PROP
64

MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 64

Proposition 64 finally creates a safe, legal, and comprehensive system for adult use of marijuana while protecting our children.

Marijuana is available nearly everywhere in California—but without any protections for children, without assurances of product safety, and without generating tax revenue for the state.

Prop. 64 controls, regulates and taxes adult use of marijuana, and ends California's criminalization of responsible adult use.

California Medical Association supports Prop. 64 because it incorporates best practices from states that already legalized adult marijuana use, and adheres closely to the recommendations of California's Blue Ribbon Commission on Marijuana Policy, which included law enforcement and public health experts.

How Prop. 64 Works:

  • Under this law, adults 21+ will be allowed to possess small amounts of nonmedical marijuana, and to grow small amounts at home for personal use. Sale of nonmedical marijuana will be legal only at highly regulated, licensed marijuana businesses, and only adults 21+ will be permitted to enter. Bars will not sell marijuana, nor will liquor stores or grocery stores.

Child Protections:

  • Drug dealers don't ask for proof of age and today can sell marijuana laced with dangerous drugs and chemicals. 64 includes toughest-in-the-nation protections for children, requiring purchasers to be 21, banning advertising directed to children, and requiring clear labeling and independent product testing to ensure safety. 64 prohibits marijuana businesses next to schools.

The independent Legislative Analyst's Office found that 64 will both raise revenue and decrease costs. By collecting unpaid taxes from marijuana, it will bring in over $1 billion of revenue every year to help California. And it could save tens of millions of dollars annually in reduced law enforcement costs. Together, that is a benefit of $11 billion over the next decade.

  • 64 corrects mistakes from past measures that didn't direct where money goes. Instead, this measure is specific about how money can be spent. Prop. 64 specifically prevents politicians from diverting money to their separate pet projects.
  • 64 pays for itself and raises billions for afterschool programs that help kids stay in school; for job placement, job training, and mental health treatment; for drug prevention education for teens; to treat alcohol and drug addiction; and to fund training and research for law enforcement to crack down on impaired driving. Over the next decade, these programs will receive billions in revenues.

Every year, there are more than 8,800 felony arrests for growing or selling marijuana in California, resulting in some very long prison sentences. This is an enormous waste of law enforcement resources. Prop. 64 will stop ruining people's lives for marijuana.

The tough, common sense regulations put forth in 64 are supported by the largest coalition ever in support of marijuana reform, including Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, Democratic and Republican Congressmembers, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, the California NAACP, the California Democratic Party and many others.

We all know California's current approach toward marijuana doesn't make sense. It's time to put an end to our broken system, and implement proven reforms so marijuana will be safe, controlled, and taxed.

DR. DONALD O. LYMAN, Former Chief of Chronic Disease and Injury Control

California Department of Public Health

GRETCHEN BURNS, Executive Director

Parents for Addiction Treatment and Healing

STEVEN DOWNING, Former Deputy Chief

Los Angeles Police Department

REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 64

Proposition 64, in effect, could limit a 45-year ban on smoking ads on television, allowing marijuana ads airing to millions of children and teen viewers. These ads can appear during The Olympics, on "The Voice," "The Big Bang Theory" and hundreds of other programs popular with younger viewers.

These marijuana smoking ads could be allowed on all broadcast primetime shows, and approximately 95% of all broadcast television programming. Children could be exposed to ads promoting marijuana Gummy candy and brownies—the same products blamed for a spike in emergency room visits in Colorado.

We ban tobacco television ads because studies show it encouraged kids to start smoking. Marijuana smoking ads on TV should have been banned, but the proponents didn't want to restrict the enormous profits they plan to make, estimated in the billions. And like tobacco money, the corporate monopolies spawned by Proposition 64 can use that money for contributions to politicians to ensure we can never undo the damage Proposition 64 will do.

Sharon Levy, M.D., FAAP, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Substance Abuse warns "It took several generations, millions of lives and billions of dollars to establish the harms of tobacco use on health, even though these harms are overwhelming. We should not consider marijuana 'innocent until proven guilty,' given what we already know about the harms to adolescents."

After recent reforms, not one single person remains in California's prisons solely for simple marijuana possession. What Proposition 64 is really about is exposing our children to harm in order to make billions.

Join us in voting "No" on Proposition 64.

KATIE DEXTER, Past President

San Diego County School Boards Association

JOHN QUINTANILLA, Board Member

Rosemead School District

CYNTHIA RUIZ, Board Member

Walnut Valley Unified School District

ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 64

There are five huge flaws in Proposition 64 that directly affect you and the people you care about.

