After Colorado and Washington voted to legalize recreational marijuana in 2012, while Oregon's ballot initiative failed after a horribly mismanaged campaign by Paul Stanford and the other Oregon Cannabis Tax Act folks, I figured that this state's marijuana legalization leaders would get their act together.-
Unfortunately, doesn't seem to be happening.
Three initiatives may be on the November ballot, two sponsored by Stanford and one by New Approach Oregon. (The Oregon Legislature failed to act on a marijuana legalization referral bill in the short 2014 session.)
I've been wondering why competing initiatives are being put before Oregonians.
Seemingly this will confuse what should be a slam-dunk marijuana legalization vote this November. Geez, probably we will be voting on an initiative to overturn a ban on gay marriage. That should bring out progressive and libertarian-minded voters.
Polls show that a majority of Americans favor legalizing recreational marijuana. Since Oregonians are greener than average in a variety of ways, it would take some serious screw-ups by this state's legalization leaders to lose another vote.
But such could happen. A recent story in the Portland Mecury, "Slow Burn: A Pot Supporter is Stymieing Our Best Shot at Legal Weed," explains why.
MICHAEL McNICHOLS is a man of marijuana-scented mystery.
McNichols is a Canby attorney who deals in bankruptcies, probate matters, and general civil litigation. He's fiscally minded, an MBA who chairs the budget committee at Clackamas Community College. And, though he didn't much want to talk about it with the Mercury, McNichols says pot should be legal.
"There's no reason it shouldn't be taxed," he said recently in a brief phone conversation. "There's this failed war on drugs."
Which is a funny thing to hear from the person who, more than anyone else, is inhibiting what may be Oregon's best shot at legal weed this year.
McNichols has temporarily blocked the path of Initiative 37, the well-funded, strong-polling proposal to put legalization up for a vote in November. Using a time-tested delay tactic, he's slowing activists' progress just as the Oregon Legislature's made it clear that movement on the issue won't come from Salem.
With a July 3 deadline looming, activists are anxious to begin gathering the nearly 90,000 valid signatures they need to make the ballot.
"The window is shrinking," says Anthony Johnson, chief petitioner and director of New Approach Oregon, the political action committee behind the initiative.
How did McNichols manage to get pot activists on edge? He appealed the initiative's ballot language before the Oregon Supreme Court, arguing the verbiage doesn't adequately summarize the law change. Until the court rules—a move that could happen in two days or two months, for all anyone but the justices know—the proposal is on ice.
All the while, people are scratching their heads about McNichols' intentions.
A March 13 AP story about Oregon marijuana legalization efforts casts more light on the situation:
Stanford is already circulating petitions for two separate pot initiatives. One would amend the state constitution to decriminalize pot use, and the other, the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act, would create a commission for regulating marijuana cultivation, processing and sales.
Stanford's effort faces competition from the group New Approach Oregon, which is preparing to push a measure that leaves the constitution alone and gives the Oregon Liquor Control Commission the job of regulating marijuana like it does alcohol.
Anthony Johnson of New Approach Oregon said the group has two slightly different initiatives filed with the Secretary of State's Office, but it will go forward with whichever one it feels has the best odds in November. Johnson said he expects to begin collecting the 87,213 signatures needed to qualify one of them for the ballot in as little as a month, but the group is currently waiting for both measures to clear the ballot-titling process, which could delay those plans.
Johnson also has donors lined up to fund the signature drives, which he said could cost between a quarter of a million dollars and three quarters of a million dollars, depending on how quickly the measures' ballot titles can be finalized. He declined to name them, but they're widely believed to include some of the deep-pocketed interests that helped fund successful 2012 legalization drives in Washington state and Colorado.
...In 2012, Stanford successfully got a marijuana-legalization initiative on the ballot, but voters rejected it 47 percent to 53 percent. Legalization advocates spent millions helping to get Washington's and Colorado's measures passed but avoided Oregon, complaining that the measure was poorly drafted and didn't qualify for the ballot in time for them to make an effective case to voters. Stanford also has a contentious relationship with many in the marijuana legalization community.
Frustrating. I have no idea what is going on behind the scenes here. Given human nature, likely egos are being bruised and pissing-matches are being played.
Which doesn't bode well for marijuana legalization succeeding in Oregon this year. Personally, I wish Stanford had gotten out of the way after his botched 2012 legalization attempt. Send in a new team, New Approach Oregon.
The New Approach initiative takes the approach that was successful in Colorado and Washington: regulate marijuana akin to liquor. Easy to understand, easy to explain to voters.
Stanford and his Oregon Cannabis Tax Act would allow people to possess and cultivate a lot more marijuna than the New Approach initiative would. At least, that's what I recall from reading stories about the competing initiatives.
Also frustratingly, on their web sites I couldn't find a full description of what the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act and New Approach Oregon initiatives would authorize. Just summaries.
The good news is that it is mid-March. The November election is more than seven months away. The bad news?
The November election is less than eight months away. Those working on the marijuana legalization initiatives should get together, pronto, and figure out how to present a unified front to Oregon voters.
Comments