2008 Ballot Initiatives

On November 4, 2008, MPP and our allies across the country passed nine out of 10 marijuana-related ballot initiatives ... and also defeated a bad initiative. 

 

State	Initiative	Sponsored by	MPP supports?	Results
Massachusetts	Question 2: Remove the threat of arrest or jail for possessing an ounce or less of marijuana, replacing it with a $100 fine, which could be paid through the mail without lawyers or court appearances, just like a speeding ticket.	MPP's campaign committee, Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy	 Yes	 WIN 65%-35%
Michigan	Proposal 1: Permit terminally and seriously ill patients to use medical marijuana with their doctors' approval.	MPP's campaign committee, Michigan Coalition for Compassionate Care	 Yes	 WIN 63%-37%
California	Proposition 5: Expand the number of drug offenders diverted from prison into treatment and decriminalize the possession of up to an ounce of marijuana, among other things.	Yes on 5	 Yes	 LOSS 60%-40%
California	Proposition 6: Among other things (such as increasing spending on prisons and law enforcement and increasing penalties for gang crimes and methamphetamine distribution), require the expulsion from public housing of anyone convicted of a recent drug offense.	Safe Neighborhoods Act	 No	 DEFEATED (A WIN) 30%-70%
Berkeley, California	Measure JJ: Expand the non-residential zones where dispensaries can locate, create an oversight commission to create standards and determine whether relocating or future operators are in compliance, issue zoning certificates, and bring Berkeley marijuana possession limits in line with recent court rulings determining that such limits are unconstitutional in the state.	Citizens for Sensible Medical Cannabis Regulation	 Yes	 WIN 62%-38%
Fayetteville, Arkansas	Require adult marijuana possession laws to be the lowest priority for local law enforcement.	Sensible Fayetteville	 Yes	 WIN 66%-34%
Hawaii County, Hawaii	Ballot Question 1: Require adult marijuana possession laws to be the lowest priority for local law enforcement.	Project Peaceful Sky	 Yes	 WIN 58%-42%
Ayer, Dunstable, Groton, Pepperell, and Townsend, Massachusetts	Question 4: Direct the district's state representative to vote in favor of legislation that would allow seriously ill patients, with their doctor’s written recommendation, to possess and grow small amounts of marijuana for their personal medical use.	DPFMA and MassCann/NORML	 Yes	 WIN 74%-26%
Medfield, Needham, and precincts 1 and 2 of Dover, Massachusetts	Question 4: Direct the district's state representative to vote in favor of legislation that would allow seriously ill patients, with their doctor’s written recommendation, to possess and grow small amounts of marijuana for their personal medical use.	DPFMA and MassCann/NORML	 Yes	 WIN 73%-27%
Bedford, Burlington, precinct 3 of Wilmington, Massachusetts	Question 4: Direct the district's state representative to vote in favor of legislation that would allow seriously ill patients, with their doctor’s written recommendation, to possess and grow small amounts of marijuana for their personal medical use.	DPFMA and MassCann/NORML	 Yes	 WIN 71%-29%
Hanson, Pembroke, precincts 2,3,4,5 of Duxbury, precinct 2 of Halifax, Massachusetts	Question 4: Direct the district's state representative to vote in favor of legislation that would allow seriously ill patients, with their doctor’s written recommendation, to possess and grow small amounts of marijuana for their personal medical use.	DPFMA and MassCann/NORML	 Yes	 WIN 71%-29%

2008 Ballot Initiatives

On November 4, 2008, MPP and our allies across the country passed nine out of 10 marijuana-related ballot initiatives ... and also defeated a bad initiative. 

 

