Marijuana reform initiatives on the ballot in 2016 - Official results thread

jct74 said:
What freedoms to they have now though? The legislators can mess with any part of the bill they do not like anyways, because it is not a constitutional amendment. But they're probably not going to screw with it too much, because then there would be a huge public outcry for going against the will of the people. My advice is vote for it. It will be a huge strategic win for the nationwide movement, with no eastern state having legalized yet and Massachusetts being close to the massive population center of New York City. Probably would kick off a domino effect of other eastern states legalizing too, which legislators in Vermont and New Jersey have recently looked at. If it loses though the prohibitionists will have a field day and the pressure on other eastern states to legalize will be much lessened.
Click to expand...

I'll vote yes but reserve the right to say I told ya so when they ban it again.


577611520-850x478large_zpsdu3xj8g9.jpg

BOSTON (AP) — Massachusetts’ top law enforcement official went on the offensive Thursday against the legalization of recreational pot, arguing that the marijuana industry would resist curbs on the potency of its products and “always put profits ahead of people.”
Question 4 on Tuesday’s ballot would legalize possession of small amounts of recreational marijuana for adults 21 and older and allow for retail sales of the drug, including in the form of edibles such as cookies or candy.
Attorney General Maura Healey, a Democrat, is among several high-profile elected officials opposed to the ballot initiative, a list that also includes Republican Gov. Charlie Baker and Boston’s Democratic Mayor Marty Walsh.

“Question 4 isn’t just about legalization — it’s about commercialization,” said Healey, who was joined by health care professionals who oppose the measure at a Beacon Hill news conference.
The measure’s language includes no specific limits on the potency of THC, the pyschoactive chemical in marijuana, for products sold in the state. Critics say today’s marijuana is generally at least six times more potent than it was in the 1970s.
“Maura Healey’s concern has no basis in fact and is yet another scare tactic to stop voters from putting the criminals who control the (marijuana) market today out of business,” said Jim Borghesani, a spokesman for the group Yes on 4.
Marijuana companies have already signaled their intent to fight any restrictions, Healey said.
“Potency limits might actually be better for people, but they are bad for profits, they’re bad for the bottom line and they’re bad for a billion-dollar industry that will always put profits ahead of people,” the attorney general said.

If approved, the ballot measure would create a Cannabis Control Commission to regulate recreational marijuana in Massachusetts. Backers say the commission would have absolute authority” over edibles and other products sold in the state, including the power to impose limits on potency. ..............................................
Click to expand...
 
tommyrp12 said:
I'll vote yes but reserve the right to say I told ya so when they ban it again.
Click to expand...

Good call, I think that is the right decision. I understand your concerns though; there is a possibility the bill could be majorly screwed with after it passes. That could be avoided with a constitutional amendment that strictly spells out everything, but that approach is also problematic for being too inflexible which gives opponents an opening to rail against the bill. There is no perfect solution, but the important thing is to move the ball forward, which basically was the point the Boston Globe made in their endorsement. And the bill is almost certainly going to be tinkered with after it passes, because it is unlikely legislators are going to let the 3.75% tax rate stand. I don't think the legislators (or regulatory commission) will do anything that severely violates the spirit of the bill however, especially if it passes by a significant margin which would send an even more emphatic message. Politicians usually respect the results of an election it seems like... although in Great Britain maybe not so much, we'll see how the Brexit thing turns out.
 
Last edited:
Sheldon Adelson throws in another $1.35 million in Nevada


Sheldon Adelson gave $1.35 million more to campaign opposing recreational marijuana in Nevada

By COLTON LOCHHEAD
November 5, 2016

Las Vegas Sands Corp. Chairman and CEO Sheldon Adelson gave $1.35 million more to the campaign opposing recreational marijuana in Nevada in recent weeks, campaign filings with the Nevada secretary of state show.

