California Proposition 19 (also known as the Rule, Control & amp; Law of Gnat Tax ) is a voting initiative in statewide voting on November 2, 2010. It was defeated, with 53.5% of California voters choosing "No" and 46.5% selecting "Yes." If approved, it will legalize marijuana-related activities, allowing local governments to organize these activities, allowing local governments to impose and collect fees and taxes on marijuana, and to enforce criminal and civil penalties. In March 2010, it was eligible to be on the ballots throughout the state of November. The proposal requires a simple majority in order to pass, and will take place the day after the election. Yes at 19 is the official advocacy group for the initiative and the California Public Safety Institute: No On Proposition 19 is the official opposition group.
A similar initiative, "The Tax, Regulate, and Control Cannabis Act of 2010" (California Cannabis Initiative, CCI) was first submitted and accepted by the Office of the Attorney General on July 15, 2010 assigned 09-0022 to authorize marijuana for adults. 21 and older and includes provisions to decriminalize industrial marijuana, the abolition of retroactive criminal records and the release of non-violent cannabis prisoners. The highly successful grassroots petition filed (CCI) was later defeated by the Taxcannabis2010 large budget group and paid payroll collector. Here is an LAO Summary of Initiatives that are defeated by special interests that ultimately succeed in putting their version on the ballot as "Prop 19" with a very different Title: The Settings, Controls & amp; Law of Ganja Tax . Many of the same special interest groups support the Adult Use of the Marijuana Act (AUMA).
Proponents of Proposition 19 argue that it will help with California budget shortfalls, will cut off funding sources for drug cartels, and will direct law enforcement sources for more dangerous crimes, while opponents claim that it contains loopholes and flaws that may have serious undesirable consequences on public security, workplace, and federal funding. However, even if the proposition has passed, the sale of marijuana will remain illegal under federal law through the Controlled Substance Act.
Proposition 19 is followed up by the Adult Use of Marijuana Act in 2016.
Video California Proposition 19 (2010)
Efek dari tagihan
According to the State of California's Legislative Analyst's Office, the law will have the following effects.
Except as permitted under the laws of Proposition 215 and SB 420, persons aged 21 years and over may:
- has up to 28.5 grams (1 oz) of cannabis for personal consumption.
- use marijuana in:
- non-public place like residence
- public institutions licensed for marijuana consumption on the site.
- grows marijuana at a private residence up to 25 square feet (2.3 m 2 ) for personal use.
Local government regulations for commercial production and sale
Local governments may:
- Authorize retail sales of up to 28.5 grams of cannabis per transaction to people 21 and older.
- Sets the location, size, hours of operation, and signs and displays of authorized companies to make this sale.
- Authorize larger amount of marijuana to:
- private ownership and cultivation, or
- commercial planting, transportation, and sales.
Other permissions
- Allow for haul hauls from licensed premises in one city or locality to a licensed place in another city or region, regardless of local law of intermediate locations contradictory.
- Enables tax collection to allow local governments to increase revenues or offset costs associated with marijuana regulations.
Treatment and addition of criminal and civil penalties
- Maintain existing laws against drug sales to minors and driving under influence.
- Maintaining employers' rights to overcome marijuana consumption that affects employee performance.
- Maintain existing laws on interstate or international cannabis transport.
- Any person aged 18 years or older who hires, hires or uses minors in transporting, carrying, selling, giving marijuana, or intentionally selling or giving marijuana to a person under the age of 14 shall be imprisoned in a state prison for a period of three, five, or seven years.
- Any person aged 18 years or older who intentionally sells or gives marijuana to someone older than 14 years of age but younger than 18, must be imprisoned in a state prison for a period of three, four, or five years.
- Any person aged 21 years or older who intentionally sells or gives marijuana to someone older than the age of 18 but younger than 21, must be imprisoned in the county jail for six months and fined up to $ 1,000 per offense.
- Any person licensed, authorized, or permitted to sell marijuana, intentionally selling or giving marijuana to a person under the age of 21, shall be barred from possessing, operating or employed by a licensed marijuana enterprise for one year.