Flaw #1: Doubling of highway fatalities.

The AAA Foundation for Highway Safety reports that deaths in marijuana-related car crashes have doubled since the State of Washington approved legalization. Yet, incredibly, Proposition 64's proponents refused to include a DUI standard for marijuana, making it extremely difficult to keep impaired drivers off our highways.

Flaw #2: Allows marijuana growing near schools and parks.

Proposition 64 actually forbids local governments from banning indoor residential growing of marijuana—even next door to an elementary school—provided the crop is limited to six plants, (and that is a lot of marijuana). The California Police Chiefs Association adds that "by permitting indoor cultivation of marijuana literally next door to elementary schools and playgrounds, Proposition 64 is trampling local control."

Flaw #3: Will increase, not decrease black market and drug cartel activity.

"Organized crime filings have skyrocketed in Colorado since marijuana legalization," says Past President of the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police John Jackson. "We had 1 filing in 2007 and by 2015, we had 40. Since your Proposition 64 repeals the prohibition on heroin and meth dealers with felony convictions getting into the legal marijuana business, it could be much worse in California."

Flaw #4: Could roll back the total prohibition of smoking ads on TV.

Tobacco ads have been banned from television for decades, but Proposition 64 will allow marijuana smoking ads in prime time, and on programs with millions of children and teenage viewers.

Flaw #5: Proposition 64 is an all-out assault on underprivileged neighborhoods already reeling from alcohol and drug addiction problems.

Bishop Ron Allen of the International Faith Based Coalition representing 5,000 inner-city churches calls Proposition 64 an "attack on minorities" and asks "Why are there no limits on the number of pot shops that can be opened in poor neighborhoods? We will now have a string of pot shops to go with the two liquor stores on every block, but we still can't get a grocery store. Proposition 64 will make every parent's job tougher."

In short, Proposition 64 is radically different from legalization measures in other states, and may weaken countless consumer protections just passed last year and signed into law by Governor Brown.

If the proponents' Rebuttal below doesn't answer these five questions, then the only reasonable decision is to vote "No".

  1. Why is there no DUI standard in your initiative to let our CHP officers get drug-impaired drivers off the road? It is not sufficient to simply commission a "study".
  2. Why does Proposition 64 permit indoor cultivation of marijuana right next door to playgrounds and schools?
  3. Why does Proposition 64 allow felons convicted of dealing meth and heroin to be licensed to sell marijuana?
  4. Why does Proposition 64 permit marijuana smoking commercials on TV?
  5. Why is there no limit on the number of pot shops that can be placed in a single neighborhood?

They've gotten it wrong, again. We strongly urge your "No" vote on Proposition 64.

To get the facts, visit www.NoOn64.net

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, United States Senator

DOUG VILLARS, President

California Association of Highway Patrolmen

C. DUANE DAUNER, President

California Hospital Association

REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 64

Look at the facts, not scare tactics from groups that always oppose marijuana reform.

  • Some evidence has shown states with legalized marijuana have less youth marijuana use. Prop. 64 contains the nation's strictest child protections: warning labels, child-resistant packaging, and advertising restrictions, and it requires keeping marijuana out of public view, away from children.
  • Nothing in 64 makes it legal to show marijuana ads on TV. Federal law prohibits it!
  • It has not been definitively proven that impaired driving has increased in those states with legalized marijuana, and crash risk hasn't increased. Colorado's Department of Public Safety and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration both confirm this.

Vote Yes on 64 because:

  • 64 invests hundreds of millions into equipment and law enforcement training to crack down on unsafe driving. It allocates new funds to develop comprehensive legal standards under direction of the California Highway Patrol for measuring driver impairment.
  • 64 makes the protection of public health and safety the #1 priority of the regulators that determine who qualifies for a marijuana business license.
  • 64 preserves local control.
  • 64 builds on consumer protections signed by the Governor.

The independent Legislative Analyst's Office says 64 will raise revenue and decrease costs. Bipartisan lawmakers support 64 because it's based on best practices of states that have safely legalized.

"I don't use marijuana and I don't want my 17-year-old son to either. I'm voting Yes on 64 because it's clear it will protect children much better than what we have now," says Maria Alexander, Los Angeles mother.

Learn more at YesOn64.org.

REP. TED LIEU, Former Military Prosecutor

MARSHA ROSENBAUM, Ph.D., Co-Chair

Youth Education and Prevention Working Group,
Blue Ribbon Commission on Marijuana Policy

DR. LARRY BEDARD, Former President

American College of Emergency Physicians

Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors, and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Back to top Back to the Top