State	Initiative	Sponsored by	MPP supports?	Results
Massachusetts	Question 2: Remove the threat of arrest or jail for possessing an ounce or less of marijuana, replacing it with a $100 fine, which could be paid through the mail without lawyers or court appearances, just like a speeding ticket.	MPP's campaign committee, Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy	 Yes	 WIN 65%-35%
Michigan	Proposal 1: Permit terminally and seriously ill patients to use medical marijuana with their doctors' approval.	MPP's campaign committee, Michigan Coalition for Compassionate Care	 Yes	 WIN 63%-37%
California	Proposition 5: Expand the number of drug offenders diverted from prison into treatment and decriminalize the possession of up to an ounce of marijuana, among other things.	Yes on 5	 Yes	 LOSS 60%-40%
California	Proposition 6: Among other things (such as increasing spending on prisons and law enforcement and increasing penalties for gang crimes and methamphetamine distribution), require the expulsion from public housing of anyone convicted of a recent drug offense.	Safe Neighborhoods Act	 No	 DEFEATED (A WIN) 30%-70%
Berkeley, California	Measure JJ: Expand the non-residential zones where dispensaries can locate, create an oversight commission to create standards and determine whether relocating or future operators are in compliance, issue zoning certificates, and bring Berkeley marijuana possession limits in line with recent court rulings determining that such limits are unconstitutional in the state.	Citizens for Sensible Medical Cannabis Regulation	 Yes	 WIN 62%-38%
Fayetteville, Arkansas	Require adult marijuana possession laws to be the lowest priority for local law enforcement.	Sensible Fayetteville	 Yes	 WIN 66%-34%
Hawaii County, Hawaii	Ballot Question 1: Require adult marijuana possession laws to be the lowest priority for local law enforcement.	Project Peaceful Sky	 Yes	 WIN 58%-42%
Ayer, Dunstable, Groton, Pepperell, and Townsend, Massachusetts	Question 4: Direct the district's state representative to vote in favor of legislation that would allow seriously ill patients, with their doctor’s written recommendation, to possess and grow small amounts of marijuana for their personal medical use.	DPFMA and MassCann/NORML	 Yes	 WIN 74%-26%
Medfield, Needham, and precincts 1 and 2 of Dover, Massachusetts	Question 4: Direct the district's state representative to vote in favor of legislation that would allow seriously ill patients, with their doctor’s written recommendation, to possess and grow small amounts of marijuana for their personal medical use.	DPFMA and MassCann/NORML	 Yes	 WIN 73%-27%
Bedford, Burlington, precinct 3 of Wilmington, Massachusetts	Question 4: Direct the district's state representative to vote in favor of legislation that would allow seriously ill patients, with their doctor’s written recommendation, to possess and grow small amounts of marijuana for their personal medical use.	DPFMA and MassCann/NORML	 Yes	 WIN 71%-29%
Hanson, Pembroke, precincts 2,3,4,5 of Duxbury, precinct 2 of Halifax, Massachusetts	Question 4: Direct the district's state representative to vote in favor of legislation that would allow seriously ill patients, with their doctor’s written recommendation, to possess and grow small amounts of marijuana for their personal medical use.	DPFMA and MassCann/NORML	 Yes	 WIN 71%-29%

2008 Ballot Initiatives

On November 4, 2008, MPP and our allies across the country passed nine out of 10 marijuana-related ballot initiatives ... and also defeated a bad initiative. 

 

State	Initiative	Sponsored by	MPP supports?	Results
Massachusetts	Question 2: Remove the threat of arrest or jail for possessing an ounce or less of marijuana, replacing it with a $100 fine, which could be paid through the mail without lawyers or court appearances, just like a speeding ticket.	MPP's campaign committee, Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy	 Yes	 WIN 65%-35%
Michigan	Proposal 1: Permit terminally and seriously ill patients to use medical marijuana with their doctors' approval.	MPP's campaign committee, Michigan Coalition for Compassionate Care	 Yes	 WIN 63%-37%
California	Proposition 5: Expand the number of drug offenders diverted from prison into treatment and decriminalize the possession of up to an ounce of marijuana, among other things.	Yes on 5	 Yes	 LOSS 60%-40%
California	Proposition 6: Among other things (such as increasing spending on prisons and law enforcement and increasing penalties for gang crimes and methamphetamine distribution), require the expulsion from public housing of anyone convicted of a recent drug offense.	Safe Neighborhoods Act	 No	 DEFEATED (A WIN) 30%-70%
Berkeley, California	Measure JJ: Expand the non-residential zones where dispensaries can locate, create an oversight commission to create standards and determine whether relocating or future operators are in compliance, issue zoning certificates, and bring Berkeley marijuana possession limits in line with recent court rulings determining that such limits are unconstitutional in the state.	Citizens for Sensible Medical Cannabis Regulation	 Yes	 WIN 62%-38%
Fayetteville, Arkansas	Require adult marijuana possession laws to be the lowest priority for local law enforcement.	Sensible Fayetteville	 Yes	 WIN 66%-34%
Hawaii County, Hawaii	Ballot Question 1: Require adult marijuana possession laws to be the lowest priority for local law enforcement.	Project Peaceful Sky	 Yes	 WIN 58%-42%
Ayer, Dunstable, Groton, Pepperell, and Townsend, Massachusetts	Question 4: Direct the district's state representative to vote in favor of legislation that would allow seriously ill patients, with their doctor’s written recommendation, to possess and grow small amounts of marijuana for their personal medical use.	DPFMA and MassCann/NORML	 Yes	 WIN 74%-26%
Medfield, Needham, and precincts 1 and 2 of Dover, Massachusetts	Question 4: Direct the district's state representative to vote in favor of legislation that would allow seriously ill patients, with their doctor’s written recommendation, to possess and grow small amounts of marijuana for their personal medical use.	DPFMA and MassCann/NORML	 Yes	 WIN 73%-27%
Bedford, Burlington, precinct 3 of Wilmington, Massachusetts	Question 4: Direct the district's state representative to vote in favor of legislation that would allow seriously ill patients, with their doctor’s written recommendation, to possess and grow small amounts of marijuana for their personal medical use.	DPFMA and MassCann/NORML	 Yes	 WIN 71%-29%
Hanson, Pembroke, precincts 2,3,4,5 of Duxbury, precinct 2 of Halifax, Massachusetts	Question 4: Direct the district's state representative to vote in favor of legislation that would allow seriously ill patients, with their doctor’s written recommendation, to possess and grow small amounts of marijuana for their personal medical use.	DPFMA and MassCann/NORML	 Yes	 WIN 71%-29%