Adelson gave to the political action committee Protecting Nevada’s Children, which opposes Question 2, the ballot measure that would legalize the sale and consumption of recreational marijuana in the state.

Adelson has essentially self-funded the fight against the measure. He gave the group $2 million in September. Of the $3.44 million the campaign has raised since its September launch, $3.35 million, or 97.4 percent, has come from Adelson.

...
Click to expand...

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/p...5-million-more-campaign-opposing-recreational



He also gave $500,000 recently to fighting Prop 205 in Arizona. Here is the full list of every contributor over $10,000.

$100,000-plus donors:

Discount Tire $1 million

Arizona Chamber of Commerce $918,000

Sheldon Adelson (Nevada casino magnate) $500,000

Insys Therapeutics Inc. (maker of Fentanyl and synthetic THC) $500,000

Empire Southwest LLC (construction-equipment company) $350,000

Services Group of America (food distribution company — has a division that sells food to private prisons) $180,000

SAM Action (national anti-marijuana group) $165,000

T. Denny Sanford (South Dakota businessman) $100,000

Larry Van Tuyl (auto dealership mogul who owns a $125-million-dollar yacht) $100,000

Randy Kendrick (wife of Ken Kendrick, Arizona Diamondbacks owner) $100,000


$50,000-plus donors:

Arizona Mining Association $51,000

Arizona Automobile Dealers Association $50,000

Michael Ahearn (co-founder of First Solar) $50,000


$25,000-plus donors:

Arizona Republican Party $45,570

Anita Farnsworth (Mesa philanthropist) $40,000

Pima Medical Institute $40,000

Dan Grubb (auto dealer) $35,000

U-Haul $35,000

Gila River Indian Community $25,000

Robson Communities Inc. (home developer) $25,000

Fulton Homes Corporation $25,000

Larry Clemmensen (Paradise Valley investor) $25,000

Southern Arizona Leadership (Tucson-boosting group) $25,000

Microchip Technology Incorporated $25,000


$10,001 to $20,000 donors:

William R. Metzler (real estate) $20,000

Arizona Cotton Growers Association $15,000

Taylor Morrison Inc. (homebuilder) $15,000

Greater Phoenix Leadership $15,000

Robert H. Castellini (Cincinnati Reds baseball team owner) $15,000

Jim Chamberlain (Sun State Builders owner) $12,821

Kent and Shelley Bunger (owners of contracting company) $11,000


$10,000 donors:

Pinnacle West Capital Corporation (parent company of Arizona Public Service utility) $10,000

Bashas' Inc. (grocery-store chain) $10,000

Daniel and Carleen Brophy (Wyoming-based philanthropists) $10,000

Foster Friess (Wyoming businessman) $10,000

Peterson & Burge Enterprises (Kingman brother-and-sister business behind Desert Oro Foods) $10,000

Arizona Rock Products Association (Rock PAC) $10,000

El Dorado Holdings Inc. (developer) $10,000

Ken Ellegard (auto dealer) $10,000

Jim Click Automotive Team $10,000

Bennett Dorrance (Campbell Soup heir) $10,000

Arizona Trucking Association $10,000

Scott Savage (Ohio investor) $10,000

Grimaldi's Brick-Oven Pizzeria $10,000

Lavidge (ad agency) $10,000

Michael Pierson (part-owner of Team PRP, a Mesa auto recycling firm) $10,000

Ewing Irrigation Products Inc. $10,000

Richard C. Adkerson (CEO and president of Freeport-McMoran) $10,000

Freeport-McMoran (mining company) $10,000

Arizona Wine and Spirits Wholesale Association Inc. $10,000

Ed Breunig (Laz-Y-Boy Furniture Gallery owner) $10,000

CopperPoint (insurance company) $10,000

Douglas Fougnies (patent enforcer) $10,000

Salmon for Congress (Matt Salmon isn't running for Congress any more, but can use his donors' money for other political campaigns) $10,000

Donald Diamond (Tucson real estate investor) $10,000

Knight Transportation $10,000

Arizona Chapter Associated General Contractors of America Inc. $10,000

M.R. Tanner Construction $10,000

Arizona Lodging & Tourism Association $10,000

Michael Pollack (Tempe movie-theater owner) $10,000

Sun State Builders $10,000

Jerry Hayden (retired businessman and Club for Growth donor) $10,000
Click to expand...

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news...to-keep-marijuana-a-felony-in-arizona-8794628
 
Last edited:
House Minority Leader backs marijuana legalization


Nancy Pelosi Backs California Cannabis Legalization

LEAFLY STAFF
November 4, 2016

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) came out in support of California’s adult-use Proposition 64 on Friday, telling the Los Angeles Times she’ll cast her ballot for the measure.

“I will vote for it, but I have not made a public statement about it until right this very second,” Pelosi said, according to the Times, which published the news Friday afternoon. The paper said she didn’t elaborate.

Pelosi, who leads Democrats in the US House of Representatives, is one of of only a small number of high-ranking public officials in who’ve come out in support of adult-use legalization. Others include state Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, bipartisan members of Congress—including US Reps. Jared Huffman, Barbara Lee, Ted Lieu, Tom McClintock, Dana Rohrabacher, and Eric Swalwell. Perhaps the most visible elected official to back the measure, however, is from clear across the country. US Sen. Bernie Sanders told supporters in Santa Barbara back in May that he supports Prop 64. “If I were a citizen of California,” he said,” I would vote for that ballot item to legalize marijuana.”

...
Click to expand...

https://www.leafly.com/news/politic...ncy-pelosi-says-will-vote-californias-prop-64
 
Will track the official results here. Anyone have some predictions to make? I'll say California by 12, Maine by 6, Massachusetts by 5, Nevada by 5, and Arizona will lose by 1. I'll be very happy with 4 out of 5 though, on the legalization initiatives. There are also 4 MMJ initiatives on the ballot.
 
I don't understand why you guys support these kinds of measures or how they have anything to do with liberty. Why not just eliminate any laws prohibiting the use/growing of this drug and all other drugs? Let a person grow what they want and ingest what they want and don't try to protect them from themselves.

I don't want the government telling me certain drugs are good for me if I am a certain age. I know marijuana and alcohol aren't good for me. I think alcohol is the worst of them all. Not only should the government not restrict drugs but it should not promote them either.

Long before I ever heard of the "liberty movement" or Ron Paul, I was saying I thought drugs should not be illegal - but ALL drugs with NO age limits. I don't see any other way.

I was disturbed in 2012 when Ron Paul said he thought marijuana should be handled like alcohol, as if that works at all well. Get rid of the age limit and you at least get rid of some the attraction. Give control back to the parents.

I don't want marijuana to become a thing you are "supposed" to do just like alcohol has been my whole life.

at least it didn't look like any of these used the term "recreational" - as if I am supposed to think there is something recreational to do with the stuff.

Someone help me if I am missing something.

Thanks.
 
Sumthinorother said:
I don't understand why you guys support these kinds of measures or how they have anything to do with liberty. Why not just eliminate any laws prohibiting the use/growing of this drug and all other drugs? Let a person grow what they want and ingest what they want and don't try to protect them from themselves.

I don't want the government telling me certain drugs are good for me if I am a certain age. I know marijuana and alcohol aren't good for me. I think alcohol is the worst of them all. Not only should the government not restrict drugs but it should not promote them either.

Long before I ever heard of the "liberty movement" or Ron Paul, I was saying I thought drugs should not be illegal - but ALL drugs with NO age limits. I don't see any other way.

I was disturbed in 2012 when Ron Paul said he thought marijuana should be handled like alcohol, as if that works at all well. Get rid of the age limit and you at least get rid of some the attraction. Give control back to the parents.

I don't want marijuana to become a thing you are "supposed" to do just like alcohol has been my whole life.

at least it didn't look like any of these used the term "recreational" - as if I am supposed to think there is something recreational to do with the stuff.

Someone help me if I am missing something.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

You're not. I just hope these measures will keep some people out of jail.
 
"Why not just eliminate any laws prohibiting the use/growing of this drug and all other drugs? Let a person grow what they want and ingest what they want and don't try to protect them from themselves." (sumthinorother)

:)

...of course you are 100% correct here...REPEAL, not LEGALIZATION...[what a stooooopid term 'legalization' is!!]

...but you'll have to be satisfied in the knowledge your approach is right and just...because you are surrounded by goddamned republican and democrat fools...your common sense and decency is very uncommon in a country DOMINATED by goddamned fools currently fighting over stinking hillary and/or stinking trump...

...btw, up here in maine, i'm worried...there are LOTS of stoooooooooooopid (paul lepage) republican prohibitionists and MANY 'medical marijuana medallion holder$' who are teaming up on the 'no' side....

...strange bedfellows...as the goddamned fool republican prohibitionists would love to ban 'medical marijuana' too...

....the 'no' voters are authoritarian pieces of sh!t...all.... :mad:
 
Sumthinorother said:
I don't understand why you guys support these kinds of measures or how they have anything to do with liberty. Why not just eliminate any laws prohibiting the use/growing of this drug and all other drugs? Let a person grow what they want and ingest what they want and don't try to protect them from themselves.

I don't want the government telling me certain drugs are good for me if I am a certain age. I know marijuana and alcohol aren't good for me. I think alcohol is the worst of them all. Not only should the government not restrict drugs but it should not promote them either.

Long before I ever heard of the "liberty movement" or Ron Paul, I was saying I thought drugs should not be illegal - but ALL drugs with NO age limits. I don't see any other way.

I was disturbed in 2012 when Ron Paul said he thought marijuana should be handled like alcohol, as if that works at all well. Get rid of the age limit and you at least get rid of some the attraction. Give control back to the parents.

I don't want marijuana to become a thing you are "supposed" to do just like alcohol has been my whole life.

at least it didn't look like any of these used the term "recreational" - as if I am supposed to think there is something recreational to do with the stuff.

Someone help me if I am missing something.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

It's just PART of the larger attempt to push for ending prohibition. Gotta start somewhere.
 
jct74 said:
Will track the official results here. Anyone have some predictions to make? I'll say California by 12, Maine by 6, Massachusetts by 5, Nevada by 5, and Arizona will lose by 1. I'll be very happy with 4 out of 5 though, on the legalization initiatives. There are also 4 MMJ initiatives on the ballot.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure it will fail in AZ. Out of state money has been fueling the anti-205 propaganda campaign quite well. :(
 
Sumthinorother said:
I don't understand why you guys support these kinds of measures or how they have anything to do with liberty. Why not just eliminate any laws prohibiting the use/growing of this drug and all other drugs? Let a person grow what they want and ingest what they want and don't try to protect them from themselves.
Click to expand...

Because a straight vote on just eliminating marijuana laws, with no age restrictions or taxation policies in place, probably wouldn't get above 20%.


Long before I ever heard of the "liberty movement" or Ron Paul, I was saying I thought drugs should not be illegal - but ALL drugs with NO age limits. I don't see any other way.
Click to expand...

A vote to legalize ALL drugs with no age restrictions in place wouldn't even get above 10%.
 
This is what I'm most interested in seeing results of tonight. Here's hoping the east coast can pick up a state or two for legal recreational
 
brandon said:
This is what I'm most interested in seeing results of tonight. Here's hoping the east coast can pick up a state or two for legal recreational
Click to expand...

Almost everybody I know in CA is voting NO on 64.. I voted YES but I am not sure I want it to pass, sorta undecided. It actually increases several penalties. Right now it's a $100 fine. It will be a $500 fine for those under 21 under the new law, and if you share a joint with someone under 21 it could potentially be a $500 fine.

