“Imagine, not one more American has to die for foreign oil,” said marijuana advocate Madeline Martinez at Monday morning’s press conference kickoff of Oregon Cannabis Tax Act (OCTA), a 2010 initiative petition that aims to make marijuana available for retail sale through Oregon’s liquor stores (see this week’s Murmurs).
Amid the bloody debacle in Iraq and the recent spike in crude oil and gasoline prices, the prospect of homegrown “hempfuel” provides a new selling point for the latest initiative dedicated to legalizing, or as Martinez likes to say, “controlling” cannabis sales in Oregon. United for the initiative as “Oregonians for Cannabis Reform”, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) and The Campaign for Cannabis Reform introduced their campaign to gather 82,769 signatures by July 2, 2010 for OCTA to be Initiative #2 in the 2010 general election .
Sheltered from cameras behind hemp waffles, hemp breakfast bars and hemp breads, Martinez and Paul Stanford, the initiative’s chief petitioners, backed up Martinez’s claim about hempfuel’s potential by referring to a 1975 Notre Dame study in the Midlands Naturalist, “Feral Hemp in Southern Illinois.”
“The main thing hemp makes is fuel,” said Stanford. “Hemp is three times more productive [than other biofuel sources], so if all other economies remain the same, then hempseed fuel should be 1/3 the cost of all other biodiesel fuels out there.” Stanford and Martinez were careful to back their energy-related hemp claims with studies, though they were unable to cite any studies more recent than the 1970s for WW.
The OCTA coalition says it has carefully designed its “control” reform of marijuana to withstand a federal court challenge. Regulation of cannabis by a state body makes the Oregon Liquor Control Commission, which regulates alcohol sales in Oregon and licenses all state liquor stores, integral for ballot success because state regulation would help the initiative be upheld in federal court.
Christie Scott, the public affairs specialist for the OLCC, constructed a careful comment on OCTA for WWire, emphasizing the agency’s neutral position on the petition: “At this point we don’t support or oppose the petition. Once it becomes law, we will do whatever the law tells us and then move towards taking the needed steps.” Under the proposed reform, cannabis would be sold only to adults 21 and over through retail stores regulated by the OLCC. Those younger than 21 would still be charged with a Class B felony for possession of more than an ounce of pot, and people who have already been sentenced for a cannabis-related conviction would not be granted amnesty. In addition to storefront regulation, growth and storage of cannabis would also be controlled by the OLCC. Stanford adds that the proposed system would also give medical marijuana patients better access options.
According to Stanford, industrial hemp “could quickly become Oregon’s biggest cash crop through plastic products, food and textiles.” Pot is currently an illegal Oregon harvest, of course, though the crop’s growth is also included in purposed OLCC regulations on the initiative. With a sweeping gesture across the hemp products assembled in front of him for the press conference, Stanford invoked the Jeffersonian dream of a farmer-based society: “What we want to do is return our economy and farms to what our founding fathers had sought.”
OCTA claims revenue of state regulated cannabis sales could easily reach $300 million annually, and tourism-related activities could add another $50 million to that number. Furthermore, Martinez said, legalization and regulation could harness money that would otherwise go to the cannabis black market: “Let’s put it in a safe place through cannabis taxation.” The initiative appropriates 10 percent of this revenue to go to drug treatment, but the rest would be redirected into Oregon’s general fund. The OCTA advocates say taxation of cannabis products would be on the same template as alcohol.
Russ Belville, of Oregon NORML and The Russ Belville Show says, “The OCTA initiative does not designate a percent taxation on pot products, those numbers will fall to state regulation”. Yet, keeping pot costs low is still of concern to OCTA supporters. Belville specified for WW, “We want pot priced so it will eliminate black market marijuana”.
Stanford admitted that activists have their own personal reasons for pushing the initiative: “We are doing this for a lot of different reasons; some of us of course like to use cannabis socially. I account myself as one of those.” Martinez, for her part, is is a medical marijuana user for disc and joint pain.
So what makes this initiative different from the failed legalization attempts in 1996 and 1998?
“There has been a decade of medical marijuana experience,” Martinez says. “And there is just a generational change—at the presidential level we had an African American and woman fight it out.”
Yet the advertisement world and the Cheech and Chong stigma have already presented OCTA with challenges unrelated to the formidable problem of raising funds. Even if OCTA raises enough funds for advertising, “major television stations will not even let us put our message out there, they will not even allow us to buy advertising space,” Stanford says. “Hopefully, that will change if we make the ballot.”
And the media blockade is not the group’s only formidable opponent. Former GOP party head and legislator Kevin Mannix, who scored his biggest successes pushing though law-and-order initiatives like Measure 11, dropped an initiative this year to curb Oregon medical marijuana in favor of prescribed THC pills (which Stanford described to WW as “overpriced and ineffective”).
