majority of the individuals who turned out to vote this year in Massachusetts supported legalizing and regulating cannabis in the same way the state does alcohol. That is a good sign for marijuana reform given that midterm elections tend to have much lower turnouts among young voters–who are, in general, more supportive of legalization–and this midterm in particular had a higher than normal turnout among older conservatives, who tend not to support marijuana reform. For these reasons, the 2012 electorate is almost assured to been even more supportive of legalization than the 2010 electorate.

This analysis of the election results, combined with other factors, suggests Massachusetts is a strong candidate for becoming one of the first states to embrace legalization. Massachusetts is a very liberal state, has a huge number of colleges, is demographically relatively young, and contains an existing grassroots marijuana advocacy community. In 2008, the state passed Question 2, a strong marijuana decriminalization initiative, by 30 points. Most importantly, Massachusetts allows for binding statewide citizen-sponsored initiatives. There is strong evidence that if a well-crafted marijuana legalization initiative makes in onto the ballot in 2012, it could pass.

*There are several variables that could cause error in this analysis or make it not exactly apply to a binding statewide initiative. Imperfect Metrics: There is no prefect metric against which to compare the results. I think comparing them to the vote on decriminalization is pretty good, but it is possible more conservative parts of the state were only mildly less supportive than these districts of decriminalization, but would be dramatically less supportive of legalization. Dropoff: For obvious reasons, non-bidding advisory questions are not a top priority for voters, and around 10 percent of voters do not enter a preference. It is possible supporters are more likely to vote Yes, but those weakly opposed are more incline to just skip them, resulting in a slight overstatement of support. Cold Feet: There is probably some small percentage of voters who are fine sending the message they support legalization in general, but might change their minds when their vote might actually make it happen. Actual Ballot Language: Similarly, the actual language of a binding ballot initiative is very important, unlike an advisory question. It is probably impossible to craft a ballot initiative that every supporter of legalization would vote for. The specific design of provisions could cause some people to vote No even if they support the concept.

Source

LOS ANGELES — California voters declined to make their trendsetting state the nation’s first to legalize marijuana use and sales, heeding warnings of legal chaos and that pot smokers would get behind the wheel and show up to work while high.

The legalization effort was losing by nine percentage points with more than two-thirds of precincts reporting. Backers showed support for the measure by gathering outside the campaign’s headquarters to watch returns come in – some of them lighting up joints to mark the occasion.

Supporters of Proposition 19 blamed Tuesday’s outcome on the conservative leanings of older voters who participate in midterm elections. They also acknowledged that young voters had not turned out in sufficient numbers to secure victory, but said they were ready to try again in two years.

“It’s still a historic moment in this very long struggle to end decades of failed marijuana prohibition,” said Stephen Gutwillig, California director for the Drug Policy Project. “Unquestionably, because of Proposition 19, marijuana legalization initiatives will be on the ballot in a number of states in 2012, and California is in the mix.”

Tim Rosales, who managed the No on 19 campaign, scoffed at that attitude from the losing side.

“If they think they are going to be back in two years, they must be smoking something,” he said. “This is a state that just bucked the national trend and went pretty hard on the Democratic side, but yet in the same vote opposed Prop 19. I think that says volumes as far as where California voters are on this issue.”

The campaign pitted the state’s political and law enforcement establishment against determined activists. Images of marijuana leaves and smashed-up cars and school buses appeared in dueling ads during the campaign.

In a sign of what a tough sell it was, an exit poll conducted for The Associated Press showed opposition cutting across gender and racial lines, as well as income and education levels.

The ballot measure lost in the state’s vaunted marijuana-growing region known as the “Emerald Triangle” of Humboldt, Mendocino and Trinity counties. Many in the region feared the system they have created would be taken over by corporations or lose its purpose.

Proponents pitched it as a sensible, though unprecedented, experiment that would provide tax revenue for the cash-strapped state, dent the drug-related violence in Mexico by causing pot prices to plummet, and reduce marijuana arrests that they say disproportionately target minority youth.

In the weeks leading to the election, federal officials said they planned to continue enforcing laws making marijuana possession and sales illegal and were considering suing to overturn the California initiative if voters approved it.

“Today, Californians recognized that legalizing marijuana will not make our citizens healthier, solve California’s budget crisis, or reduce drug related violence in Mexico,” White House Drug Policy Director Gil Kerlikowske said.

Voters in three other states cast ballots on medical marijuana-related measures.

In South Dakota, voters rejected for the second time a measure to legalize marijuana for medical use – a step taken by California in 1996 and 13 other states since. Oregon voters refused to expand their state’s medical marijuana program to create a network of state-licensed nonprofit dispensaries where patients could have purchased the drug.

A medical marijuana measure on Arizona’s ballot was too close to call early Wednesday.

California’s marijuana proposal would have allowed adults 21 and over to possess up to an ounce of pot, consume it in nonpublic places as long as no children were present, and grow it in small private plots.

It also would have authorized local governments to permit commercial pot cultivation, as well as the sale and use of marijuana at licensed establishments.

Source

While the battle to control Congress is getting most of the pre-election ink, voters in several states will also be deciding how to states handle the touchy issue of marijuana’s legal status. Fourteen states already have medical marijuana laws on the books, and more are likely to vote in doctor-approved pot use this year or in 2012. (Watch a Reason Magazine report about legalization’s consequences.) Here are six states that could take a major step down the path toward decriminalization (or even legalization) on Nov. 2:

California
Passage of Proposition 19 by Golden State voters would create by far the most permissive marijuana law in the nation. The ballot measure would legalize — at the state and local level, anyway — recreational amounts of marijuana and allow local goverments to tax and regulate sales of the drug. The contentious battle over Prop 19 is creating some strange political dynamics, says NPR‘s Mandalit del Barco. For instance, many growers and “stoners” are opposed to the new taxes and government oversight, while some cops and mothers’ groups support Prop 19 as a way to take profits out of the hands of drug dealers and Mexican cartels. None of that may matter, says Nate Silver in The New York Times, since support for the measure appears to be “going up in smoke” as the election nears. Today it stands no better than a 50-50 chance of passing.

Oregon
More than one in every 100 Oregonians already smokes marijuana legally for medical purposes, and Measure 74 would let them purchase their pot from state-licensed growers and nonprofit retailers, or dispensaries (under current law, card-carrying smokers have to grow their own marijuana, or designate someone to grow it for them). The problem with the measure, says The Portland Mercury in an editorial, is it has no regulation mechanism to assure “all pot is safe and legal,” like other medicines. Oregon should learn from the mistakes in California and Colorado, “and do ours better.” But Oregon already “took the main step” of legalizing medical marijuana, says the Albany (Ore.) Democrat-Herald in an editorial, and “if something is legal to use — such as liquor and tobacco — it’s not unreasonable to authorize places where it may be sold.”

Arizona
Proposition 203 would allow Arizonans with a host of diseases to possess up to 2.5 ounces of pot with a doctor’s recommendation. They would be allowed to buy medical marijuana from nonprofit, state-licensed dispensaries, or grow it themselves if the nearest outlet is more than 25 miles away. “Opponents worry it will bring more crime, substance abuse, and corruption to our state,” says Lori Jane Gliha at ABC News 15. But with polls showing it the most popular measure on the ballot, with 54 percent support, “we’ll go out on a limb and say [it] will probably pass” anyway, says Ray Stern in the Phoenix New Times.

South Dakota
Measure 13 is a do-over for South Dakota medical-marijuana proponents, after a similar measure in 2006 fell short by about 15,000 votes, or 4 percentage points. Activists “think they can get over the top this time around,” says Phillip Smith in Drug War Chronicle, with restrictions carefully tailored “to win over a skeptical and conservative prairie electorate” — to wit, the proposed law limits people with specific conditions to one ounce and only upon the recommendation of a doctor with whom they have “bona fide relationship.” But not all skeptics are convinced: “I just think it’s a total scam being done by people interested in legalizing marijuana,” says Yankton County (S.D) Sheriff Dave Hunhoff. “If they want to legalize marijuana… they should just stand up and use that argument.”

Vermont
The Democratic candidate for governor of the Green Mountain State, Peter Shumlin, publicly advocates the decriminalization of marijuana, says Ron Kampia in The Huffington Post. And if he beats Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie (R), who is “ultra-hostile to decriminalization,” Vermont — which already has a medical-marijuana law — “has a good chance of decriminalizing the possession of marijuana,” too. But Shumlin can’t count on getting every pro-pot vote, says Brad Sylvester in Yahoo News, since he’s also facing Liberty Union candidate Ben Mitchell, whose platform calls for making Vermont into the “Amsterdam of the U.S.”

Massachusetts
In November, 73 Massachusetts towns and cities will vote on a nonbinding ballot measure instructing state lawmakers “to vote in favor of legislation that would allow the state to regulate the taxation, cultivation, and sale of marijuana to adults” — in short, to legalize pot. Although only 13 percent of the state’s voters will see the ballot initiative, its sponsor, the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition, says majority approval would lay the foundation for a statewide, binding ballot measure in 2012. State voters have already approved decriminalization, says Michael Cutler in Wicked Local, and “the sky hasn’t fallen.” Full legalization would better limit access to the drug and raise revenue.

Article written by The Week

Hopefully this video will change some people. Please vote in November. That is all.

Sorry about the lack of updates for the past couple days, I’ve been pretty sick and unwilling to keep on a computer for too long. Although, I have made a new bangin electro/breaks mix I will be releasing later tonight… so stay tuned!

A campaign for a system of medical marijuana supply systems in Oregon turned in enough signatures to put the measure on the November ballot – if the signatures are valid. According to an early turn-in, the initiative for a medical marijuana supply system has gathered 115,404 signatures. It needs 82,769 verified names of registered voters to make the ballot.

The preliminary total only reflects the signatures gathered by paid petitioners through May. The campaign will continue to gather signatures up to the July 2 deadline to give them a cushion for names that have to be thrown out.

Also, a Detroit City Council committee passed today on amending a city ordinance to allow adults in the city to legally possess a small amount of marijuana. Instead voters will get to decide in November.

Brought to you by the Coalition for a Safer Detroit – the same group that successfully got medical marijuana placed on the ballot in 2004 which passed – the ordinance amendment would allow anyone 21-years-old or older to legally possess less than an ounce of marijuana on private property, amending Chapter 38 of the city code regulating controlled substances.

Tim Beck, a registered medical marijuana user who filed the petitions, says the amended ordinance would “free up the police department to pursue crimes with actual victims.”

Dennis Mazurek, assistant corporation counsel with the city Law Department, told the council’s Internal Operations Committee that the ordinance amendment violates state law, specifically, the Michigan Public Health Code, and cannot be enacted. The state only allows registered medical marijuana use.

According to the City Clerk’s Office, the Coalition submitted 5,750 signatures in May; 3,895 were required and 4,598 were validated.

Beck is confident voters will pass the ordinance, as they passed the medical marijuana ordinance in 2004.

“It’s going to win,” he said. “I have no doubt about that.”

Written by: The Weed Blog

An initiative to legalize marijuana and allow it to be sold and taxed will appear on the November ballot, state election officials announced Wednesday, triggering what will probably be a much-watched campaign that once again puts California on the forefront of the nation’s debate over whether to soften drug laws.

The number of valid signatures reported by Los Angeles County, submitted minutes before Wednesday’s 5 p.m. deadline, put the measure well beyond the 433,971 it needed to be certified. Supporters turned in 694,248 signatures, collecting them in every county except Alpine. County election officials estimated that 523,531 were valid.

The measure’s main advocate, Richard Lee, an Oakland marijuana entrepreneur, savored the chance to press his case with voters that the state’s decades-old ban on marijuana is a failed policy.

“We’re one step closer to ending cannabis prohibition and the unjust laws that lock people up for cannabis while alcohol is not only sold openly but advertised on television to kids every day,” he said.

Lee, tapping $1.3 million from his businesses, has put together a highly organized campaign that he emphasized Wednesday would be led by a team of experienced political consultants, including Chris Lehane, a veteran operative who has worked in the White House and on presidential campaigns.

“There’s all kinds of big professional politicos who are coming on board now to take it to the next level,” Lee said.

Opponents have also started to put together their campaign. “There’s going to be a very broad coalition opposing this that will include law enforcement,” said John Lovell, a Sacramento lobbyist who represents the California Police Chiefs Assn. and other law enforcement groups. “We’ll educate people as to what this measure really entails.”

The measure, like the medical marijuana initiative, could put California on a collision course with the federal government. The possession and sale of marijuana remain a federal crime.

This month, President Obama’s drug czar, R. Gil Kerlikowske, decried legalization in a speech to police chiefs in San Jose.

The initiative would allow adults 21 or older to possess up to an ounce for personal use.

Possession of an ounce or less has been a misdemeanor with a $100 fine since 1975, when Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, who was then governor, signed a law that reduced tough marijuana penalties that had allowed judges to impose 10-year sentences.

Written by John Hoeffel from LATimes.

How often do you smoke weed? Let us know!

To clarify, “Whenever I get a chance” means your will smoke whenever the opportunity is presented to you, whether it’s every couple weeks, every few hours, and so forth…

Stoners around the world should roll one up in celebration today.

California state lawmakers have just passed the “first formal consideration of marijuana legalization in American history.” Assemblymember Tom Ammanio’s Assembly Bill 390 – the Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act – was heard and voted on in the Committee for Public Safety. The bill passed 4-3, and will next be heard by the Committee for Public Health.

But the vote was only a minor victory for the pro-legalization lobby. (AB 390 may very well die in the health committee.) The real test will come in November, when voters will consider the Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, which, in a nutshell, will legalize pot for personal and agricultural use. (Recent polls show about 56 percent support the bill.)

It’s hard to argue that progress isn’t being made for the movement. As the old “Reefer Madness” stereotypes die away, several states are seriously considering marijuana legalization. Check out the headlines from the last few days: “Stiletto Stoners,” “It’s High Time for Debate,” and “Pot Town, USA.”

Clearly, marijuana prohibition has been a failure. Every U.S. citizen can get his or her hands on a baggie of marijuana if they want to, usually within 24 hours. The plant itself can be grown outside or inside by novices – because, frankly, it grows like a weed. A casual smoker is no different than a fan of Budweiser or Coors.

The pro-pot movement looks to California as the first battleground state, where medical marijuana is already generating millions of dollars a year in taxes. As Assemblymember Ammanio’s bill works its way through the red tape, more news is sure to come out about marijuana legalization. Stay informed!

SEE RESULTS OF COMMITTEE VOTE HERE

In a move proponents are billing the “first formal consideration of marijuana legalization in American history,” the public safety committee of the state assembly will today vote on Tom Ammiano’s ganja bill.

The San Francisco assemblyman last year earned his place in the pot pantheon by authoring “AB 390,” a bill that proposed for the regulation and taxation of marijuana in a manner similar to what is already the case with alcohol. This, he claimed, would reap the state more than $1 billion a year.

At 9 a.m. on Tuesday, AB 390 will come up for a yea or nay committee vote. Ammiano himself is chairman of the public safety committee — and, purportedly, his colleagues like him. The assemblyman’s staff and allies predict the bill will receive the four votes needed to pass.

“We believe we have the votes to move it out of committee,” said Quintin Mecke, Ammiano’s spokesman. “Sacramento being what it is, you never quite know, but we’re confident.”

And that would ostensibly be a big deal — and the meaning behind the phrase “formal consideration.” While a number of governmental bodies have passed purely symbolic measures regarding pot legalization, today’s is a vote, on the state level, by the body that could actually legalize pot. In other words, this is what all of San Francisco’s useless Board of Supervisors resolutions regarding national and foreign policy wish they could be.

Democrats hold five of the seven seats in the public safety committee. Should AB 390 pass today, it will next come before the health committee, perhaps as early as this week. And that vote is no slam dunk.

Democrats hold 13 of the committee’s 19 seats — and Ammiano sits on this committee too, which is run by Assemblyman Dave Jones, darling of San Francisco progressives. But “more of these Democrats could be considered more moderate,” says Aaron Smith, the California policy director for the Marijuana Policy Project. “And there’s more folks to convince.”

A “no” vote in either committee will kill Ammiano’s bill. If it passes through both, however, it’ll land on the Assembly floor — perhaps before the end of the month.

The chances of that happening? Long enough that no one would actually say so. But, when asked if he believes in moral victories, Smith emphatically answered in the positve. “If we get out out of one committee, it’ll be a huge milestone,” he said. “We’ll be able to build upon this that much more easily in the future.”

via SF Weekly