- The Weed Blog https://www.theweedblog.com

NORML Endorses California Adult Use Of Marijuana (AUMA) Act

107
Share.

norml scholarships drug policy reform conferenceToday, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), the nation’s oldest and largest marijuana law reform organization, announced that its Board of Directors has formally voted to endorse the California ballot measure known as the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act.

Since its founding in 1970, NORML has been a leading national voice for responsible marijuana laws in states all across the country and has helped increase public awareness of the failures and costs of marijuana prohibition.

“With the largest population of both marijuana producers and consumers in the United States, along with the largest voting delegation in Congress, the importance of voters in America’s most populous and influential state, California, passing a binding marijuana legalization ballot initiative in 2016 can’t be overstated,” said Allen St. Pierre, Executive Director of NORML.  “On the matter of ending marijuana prohibition in America, as California goes, so too goes the rest of the nation.”

NORML joins Drug Policy Alliance, Marijuana Policy Project, California Cannabis Industry Association, California Medical Association and California NAACP, among others, in support of AUMA.

The official proponents of the measure are:

  • Dr. Donald O. Lyman, MD, award-winning physician, member of the California Medical Association and former Chief of the Division of Chronic Disease and Injury Control at the California Department of Public Health and
  • Michael Sutton, longtime conservationist and environmental attorney, former President of the California Fish and Game Commission and former Vice President of National Audubon Society

The Adult Use of Marijuana Act is a consensus measure based on recognized best practices and recommendations from engaged citizens and organizations representing local government, health and policy experts, environmental leaders, small farmers and business owners, worker representatives and social justice advocates.

It includes safeguards for children, workers, local governments and small businesses and strict anti-monopoly provisions and the toughest warning label and marketing-to-kids laws in the nation.

It provides hundreds of millions of dollars in annual funding — the highest level ever by any state in America — for youth drug prevention, education and treatment programs.  It also provides significant investment into local law enforcement and environmental and water protection programs.

It also closely adheres to the Lieutenant Governor’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Marijuana Policy and the new medical marijuana laws recently passed by a bipartisan majority of the Legislature and signed by Governor Brown (SB 643, AB 266 and AB 243).

Source: AUMA Campaign

Share.

About Author

We’re everything you need to know about marijuana – your #1 source of important marijuana-related information. From the plant and its benefits to its place in culture and society, TWB has you covered! News. Culture. Science. Cooking. Growing. Industry. Advocacy. You can find this and so much more.

107 Comments

  1. Superstorm250 on

    Maybe you fail to take into account the nationwide movement to end prohibition and how greatly a win in California would benefit the movement, wouldn’t surprise me since your a prohibitionist lite. California is the most populous state in the country in addition to having the world’s 8th largest economy. Having cannabis legal here even through AUMA woud send ripples across the country, especially because it would then be legal all along the west coast. You’re just impatient and pessimistic not to see that things would only stand to improve.

  2. Bob Cratchet on

    And the OR law that just passed is VASTLY superior to the AUMA, and should have been copied exactly here.

  3. Bob Cratchet on

    Jontomas’ only “argument” is to call anyone who disagrees with him a “greedy grower”, etc, and not respond to any of their actual concerns with any of the initiatives he spams the web about. Never mind that he’s actually talking to mostly MJ patients, or their caregivers, etc who never sell even a dime bag…

  4. Bob Cratchet on

    Uh-huh. So all we have to do is hold our hands out again for Parker to fill them with money to do that? Something tells me he wont be. There’s simply no logical reason not to have a simple legalization initiative without 60+ pages of self-serving “prohibition lite”.

  5. Bob Cratchet on

    You know what’s really crappy? If you post anything even mildly critical of the AUMA on the (national) NORML boards, they delete your post and send you snarky email. Gotta wonder what’s up with that.

  6. Superstorm250 on

    Yes they can, you obviously didn’t bother take into account that we will not stop fighting until marijuana policy reaches its optimal form, just like what we did with alcohol prohibition. There are also provisions in the law that allow for more adjustment, so nothing in this law is set in stone despite what you claim in your conspiracy theories or doomsday scenarios.

  7. Bob Cratchet on

    No, they CAN’T be “changed later”. This is a voter initiative; so can’t be changed except by another vote of the people. I highly doubt the storefornt guy will foot the bill once he gets what he wants with this one.

  8. Bob Cratchet on

    You have some valid points. Looking at the comments by one of the lawyers on the NORML page, I am amazed at the layer of BS he is slathering, and the misrepresentation of the “protection” this initiative will provide. It simply creates way too many new problems.

  9. Bob Cratchet on

    I am not a grower, and I oppose this poorly written, and over regulating initiative.

  10. Blake Beagelsmith on

    AUMA = trash

    TRUE legalization or nothing.
    **** their fascist capitalist regulations & lies.

  11. Bad idea. This law over regulates and over taxes cannabis. We need a law that just legalizes marijuana for all adults over 18 years of age with no limits on cultivation or possession. This is the only way to get the crime out of pot and let the people enjoy their god given and constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness We need no government to regulate this flower.

  12. The indictment states that Fiori outbid the town and purchased the property which he later sold for a profit of over $200,000. Since then, the town has begun construction on a new site that was more expensive than the Cole property.

    Since then, Fiori has built the Caribou Room, a state of the art concert hall that had a soft opening last weekend to rave reviews on the former Cole site.

    ======

    So did he sell it for a $200k profit, or does he still own the newly opened Caribou Room?

  13. Miles Monroe on

    “Screwing ALL cannabis users in CO …”; sure, like people with Crohn’s or veterans with PTSD or anybody else who couldn’t legally treat their illness with cannabis *before* A64 since their condition isn’t on the “approved” list; yeah, they all got royally screwed, because a *possible* impingement on your driving privileges is just *so* much worse than suffering a life threatening medical condition, right … ?!

    Oh, and you’re clearly obedient to *somebody* with something to lose from legalization, whether from profit or power, mainly because you’re not “dissenting”, at all, you’re attempting to disrupt and disinform in order to divide and weaken support, which is what brownshirts do.

  14. … and as long as you’re waiting—on *us*? Seriously?! W*O*W; how your life must *really* suck …—here’s a couple more points for you to mull over:

    As you say, “Cali has the most progressive compassionate medicinal language in the nation”, but would you be surprised to learn that during the effort to get it on the ballot and passed there were people, most notably Jack Herer, author of the “pure” legalization CCHI, who were making *exactly* the same kind of objections to it you are to A64 and AUMA? That it didn’t go far enough—aka a “baby step”—because *only* patients would benefit, not everyone; and that it *only* provided an “admissible defense” in the event of trial, not a bar to arrest and prosecution, the way “full” legalization would–and both A64 and AUMA do–and that such “compromises” were unacceptable, even if that meant people kept on suffering and dying.

    So the question is, was Jack—may he RIP, bless his soul—and the rest right? Was the “baby step” of the Compassionate Use Act the correct way to go? Are all those who’ve benefited—over a million for serious illnesses alone, by the states’ estimate; and that doesn’t even count the people who *weren’t* arrested and prosecuted—better off than without the CUA’s protections, or should the terminal cancer and AIDS victims and little kids with epilepsy have just gone on suffering and dying while waiting for your grassroots cannabis-like-tomatoes holy crusade to get its act together and so much as make the ballot, like the CCHI bunch *still* hasn’t managed to do *anywhere* in—by their own admission—over twenty years of “advocacy”? How about CO’s medical law; by your own judgement, less “progressive” and “compassionate”, hence an even *smaller* “baby step”—fetal step, perhaps?—than the CUA; should it have been foregone in favor of cannabis-like-tomatoes too, or are patients there better off than without it?

    Unlike the CUA, under Amendment 20 patients can only get a rec if their condition happens to be on the “approved” list; so, for instance, someone with Crohn’s or a veteran with PTSD doesn’t qualify, and before the A64 “baby step” they had no recourse but the black market; are your local zoning issues really not worth those people’s health and lives, especially since a) your zoning authority hasn’t arrested or prosecuted anybody, criminally or otherwise; and b) nothing you’ve provided, in your ad nauseam account or elsewhere, suggests the same problems you described in torturous detail couldn’t just as easily occurred in Nederland prior to A64, official tolerance notwithstanding; “215” growers in CA, as you’re probably aware, are dealing with the same kind of abusive overreach *right now*, but AUMA will *prohibit* local authorities from banning personal indoor grows, medical or otherwise.

    Oh, and that “taxation at extortion levels” thing? You must have a different definition of “extortion” than the one we’re accustomed to, because even with a base tax rate of 25%—10% more than AUMA’s—the price of top shelf in CO storefronts is equal to or even less than what patients are paying in CA dispensaries—with *no* state tax!—right now, and weed in Washington state—the “zygote step” of legalization initiatives—with a tax rate of 37%, is even less, as much as 25% *lower* than in CA; yeah, that’s some heavy extortion, all right … !

    That’s the way, just keep on lobbing in those “cow pie”—to put it “moderator friendly”—assertions, we’ll keep batting them back out on to the dung pile where they belong, with the other prohibition fabrications like the gateway effect and stunted developing brains; but before you do, maybe you should check with the AUMA opposition in California, because honestly, you’re not doing their desperate little jihad any good, at all.

Leave A Reply