After listening to I don't know how many times the probation/parole officer tell me about how marijuana is addicting and kills people who drive under its influence I just want to puke from the overload of lying bullshit. What Bush? Is it possible that pot does Not destroy the ability to drive? Right. Try this: Marijuana and Driving: A Review of the Scientific Evidence

Share This Page

It is well established that alcohol increases accident risk.  Evidence of marijuana’s culpability in on-road driving accidents is much less convincing. Although cannabis intoxication has been shown to mildly impair psychomotor skills, this impairment does not appear to be severe or long lasting.  In driving simulator tests, this impairment is typically manifested by subjects decreasing their driving speed and requiring greater time to respond to emergency situations. Nevertheless, this impairment does not appear to play a significant role in on-road traffic accidents.  A 2002 review of seven separate studies involving 7,934 drivers reported, “Crash culpability studies have failed to demonstrate that drivers with cannabinoids in the blood are significantly more likely than drug-free drivers to be culpable in road crashes.”  This result is likely because subject under the influence of marijuana are aware of their impairment and compensate for it accordingly, such as by slowing down and by focusing their attention when they know a response will be required.  This reaction is just the opposite of that exhibited by drivers under the influence of alcohol, who tend to drive in a more risky manner proportional to their intoxication. Today, a large body of research exists exploring the impact of marijuana on psychomotor skills and actual driving performance.  This research consists of driving simulator studies, on-road performance studies, crash culpability studies, and summary reviews of the existing evidence.  To date, the result of this research is fairly consistent: Marijuana has a measurable yet relatively mild effect on psychomotor skills, yet it does not appear to play a significant role in vehicle crashes, particularly when compared to alcohol.  Below is a summary of some of the existing data.  (For more information on NORML’s position regarding marijuana, driving and the law, please click here or visit NORML’s Principles of Responsible Cannabis Use.) Summaries Crash culpability studies On-Road Performance Studies Driving simulator studies I can put up more. It is the sort of thing I read, but will probably put off the average reader so I leave it off for your sake. Read this site: http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5450 So, we have put up doctors of nursing science who tell us pot doesn't hurt pregnant mommies, and now we have serious proof pot doesn't hurt driving skills. I can tell you this for sure, a cell phone does a whole lot more than mildly impair driving skills from the way I have seen peeps blabbering on them pull out in front of a bus I was in several years ago. God Bless Your Gardens

It is coming out and can not be silenced. We Need legalized cannabis for our personal, family needs. I, personally, am repulsed by the idea I need or require some medical "expert" to tell me how to, or anything, treat my kids with cannabis. I do not regard cannabis as a difficult issue. I regard intrusive, control freaks as very difficult issues and wish them on their way, far away. It is perfectly fine if you ask for it, but we need the control freaks to get off our backs and away from our freedoms. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3873387618754702245&ei=DUXkSPOpI5Gu-AH7x80F&q=medical+marijuana&vt=lf a bit of humor? glad you asked: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6015000186042700962&hl=en Brain deterioration from pot? here is a medical table of specific types of cancer THC stops or slows: Table 2 | Tumours that are sensitive to cannabinoid-induced growth inhibition