Maps California Proposition 19 (2010)
Fiscal Impact
The State Equalization Council estimates that forcing a $ 50 per ounce of levy on marijuana sales could generate $ 1.4 billion a year in new tax revenues, resulting in large amounts of income when the country is under financial pressure. This estimate comes from the BOE 2009 analysis of California Assembly Bill 390 based on a 2006 report entitled "Cannabis Production in the United States." These statistics are based on production estimates derived from marijuana eradication efforts from 2003 to 2005.
According to the Office of State Legislative Analysts, part of the proposition can have a significant fiscal impact, including:
- Significant savings for state and local governments; potentially up to several tens of millions of dollars each year due to the reduction of imprisoned individuals, probation, or parole.
- Freeing the cells used for cannabis-house houses, which can then be used for other criminals, many of them gained early release due to lack of prison space.
- Massive reductions in state and local costs for enforcement of marijuana related violations and related criminal handling in the court system provide an opportunity for funds to be used to enforce other existing criminal laws.
- The potential increase in the cost of substance abuse programs due to increased projected use of marijuana may result in reduced expenses for mandatory care for some offenders, or in transferring these funds to other offenders.
- Reduced potential both in fees and offsetting revenues of state medical marijuana programs, as some adults over 21 will tend to participate in existing programs if getting marijuana becomes more difficult.
- Provide opportunities for significant additional tax revenue streams from businesses involved in marijuana-related trades.
- Reductions in good pooling under state law but potential increases in local civil penalties passed by existing local laws (cumulative effects on fines are shown largely unknown).
With regards to the potential savings from reducing jailed people, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 1,639 prison inmates are in jail for marijuana related crimes at a cost of $ 85 million per year.
Arguments
Support
Some arguments are used to support Proposition 19 passing. Proponents argue that legalizing marijuana in California will help ease the drug war in Mexico. Based on the theory adopted by the White House National Drug Control Policy that up to 60% of the Mexican drug cartel profits derive from the sale of marijuana, legalizing drugs near California will drastically cut their funds. As a result, supporters of this argument believe that legalization will lead to a reduction in crime-related drug violence in Mexico.
Also cited the expected financial benefits of passing the size. Economists praised the analysis by Jeffrey Miron predicting $ 7.7 billion in projected savings on law enforcement costs associated with marijuana violations, as well as expected revenues of up to $ 6.2 billion annually in taxes. This income is calculated based on a structured marijuana sales tax similar to alcohol and cigarettes. In 2008, California police made 78,500 arrests related to marijuana.
Some civil rights groups have praised Proposition 19 as a way to reduce the disproportionate number of Latin America and Latin capture in California, many of which are related to marijuana ownership. A study released by the New York-based Drug Policy Alliance found that despite having lower levels of marijuana consumption than young white men, Latin and African American youth were arrested for possession of marijuana at a much higher rate than whites in 25 the largest country in California.
Supporters also argue that passing the size will generate additional benefits including the tourism industry and spin-offs such as cafes and supplies. Based on the California wine industry, proponents of this theory anticipate that legalized marijuana in the state can generate up to $ 18 billion, including the creation of 60,000-110,000 jobs.
Some argue that the legalization of marijuana can reduce drug-related violence, based on research conducted by the International Center for Science in Drug Policy. The study finds that drug law enforcement contributes to increased levels of drug-related violence and suggests that an "alternative model for drug control" may be necessary.
Opposition
Opponents of Prop 19 argue that legalizing cannabis in California using current propositions will have many negative consequences. They cite the current Federal law that prohibits the cultivation, sale, and use of drugs, and claims that it will create complications with drug trafficking and arrest as well as challenging Federal authorities. Opponents also argue that Proposisi 19 will complicate the statewide regulations by allowing local jurisdictions the power to define their own laws regarding cultivation and ownership. Opponents claim that this increase in government activity will absorb much of the projected tax revenues.