Of course there are a lot of other reasons, such as the taxes and regulations that will come from it, to where a lot of people are just like "hmm, maybe we should leave it like it is.." It's already really easy for anybody over 18 to get a doctor's rec and grow their own. Most towns have several dozen medical delivery services, it comes right to your door.
 
dannno said:
Almost everybody I know in CA is voting NO on 64.. I voted YES but I am not sure I want it to pass, sorta undecided. It actually increases several penalties. Right now it's a $100 fine. It will be a $500 fine for those under 21 under the new law, and if you share a joint with someone under 21 it could potentially be a $500 fine.

Of course there are a lot of other reasons, such as the taxes and regulations that will come from it, to where a lot of people are just like "hmm, maybe we should leave it like it is.." It's already really easy for anybody over 18 to get a doctor's rec and grow their own. Most towns have several dozen medical delivery services, it comes right to your door.
Click to expand...

The "marijuana community" and CA Libertarian Party recommended a "no" vote.
 
jct74 said:
Because a straight vote on just eliminating marijuana laws, with no age restrictions or taxation policies in place, probably wouldn't get above 20%.




A vote to legalize ALL drugs with no age restrictions in place wouldn't even get above 10%.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the replies everyone!. Maybe my post wasn't as stupid as I started to think it was after I posted it. I mean it IS how I think the issue should be handled, but after I posted I thought, man, I am forgetting that right now there are still federal laws covering the various drugs, and so far the federal government hasn't tried to enforce the federal laws that oppose these marijuana state laws, but it might if a state was to extend it to other drugs, and that is part of why no one has extended it to other drugs. Is this also correct?

Either way, I see what you are saying about doing it gradually a step at a time and sticking with what is likely to pass, but I still can't see myself voting for these as they are written.

It's kinda like how I am very pro-life, but I don't like these laws based on if the baby can feel pain. I mean I do feel bad that more babies might die without them, but I fear it can lead to killing anyone who can't feel pain, which could include all sorts of scenarios. In supporting such laws, I'd also now be conceding that certain babies are less in need of protection than others, so there's no reason to assume that future laws would continue to extend the protected age range; the distinction instead may come to be more and more accepted as fact.

I'd probably wait until decriminalization at the federal level is achieved, though I know nobody wants to hear that, and try to re-educate people on why age restrictions are worse instead of better and why it should be "repeal" instead of "legalize", etc.

I know that's not what anyone wants to hear.

I'm glad we are pretty much in agreement on how things should end up though.

Thanks.
 
Results starting to come in for MA, Question 4


0.2% Reporting

Yes
51.5%
8,154

No
48.5%
7,678

http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/ballot-measures/massachusetts/


I'm most excited for Massachusetts legalizing out of all the states. Very important strategic implications for the legalization movement, being a state of 7 million people and very close to the New York City metropolitan area, and considering that no other eastern state has legalized yet. Some of the eastern states are already considering legalizing, I think if MA wins it could set off a chain reaction of other states such as Vermont and New Jersey.

Of course California will have the biggest impact, being a state of 40 million people, but it is already pretty much a given that it will pass. Massachusetts is what I have my eye on.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

mtr1979
Nebraska ballot measures 2024
Replies
1
Views
2K
oyarde
O
jct74
Ohio Becomes the 24th State To Legalize Recreational Marijuana
Replies
13
Views
2K
jct74
jct74
jct74
Oklahoma Voters To Decide On Marijuana Legalization Ballot Measure
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
sam1952
sam1952
jmdrake
The white trash version of Ghislane Maxwell gets 100 years
Replies
2
Views
53
TheTexan
TheTexan
Occam's Banana
California could secede in next ten years, sparking new Civil War
Replies
6
Views
70
69360
6
Back
Top