420timesgavel_smallStory from IVN.US

A new marijuana legalization initiative, pending review by California’s Attorney General, is seeking access to the 2014 ballot. The California Cannabis Hemp Initiative of 2014 hopes to be the green light marijuana activists have been searching for in the Golden State.

The CCHI aims to legalize all forms of cannabis hemp products, specifically stating those that are categorized as industrial, medicinal, nutritional, and euphoric products. Industrially, this can include fuel, paper, clothing, and plastics.

Medicinally, it can be used for treatments corresponding to serious medical conditions, including Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, glaucoma, and multiple sclerosis. The euphoric portion of legalization addresses the legality of use for recreational purposes by people over 21 years of age.

Voters and proponents, however, may be skeptical since past cannabis initiatives have been rejected in California.

The 2012 election saw five cannabis initiatives all fighting for a spot on the ballot and, consequently, none made it. The array of initiatives caused fragmentation within the legalization movement that made it difficult to acquire funding.

“We’re all chasing the same dollars,” said Steve Collett of the Regulate Marijuana Like Wine initiative .

If similarly competing initiatives arise, the California Cannabis Hemp Initiative of 2014 could meet the same fate as the California Cannabis Hemp Initiative of 2012. The 2012 initiative was submitted by the same sponsors — Michael Jolson, and Berton Duzy. It did not receive the signatures needed to appear on the ballot.

Proposition 19 — the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 — did make the ballot, but failed with 53.5 percent of the vote opposing it. The major concern cited by the California Police Chief’s Association was that Prop. 19 did not include a definition of driving under the influence. The proposition could have created situations where a person can drive, “even if a blood test shows they have marijuana in their system”.

Lemonade, anyone?

Lemonade, anyone?

The California Chamber of Commerce worried about the restrictions for employer’s current drug testing abilities. Their complaints stated that they would not possess the power to take action until after an accident had occurred.

The CCHI’s language on the issues of the drug testing covers what Prop. 19 did not:

“No person shall be required to submit to testing for inactive and/or inert residual cannabis metabolites as a condition of any right or privilege including employment or insurance, nor may the presence of such metabolites be considered in determining employment, other impairment, or intoxication. Testing for active (not metabolized) cannabis may be used and considered in determining employment, impairment, or intoxication.”

As drug testing currently stands, a citizen can be denied from a job, or considered worthy of a DUI, for testing positive for marijuana metabolites. Marijuana advocates cite the problem with this being that marijuana metabolites can last up to 6 weeks, even though the effects of the drug only last for a few hours.

In response to police concerns about driving impaired, the CCHI calls for lawmakers to treat marijuana similar to alcohol:

“Determine an acceptable and uniform standard of impairment based on scientifically acceptable performance testing to restrict persons impaired by cannabis hemp euphoric products from operating a motor vehicle or heavy machinery, or otherwise engaging in conduct that may affect public safety.”

These stipulations may not stifle opposition, but they do provide more specific aims that should address oppositional concerns without sacrificing their goal to improve legal treatment of marijuana users.

The California Cannabis Hemp Initiative of 2014 has a long road just to get on the ballot, but it provides drug testing details that failed attempts missed. Marijuana legalization now has public opinion, medical opinion, and legal precedent on its side, something previous California marijuana initiatives did not.

  • Steve Hebert

    Finally! Common sense in California! I didn’t think I’d live that long.

  • drmaddogs

    There are tests for recent use, mouth swabs, urine and blood and the sooner these tests are proposed in the efforts of legalization the easier it will be to gain some traction.
    Why it hasn’t been done yet I do not know other than NO ONE, wants to be tested in an illegal statute environment as is in most places.
    Eventually one or more of the bigger Pharmas will start pushing these tests materials, a Pharma that has no vestment in keeping Mj out of the market.

  • MeeMan

    They’re trying to treat cannabis, and it’s lingering cannabinoids, in the same way they currently treat alcohol, when they should be treating it more like caffeine or fatty foods. The effects wear off rather quickly but the traces remain for some time.
    Notice it’s the Police that are after these over-simplification levels, and not the Doctors/public/firemen/military/sports club owners/health-food sellers etc. etc. etc.
    They’re trying to convince you that it’s a dangerous drug that acts like alcohol, when it’s nothing like that at all.
    Alcohol relaxes the brain functions while easing stimulation of aggressive emotional states, often leading to violence and dangerous driving.
    Cannabis relaxes the body while easing the stimulation of mental functions and creative thinking states, often leading to calmness and focussed driving.
    In essence, they act in opposite ways.

  • Michael Jolson

    We are trying to actually end the prohibition of Cannabis Hemp 100% in California analogous to California’s beer and wine laws for COMMERCIAL SALES!
    Personal use is defined for 21 and over as 99 female flowering plants and 12 pounds per year!
    We free all non violent Cannabis prisoners and allow for the industrial farming of Cannabis Hemp without governmental regulation on THC production!