Asked about the new petition’s prospects, Mannix told WW, “The issue of medical marijuana is separate from creating a whole new business. There is a slim to none chance that this [OCTA] would be upheld in Federal Court.” Mannix said OCTA 2010 was on his back burner relative to more pressing public-safety measures he’s working on, Measures 40 and 41, which address identity theft and hard drugs. And Mannix doesn’t expect OCTA 2010 ever to make it onto his front burner: “It doesn’t have much of a prayer,” he says.
Martinez says OCTA’s advocates are ready for the fight—though not itching for one. She contrasted the users of cannabis and alcohol, two products that could soon be sharing space on Oregon liquor-store shelves: “You know we are not the ones fighting in bars—we are always a really mellow bunch. We just eat too much.”
- Mannix Drops Anti-Marijuana Ballot Initiative Conservat
- UPDATED Follow the Green: Pot Petitioners Will Go to Hempfest For Some Billionaire Schmoozn’ Updated
- Oregon’s Cannabis Cafe Opens in NE Portland Behind a
- Medical Marijuana Update: Support for Workplace Bill is Thin; Plus, Mannix is Back The lates
- Stanford Rolls to Victory at Medical Cannabis Awards Former WW
Kevin Mannix doesn’t know what he is talking about (surprise). OCTA is specifically written to conform to international treaties on the control of drugs and the US Constitution and Oregon Constitution. Treaties and Constitutions supersede federal statutes (like the Controlled Substances Act).
OCTA keeps all cannabis production and sales controlled by the state within the state – no "interstate commerce" for the feds to use a "commerce clause" argument. The feds used that argument in the Raich case that upheld their right to bust California medical marijuana, but since private citizens, not the state, were involved in cultivation and commerce, the courts decided (using the Wickard v. Fillburn precedent) that medical marijuana was fungible and thereby contributed to the overall nationwide marijuana market. OCTA’s state control coupled with adherence to treaty will overcome that precedent.
Besides, since when do Oregonians fail to do what’s right for Oregon just because the feds might not like it? They didn’t like medical marijuana, but we passed it because it was sensible. They didn’t like death with dignity, but we passed it because it was sensible. No state has ever challenged the constitutional justifications for marijuana prohibition in a manner like OCTA – Oregon should be the first!
300,000 Oregonians are smoking pot at least once per year. Wouldn’t you rather the proceeds from pot sales funded the Oregon Health Program, instead of funding a new Xbox for a teenage drug dealer?
this is just dumb. you have to watch where to smoke a legal cigarette but go ahead, smoke pot wherever you want to. people just don’t understand that pot is more dangerous than cigarettes. but hey, they just want to be high, there just mellow, they just want to glorify drugs, sex, homosexuality. what a crack
Who told you pot is more dangerous than cigarettes? Where was it proposed that it should be legal to smoke pot "wherever you want to"? You’re deluded.
One of the flagship principles behind conservatism is the notion that we all must take responsibility for our actions. For this reason many notable conservative figures (Buckley for 1) have been in favor of legalization.
You’re not a conservative. You’re a confused halfwit. Do us all a favor and keep smoking those cigs.
Why stop with pot? Why not also sell some meth, ludes, opium and every other drug for the losers who can’t deal with reality without doing drugs?
The problem is not the substance. The problem results from abuse of the substance. You have listed some pretty hardcore substances. Substances that cause physical addiction might justify tighter control than marijuana. More scrutiny on those who choose to use them.
Proper government should work to deny access to these substances from those who abuse them, and to allow access to those who use them responsibly. The government has no legitimate interest in prohibiting citizens from using these substances responsibly.
There would probably be a learning curve, but eventually the society might learn to use these substances responsibly, if they choose to use them at all. Then we would all be better off. Most of the money presently wasted on law enforcement and incarceration could be redirected to more useful purposes. A much smaller amount would be required, if the government was only required (and allowed) to focus on those individuals who use drugs irresponsibly.
-ED
Two very important facts:
1. Cannabis is not going away.
2. Prohibition does not work.
Faced with these facts, OCTA makes a lot of sense. Why enrich the black market of drug cartels, foreign mobs, etc. when we could be pouring that money into Oregon’s general fund to fund social programs?
RELAX IT AND TAX IT. It makes sense.
"people just don’t understand that pot is more dangerous than cigarettes."
umm, citation please? last i checked, tobacco kills almost half a million annualy, whereas marijuana kills… wait, lemme check again… NO ONE. EVER.
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm
"Prohibition does not work". Anyone see the recent Budweiser ads? Old footage of prohibition raids during alcohol prohibition? How quickly they started rolling out the barrels when repealed? Oregon will be the first state to legally say ‘This bud’s for you!’ and collect the tax for education, health, treatment for meth. Why hand that money to the black market? It’s already going there. RELAX IT AND TAX IT.
I’d sign the petition because I’d be interested to see how the electorate in Oregon would vote on the issue, however I’ve not encountered anyone touting this petition yet. I’ve only ran into the ultra-right-wing petitioneers who block the sidewalks around town.
Ludes? Whats is this, 1974? Andy from Beaverton makes the mistake many make, which is to think that regulation of cannabis means "drug free-for-all".
What he and others don’t realize (not being "losers") is that what we have RIGHT NOW is a drug free-for-all. You want pot, coke, meth, heroin, (probably not ludes,) you can get them on any Portland street.
So, people are doing drugs. Always have, always will, no matter how illegal they are. Now, given limited resources of police and money, what should we do about it?
In a saner world, we’d be like a business and do a cost-benefit analysis – what do we make illegal versus how much harm does it do?
We found that criminalizing alcohol had far too high a cost, even though alcohol is demonstrably harmful to society. There were just too many drinkers. Even when it was illegal, they kept drinking, but now they were dying from moonshine, streets were plagued with gun battles, and cops were either corrupted and turned a blind eye, or were overworked.
Isn’t marijuana at that same place now? There are 300,000 Oregonians using it. Criminality hasn’t stopped them. The harm from them using marijuana is negligible, especially compared to cigarettes and alcohol. Are we getting a good deal for our $61.5 million we spend each year busting potheads?
They aren’t going anywhere. You can spend millions busting them or make millions taxing them. Prisons for potheads or Oregon Health Plan for every Oregon child.
As for other drugs, they’re still illegal before or after OCTA, and now you’ve freed up $61.5 million and thousands of police man-hours to go after meth labs and cocaine rings. You’ve removed the potheads, most of them only occasional users, from court-ordered rehabs and freed up bed spaces and generated funds for rehab of the meth-, coke-, and heroin-addicted.
Relax it and Tax it.
RadicalRuss states:
OCTA keeps all cannabis production and sales controlled by the state within the state – no "interstate commerce" for the feds to use a "commerce clause" argument.
OCTA states:
474.045 Commission to sell cannabis at cost for medical purposes. The Commission shall sell cannabis at cost, including OCLCC expenses:
(a) To Oregon and other states� pharmacies…
That sounds like interstate commerce to me.
-ED
And just whose state pharmacies are going to buy Oregon cannabis? Obviously that won’t happen until federal prohibition is limited, because of the interstate commerce you just mentioned. It’s in the OCTA for *when* that’s possible.
RadicalRuss States:
The feds used that argument in the Raich case that upheld their right to bust California medical marijuana, but since private citizens, not the state, were involved in cultivation and commerce, the courts decided (using the Wickard v. Fillburn precedent) that medical marijuana was fungible and thereby contributed to the overall nationwide marijuana market. OCTA’s state control coupled with adherence to treaty will overcome that precedent.
EvilDick comments:
"Fungible," I had to look that one up:
"1 : being of such a nature that one part or quantity may be replaced by another equal part or quantity in the satisfaction of an obligation"
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary)
I have not read all of the Raich case, but if this was the reasoning used by the USSC, then, by allowing government prohibition of medical uses of marijuana, they acted directly contradictory to the interests of the people and the government. If marijuana is fungible, then by allowing regulated manufacture and distribution of marijuana for medical purposes – certainly a legitimate use – the government will deprive the black market of this significant segment of the market. This will channel funds away from the black market, so that the black market does not profit from medical users. This should certainly be in the interest of appropriate government. Why would the government want to channel money for medical marijuana into the black market? Profit and control are the two reasons that come to my mind. But, profiting from illegal markets and unreasonable control (oppression) of the people are not legitimate functions of the government.
I do not support OCTA, and I urge all Oregonians to oppose this legislation. When I look at OCTA, it seems to be written for the benefit of the hemp industry, not for the average citizen. It claims to be a cannabis tax act, but OCTA explicitly states:
"The commissions jurisdiction shall extend to any person licensed under this chapter
to cultivate or process cannabis, but shall not extend to any person who manufactures products from hemp. Hemp production for fiber, protein and oil shall be allowed without regulation, license or fee. No federal license shall be required to cultivate hemp in Oregon."
That’s right, the entire burden of taxation is put on those who choose to use marijuana for non-medical purposes.
When you get to the bottom of the bill, and see who is bringing forth this initiative (the "Campaign for the Restoration
and Regulation of Hemp"), then the real motivation for this legislation becomes apparent. This seems to be a bill written by and for those who want to profit from the production of hemp for commercial purposes.
The stuff about selling cannabis in liquor stores is probably added for the sole purpose of encouraging the support of the gullible. If you want to use marijuana for non-medical purposes, such as personal pleasure, this bill was not written for you. Don’t be deceived.
After re-reading the Willamette Week article about "King Bong" Paul Stanford (http://wweek.com/editorial/3405/10114/), I am even more suspicious of this bill.
Again, I urge all Oregonians to oppose this legislation. Putting the wrong structure in place will only delay the implementation of the appropriate solution.
-ED
"…Again, I urge all Oregonians to oppose this legislation. Putting the wrong structure in place will only delay the implementation of the appropriate solution."
I respectfully submit that we have been delaying for some time now any solution except inappropriate criminal/civil sanctions.
All we are saying is, give democracy a chance.
Yes, the big bad conspiratorial industrial hemp industry. Those bad guys who want to produce hemp biodiesel, nutritious hempseed, sturdy hemp clothing and paper, and so much more. Those hempsters who want to give our farmers a good cash crop that benefits the environment. Yup, it’s the menacing entrepreneurs who want to benefit from planting a crop and selling it on an open market. Better watch out for them!
Cannabis as a drug will be licensed, taxed, and regulated by the state. It must be, to conform with treaty. Strangely enough, liquor is also licensed, taxed, and regulated by the state. But ED does not see this as a conspiracy by farmers to benefit "on the backs" of liquor licensees or liquor consumers. Hmmm.
Cannabis as hemp does not fall under the licensing, taxation, and control that drug cannabis will. It will just be legal. A crop, like any other. The way I understand agribusiness, legal crops and farmers and supermarkets all contribute taxes to the state. I fail to see ED’s point, does he think hemp would be some magical untaxed commodity, unlike any other legal commodity?
Folks, be aware that OCTA is going to generate a lot of heat as it gains more attention. Very powerful interests do not want to see any incremental steps taken by states to enact sane cannabis policy. There is lots of opposition money from the government and private institutions who love to fund a game called "concern trolling".
A "concern troll" is one who follows a certain topic of discussion and sews seeds of dissent and doubt. ED has been following me around various internet sites that have discussed OCTA. "Concern trolling" is a time-honored technique in military and police psychological operations to undermine grassroots progressive causes.
Now, I’m an unpaid volunteer who believes strongly in this issue, but my motivations are very clear – I believe no one should be arrested for marijuana use. I believe that if alcohol and cigarettes are legal and taxed, so too should be cannabis.
It makes you wonder what ED’s motivations are, to spend so much time following me around, desperately trying to dissuade Oregonians from making a sensible cannabis policy.
I am happy to engage RadicalRuss in this forum, where his is unable to censor me, as he did by abusing his administrative rights in the NORML Stash forum. (http://stash.norml.org/2008/07/04/oregon-cannabis-tax-act-for-2010-kicks-off-signature-drive/#comment-704).
Unfortunately, RadicalRuss has a tendency to try to sidetrack the discussion from the real issues by using lame rhetorical ploys and personal attacks. Please understand these for what they are – an admission that the legislation being proposed cannot be defended on its own merits.
I believe this is bad legislation in many ways, and I am committed to opposing it in as many forums as possible. I am not following RadicalRuss around, I am following OCTA around. RadicalRuss also frequents discussions of this legislation. That is why we are destined to encounter each other in many different places. His abuse of the Stash forum, in censoring my input, has forced me to seek out other opportunities to discuss the flaws of the OCTA legislation.
I am not an unpaid volunteer, nor am I paid to promote my points of view on the net (that would be great!). I am a single, independent citizen of the state of Oregon who has read this bill, and finding many flaws in it, trying to argue reasonably to prevent it’s enactment into law. I speak for myself, hoping to encourage the people of Oregon to avoid enacting deceptive and problematic legislation such as OCTA. There is a better way to achieve real legalization of marijuana, but you have to focus on the fundamental freedoms that are innate rights of each individual citizen of America. OCTA does not seriously address the natural rights of citizens to use marijuana. Instead, it continues to concede unreasonable authority to the government. The idea of taxing personal, non-medical use, is a ploy to harness support from those who might otherwise oppose this legislation. In the troubled economic times imposed on us by irresponsible government, this does have some appeal. But, it is clear that this law is not about funding the government. If the purpose was to generate funds for government, this "cannabis tax act" should certainly impose specific taxes on the hemp industry. It does not. Instead, it will tax only those dang dope smoking hippies who use marijuana solely for the purpose of getting high. This legislation is not in the interest of the common man. It is in the interest of those who want to make money in the hemp industry.
Do not be deceived. Oppose OCTA. Stand up for your personal right to use marijuana responsibly. That is the way to freedom.
-ED
Damn both of you.
You’ve made this oh so confusing.
Austin,
Thanks for giving thoughtful consideration to the issues that have been raised.
-ED
visit hempfuels.co.nz