Opponents of that measure also argue that it poses a public security risk, based on studies showing the link between marijuana use and acceptance of volunteer care for addiction, fatal underfooted driving, mental illness, and emergency room visits. Opponents also compare Prop 19 with current alcohol and tobacco regulations, arguing that the potential health care and related criminal justice is greater than the tax revenues generated.
Responding to the supporters' claim regarding income tax income Prop 19, opponents claim potential benefits are greatly exaggerated. Opponents also criticized the move for failing to include the special tax proposal that accompanied it. Opponents also rejected the argument that increased revenue from the action would increase the state budget deficit, and ignore it as a short-term fix.
Since California basically decriminalized marijuana ownership in 1976, opponents rejected the notion that legalization would free law enforcement to pursue violent crime as a substitute for marijuana-related crimes. A Rand Corporation study found that part of the action is likely to slightly reduce drug trafficking and cartel violence originating in Latin America. Opponents also argue that the passage will reflect a US softening attitude toward drug consumption.
Proponents of drug marijuana use expressed concern that Prop 19 may overwhelm farmers with increased regulation. Also cited is the potential confusion caused by multiple sales rules and potential threats to existing protections for medical marijuana users.
History
California's first cannabis ban law was passed in 1913. In the November 1972 California election, a similar initiative for Proposition 19 that would legalize marijuana was in voting, by chance also named Proposition 19. Failed to escape, with 66.5% voting voters "No" and 33.5% of the votes "Yes." In 1976, part of the Moscone Act changed the ownership of marijuana on a small scale from crime to minor crime. Two decades later in 1996, Proposition 215, which legalized medical marijuana, graduated with 56% of the vote. In 2003, the California Senate Bill SB 420 clarified several Proposition 215 in response to criticisms and problems that have arisen since it was legalized. In 2005, Oakland's Measure Z, one of the first cannabis taxes, made marijuana ownership one of the lowest law enforcement priorities. It was passed by 65% ​​of voters. In July 2010, Oakland approved the cultivation procedure.
The originator of Proposition 19 is Richard Lee, a marijuana legalization activist and medical marijuana provider based in Oakland. Lee appointed political consultant Chris Lehane as head of the campaign to get through the move. In order to qualify for voting, this initiative requires 433,971 valid petition signatures. The initiator submits 694,248 signatures, and qualifies through random sample check marking.
Attitude on initiative
In response to increased demand for a vote on the legal status of marijuana, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said in May 2009, "I think it is time for debate and I think that we must study very carefully what other countries do that have legalized marijuana and other drugs, what effect it has on those countries, and whether they are happy with the decision. "However, in a signatory statement to California SB 1449, which decriminalizes ownership of less than an ounce of marijuana from minor offenses to offenses, Schwarzenegger says he opposed Proposition 19, calling it "deeply flawed" and claiming that its potential to generate tax revenues has been exaggerated.
Support
Opposition
Polling history
Color shows a simple majority in a poll.
Differences poll by poll type
Different polling techniques analysis showed significant differences in favor of Proposition 19. Polls conducted by direct interviewers showed much less support for Proposition 19 than automated polls. It is suggested that there is a "social desire bias" that causes people to reject their support for Proposition 19 to interview the interviewer.
Another difference was noted in the Action News/SurveyUSA survey taken at the end of October. Those interviewed over landlines rejected the 53% to 43% initiative, while those using mobile phones supported it 54% to 29%.
Results
Results by main region
See also
- California Proposition 215 (1996)
- California Proposition 36 (2000)
- California state elections, November 2010
- Marijuana in California
- California drug policy
- Marijuan legal history in the United States
- Cannabis legality
- Eliminate cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substance Act
References
External links
- Full Text of the 2010 Cash Rules, Controls and Tax Law
- Analysis of State Legislative Analysts on Initiatives
- The ballotpedia page in California Proposition 19
- YES to Proposition 19 - sponsor of proposal
- The Marijuan Policy Project, California branch - lobby group to support
- First Public Safety - lobby group in opposition
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments