By Tiffany Wu
on
POSTED IN CALIFORNIA, RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA
Mark your calendars because we are less
than three months away from Election Day 2016. This November 8th — in
addition to voting for our next U.S. President — California voters will have an
opportunity to legalize the recreational use of marijuana in the state for
adults age 21 and over.
The Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA)
was officially added to the California ballot on July 1, 2016 as Proposition 64 after supporters collected the
requisite number of signatures. As soon as word got out, statewide campaigns to
reach California voters were in full swing from
both supporters and opponents of Prop
64. Both sides have also prepared pamphlets with arguments for and against the
initiative, to be included with Voter Information Guides distributed to
eligible voters along with their ballots.
On August 4, 2016, the debate got even
more heated when the Yes on Proposition 64 committee, the campaign committee
behind the voter initiative, filed a lawsuitagainst the No on Prop. 64 committee,
the initiative’s opponents, in Sacramento County Superior Court. In the
lawsuit, the Prop 64 supporters claim that the opponents’ ballot arguments
contain several “false and misleading statements” and requested the Court
reject, delete, or substantially amend the statements before the pamphlets are
sent to voters.
The supporters argue that the statements are not based on fact,
but instead are “scare tactics […]
reminiscent of the ‘reefer madness’-style” campaigns commonly used by cannabis
opponents during the decades-long War on Drugs.
The challenged statements
against Prop 64, and thus the legalization of recreational marijuana in
California, include:
Children will be exposed to ads promoting marijuana gummy candy and brownies.Prop 64 would repeal ‘countless consumer protections’ signed into law.Prop 64 ‘rolls back the total prohibition of smoking ads on TV.
In challenging these statements, the
Prop 64 supporters argue that Prop 64 prohibits marijuana products “designed to
be appealing to children or easily confused with commercially sold candy or
foods” and also bans marijuana advertisements aimed at people under age 21.
They also dispute that Prop 64 would repeal any consumer protection laws and
instead assert that the initiative expands those laws and protections.
Finally, they state that Prop 64 does not affect the prohibition of tobacco ads
on TV and that federal laws control TV advertising and would continue to ban
marijuana TV ads.
The Prop 64 opponents have fired back by filing their own
lawsuit against
the supporters’ ballot arguments, also claiming the use of false and misleading
statements. They challenge Proposition 64 supporters’ statement that the
initiative prohibits marijuana ads on TV, instead arguing that the initiative
leaves the possibility of ads open.
Though the supporters admit that courts
are reluctant to order changes to the language of ballot arguments unless the
statements are egregiously false or
misleading, they maintain that the statements made by the opponents qualify under
such a standard. On the other side, the opponents say the lawsuits are a sign
that “the silly season” of campaigning has begun.
In the end, it will be up to the Court
to decide whether the challenges made in the lawsuits are a serious matter. But
that’s only the first hurdle for California’s legalization efforts. Next it
will be the voters’ turn to decide whether they will vote yes or no on Prop 64
and ultimately whether California will be the next state to legalize the adult
use of marijuana this coming November.
We have raised a few of our
own concerns about the initiative in previous posts, such as whether Prop
64 does enough to prevent big business
monopolies, how unlimited vertical integration for recreational businesses could
affect unintegrated medical businesses, and the risk that these big, integrated
businesses will drive California marijuana
prices too low. In addition, we will all have to have wait for agency
rule-making for clarity on how the AUMA’s residency requirement will apply to entities and what
compliance is necessary for priority licensing.
Still, despite these concerns and
questions, we support the initiative overall because in our experience
with other states (especially Washington and Oregon), once
legislation passes, it becomes relatively easier to better it. And it is
far easier to improve a passed initiative, than to try and craft from
scratch and then pass a perfect initiative that pleases all parties.
No comments:
Post a Comment