  • MeeMan

    If it has a restriction, of any kind, then it’s not 100% legal. You’ve got 2 restrictions right there; age and quantity.

    If you really want it to become 100% legal then you’re not going to do it by making new laws. You have to overturn the original criminalisation law that Congress were duped into signing into law. Once you’ve done that the whole thing reverts back to the state it was in, originally – 100% legal in all forms and quantities for all, without restriction or limitation of any kind.
    See the difference?

  • Pingback: New Cannabis Initiative Offers Solutions for Drug Testing, DUIs « Whcich vaporizer

  • jontomas

    We don’t have 100% Democracy in this country either. People with money have more power than people without it. There’s not much chance of ever changing that.

    So does that mean we should not fight for any power for the people? Hardly.

    By the same token, we will never have a marijuana policy totally free of restrictions. I personally believe in one restriction. There should be no sales or distribution to minors. Do you disagree with that?

    You are letting the perfect (unattainable) be the enemy of the good (attainable). Please join us in the real world.

    Also, marijuana policy will never be cast in stone. We will continue to refine it until we reach the optimum system. The important thing is to move as far and fast toward freedom as POSSIBLE.

    Passing CCHI would break the back of the fraudulent marijuana prohibition and bring wall crumbling down in the whole country!

  • MeeMan

    You are going on a rant about the lack of Democracy in the USA and then you’re trying to goad me into agreeing with you that the Law should take precedent over the control and sale of a non-toxic medicinal plant that fights cancers, when it comes to minors. Seriously?

    – It’s not the Law’s place to dictate what plant someone can or cannot “have”, at any age.
    – Every shop owner has the Right to refuse “sale” to anyone they want.
    – It is the place of the Parents to determine what a minor is permitted to have in his/her possession, not the Law, not the State, and certainly not me.

  • jontomas

    No. It’s not the parent’s place to decide to abuse their children. That’s what having/allowing them to consume intoxicating substances is. Do you think children should be allowed to purchase/consume alcohol?

    I never said anything about medical marijuana. Of course, children should have access to it if a doctor prescribes it.

  • Guest

    OK… (breathe)…
    1 – according to British Law (stated due to my being British), the Father of the Child OWNS the child. Not the Mother and Not the State. It is therefore the responsibility of the Father to raise the child and the responsibility of the mother to tend to the infant; feeding/washing etc.
    2 – the “intoxicant” in Cannabis that gets people “high”, as well as fighting off cancers and stimulating brain cell and brain stem growth, is also found naturally in human breast milk. Fact! This could possibly explain why infants constantly look “stoned”, laugh a lot, sleep a lot and eat often.
    3 – No Government on the Planet is going to tell a mother to stop breast feeding her child under threat of her being labelled a drug-dealer to her baby just because she breast feeds it. Are you kidding?
    4 – There is no Law in the UK stopping a child from consuming alcohol in one’s own home. It is accepted, and has been for centuries, that a drop of alcohol on an infant’s gums when teething soothes the teething pains, which is why many commercial teething solutions contain painkillers similar or including alcohol.
    5 – the consumption of alcohol in all restaurants and public houses that sell meals has a minimum alcohol drinking age of 5 years old. Not 18 and Not 21.
    5 – Before the 2nd WW, the minimum age to purchase alcoholic beverages in the UK was 21. During the war, with most of that age off fighting, the minimum age to Purchase alcohol in a public house, was dropped to 18, and remains so to this day, despite the minimum age to drink it being ambiguous between zero and 2 years old at home and 5 years in a restaurant with a meal as long as they don’t buy it or drink it at the Bar area.
    6 – the Cannabinoids in Cannabis are Not Harmful to healthy human cells. They are only harmful to cancerous cells. See the evidence.
    I am deleting this response now and ask you not throw out you ignorance towards me again. Find someone else to try to argue with, if you must.

  • jontomas

    1 – I’m not concerned with the inconsistencies of British law, thanks.

    2-3 – Phosphorus and chlorine are also found in mother’s milk. I wouldn’t recommend anyone drinking a glass of either, though. The important thing is the AMOUNT of these ingredients. I can’t believe you are actually trying to say it’s okay to get children high.

    4 – I’ve already said marijuana is acceptable for children when used medically. Pay attention.

    5 – Children can drink alcohol (with meals) in restaurants in the U.K.? Shameless and insane!

    6 – Science has shown marijuana is not harmful to adults, but that it DOES hinder brain development in children.

    Your posts reveal considerable ignorance and amazing negligence toward children.

  • MeeMan

    My comment was rhetorical.
    Will you reply to this one?

  • Michael Jolson

    good luck with that Mee Man- let me know how that goes!

  • MeeMan

    Don’t think you’re playing the system when the system is playing you.

  • MeeMan

    Don’t think you’re playing the system when the system is playing you.