Tumour type Experimental system Effect Receptor References

Lung carcinoma In vivo (mouse); Decreased tumour size; N.D. 29

in vitro cell-growth inhibition

Glioma In vivo (mouse, rat); Decreased tumour size; CB1, CB2 50,51,53,85

in vitro apoptosis

Thyroid epithelioma In vivo (mouse); Decreased tumour size; CB1 60

in vitro cell-cycle arrest

Lymphoma/leukaemia In vivo (mouse); Decreased tumour size; CB2 96

in vitro apoptosis

Skin carcinoma In vivo (mouse); Decreased tumour size; CB1, CB2 61

in vitro apoptosis

Uterus carcinoma In vitro Cell-growth inhibition N.D. 97,98Breast carcinoma

In vitro Cell-cycle arrest CB1 57–59

Prostate carcinoma In vitro Apoptosis CB1? 54,59,99Neuroblastoma In vitro Apoptosis VR1 51,73 Brain deterioration from pot? How about raging deviation from the medical facts as reported by the federal government and then covered up by the same nutty outfit? That table was about how cannabis shrinks tumors in lung cancers, not causes lung cancer. That table was about how cannabis helps women dying from metastatic breast cancer. How, in the name of God, can our own government be against disseminating cannabis??? There will come a time when cannabis extracts are taken in the morning like we take vitamins now. And the cannabis will probably do more good than the vitamins will because you can eat your vitamins from regular food, but not the cannabis. It will be a new food group. We need cannabis for our diet every day so we live longer, happier, more productive lives. We need to stop giving speed to our kids in school and be using a far safer drug: cannabis. I am definetly not for causing intoxication disguised as medication, however. We already have that with the kids taking speed as it is. Clearly more research of a non bigoted nature must be performed and soon. We need cannabis and we need to know its scope of use and what it will not do, as well.

High folks: Anybody seen prezidenchal Bush on TV sweating the shitstorm his lackadasical policies have visited on the USA? And, guess what? the dumbasses pot laws are just as smart as his taking us to a war we didn't need and never should have started, either. I got us another great read from Carl Olsen who passed along the following: http://media.www.sonomastatestar.com/media/storage/paper846/news/2008/09/23/Opinion/Attorney.Generals.New.Pot.Rules.Not.Enough-3449051.shtml

Attorney General's new pot rules not enough

Medical marijuana laws must be changed federally to have any impact

Benjamin Browning

Issue date: 9/23/08 Section: Opinion California Attorney General Jerry Brown's new attempt to settle the nerves of medical marijuana dispensers and patients is a weak attempt to make proposition 215 stronger. Attorney General Brown has introduced an eleven-page directive aimed at clearing up some issues between state and federal governments. He believes his new guidelines will minimize legal worries and ease patient worries. In 1996 when proposition 215 was passed by an overwhelming vote, medical marijuana dispensaries started popping up like Trader Joes all over the state. People started getting prescriptions for their "back pain" and everyone was happy. At the same time, federally, this was all very illegal. Twelve years has gone by and dozens of dispensaries have been opened, been raided, and been reopened just to be raided again. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been made from the profits and millions have been spent on trying to fight the legislation. Brown's eleven-page directive now gives police the ability to distinguish between criminals and legitimate marijuana sellers. It also protects patients from getting arrested unlawfully. Brown's plan also will change dispensaries into non-profit or cooperatives, to cut out big money operations that exploit the medical label and sell to just about anyone. One other step Brown wants to take is to change the amount of pot on the market, making it so only a patient, caregiver or dispensary could grow the small amount of medical marijuana needed. Brown's plan has just cleaned up the legislation at the state level. It will not stop the DEA from raiding dispensaries or harassing patients. The police should already be able to distinguish criminals from legitimate marijuana sellers. Don't the legitimate guys usually sell during the day at a place with a sign that says medical marijuana in neon green? As for turning these dispensaries into non-profits, they probably only report a quarter of their earnings as it is so this will be no big hurdle for them to get around. I am sure there are millions of tax-free dollars going through legitimate dispensaries. The amount of pot on the market will not change by only allowing patients or dispensaries to grow the plants. The law now says a patient is allowed to grow up to six plants and a dispensary is allowed to grow six plants per patient it serves. There is no way a dispensary knows how many patients it has from week to week or even day to day. If they have 65 regular patients they must 65 people that try and go to a different dispensary every week. Does that mean they have 130 patients and are allowed to grow 780 plants? Making all these changes at the state level is continuing to get the medical marijuana laws nowhere. The changes need to be made federally and only then will the dispensers be able to run their business with out fear from the DEA. See how our federal master blaster Carl Olsen is after the legalization issue from the federal level? He wins anything it mashes the dogshit out of police hatred everywhere in the whole USA. And, as I have been telling the brit buds, we force open the hateful hand of cannabis haters here and their toadies over there will loosen up, too. Peace to you and your families

this is about Carl Olsen's federal injuctive relief action I have been ranting to various site buds. Carl is the bombdiggity! Drug Law Blog: DEA Accepts Petition To Consider Removing Marijuana From Schedule I I think it's important to get clarification, although I really think the law is clear on this. If you look at the two cases everyone cites, Gonzales v. Raich (2005), and United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative (2001), the Supreme Court seems to be saying that Congress put marijuana into Schedule 1 and it can't be removed because Congress put it there. That argument is nonsense and could not possibly be what the Supreme Court intended to say. No one would suggest that marijuana cannot be rescheduled. In fact, several marijuana rescheduling petitions have been filed over the past 38 years since the Controlled Substances Act was enacted. The DEA has just accepted my petition to reschedule marijuana. If Congress had locked marijuana into Schedule I, the DEA would not have just now accepted my petition to reschedule it. It's obvious that marijuana can be rescheduled. If you look at 21 U.S.C. 812(c), it says “Initial schedules of controlled substances.” Then it goes on to require the amendment of the schedules: 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1) (“transfer between such schedules”); 21 U.S.C. 811(b) (“remove a drug or other substance entirely from the schedules”). It's obvious that Congress didn't intend to reject rescheduling of marijuana simply because Congress initially put marijuana into Schedule I. So, the question is then: what triggers the rescheduling. In 1991, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, answered that question. The court said there is no federal definition of accepted medical use, and that in the absence of such a defition, the court defers to the DEA's opinion. In Gonzales v. Oregon (2006), the Supreme Court explained why there is no federal defintion of accepted medical use, saying that Congress never intended to occupy the field of medicine and the states determine accepted medical use. So, there actually is a federal definition of accepted medical use - whatever the states say it is. In 1991, there was no accepted medical use of marijuana, because the states did not start accepting medical use of marijuana by state statutes until 1996 (California and Arizona). So, today, there are 12 states that have accepted the medical use of marijuana. These laws are binding on the federal government and the DEA has no discretion in the matter. The DEA's opinion isn't relevant any more. I guess I should answer your question. Both state (Iowa) and federal law say marijuana has no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. Although Iowa has the power to say marijuana has no accepted medical use in treatment in Iowa, it cannot speak for the other states. As explained previously, the federal government has no power to say marijuana has no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. Twelve states say it does have accepted medical use in treatment and that means "in the United States" as explained by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in 1987 in Grinspoon v. DEA. Iowans for Medical Marijuana is part of a coalition of groups that filed a rescheduling (in 2002) which is still pending with the DEA: Marijuana Research: The Members of the Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis My current petition is different. My current petition is actually just a notice to let the DEA know they are in violation of federal law. There's nothing for them to do but obey federal law and remove marijuana from Schedule I now that it no longer fits the definition of a Schedule I substance. Congress gave the power to determine accepted medical practice to the states (see 21 U.S.C. 903) and not to the DEA. 21 U.S.C. 903 says clearly that Congress did not intent to occupy the field of medicine, and that's how the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted it in 2006 in Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006). My current petition is purely a matter of law and fact. The law says the stated determine accepted medical use under the federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and the fact is that twelve states have determined that marijuana has accepted medical use. The DEA is in violation of federal law for maintaining marijuana in a schedule that says it has no accepted medical use in the United States. My petition merely gives them notice that they are in violation of federal law. The next step is federal court. Apparently a notice has been served to the DEA to cease and desist. On August 11, 2008 the DEA was served Notice to Cease and Desist enforcement of fraudulent federal marijuana regulations within 30 days or further action will be taken.