Prop 64: Unrolling the Issues Around Marijuana Legalization

Press release:

The Humboldt Institute for Interdisciplinary Marijuana Research is sponsoring a panel discussion concerning Proposition 64. If passed by voters, this initiative will legalize the cultivation, manufacture, distribution, possession and use of recreational cannabis for persons 21 and over in California. Come hear industry leaders, cannabis scholars and regulators discuss the myriad issues associated with cannabis legalization in California in general – and the Emerald Triangle in particular.

Prop 64 marijuana poster



  • Again…I repeat….this is not legalization! This is so-called “legalization” and is more accurately an attempt to establish a system of regulation, taxation and issuing of permits for the sake of controlling the herb and its profits. Most importantly it is a major economic redistribution of the profits from future marijuana production and distribution from thousands of small family-based units to large multi-national corporate interests. The actual language in the Prop may appear innocuous but when you understand how it will play out you may be shocked at what a disastrous proposition this is! And- it does very little to nothing in the sense of legalization. It is a scam written by a billionaire and his millionaire friends and their lawyers….Here is the best analysis I’ve read so far….

    • I couldn’t get past your link’s answers to Myth #1 re: environmental degradation. In criticizing 64’s preference for indoor grows (which i admit i dislike) the article twists and stretches facts to an outlandish degree. First it claims that a single marijuana plant uses 6 gallons of water a day… okay, maybe if it’s a huge pound-plus plant out in the full sun, near maturity… but then it assesses a Colorado grow’s probability of water use on the basis of 1.4 plants per square foot.
      In my experience, the ONLY good thing about indoor grows is that they use less water… my little plants taking up only 2/3 of a square foot of canopy used about a quart a day, maybe 2 gallons a week. So to tote up horrifying figures of millions of gallons a day for plants protected from wind drying, from water leaching away in porous soil, etc., and (if they’re sensible) recycling from overwater run-off–making scary gargantuan lies–makes me a little dubious about the rest of the article.

      It’s that sort of sloppy math and unfamiliarity with marijuana growing that makes me question the voteknowprop64 blog.

      • Yep that stuck out to me too. But I’d forgive them that (they probably aren’t savvy on the details of farming) because they have many other good points. Vote no- wait for federal action.

      • My 15 lb plants drink 30 gallons a day for nearly two months.

      • They pulled that info from the New York Times which was taken from Fish and Game of Northern California claiming an average ‘outdoor’ plant consumes 6gal/day for 150 days. That’s 900 gal/plant. If a 15 pound plant takes 30 gal/day and I’ve seen two pound plant take 4gal/day then roughly 2gal of water per pound per day sounds about right but that duration is usually only for 90 days at the most. Per plant statistics are null and void. Maybe adopting a gal per sq.ft. of canopy rate would be a better choice.

        • How about if you have the water storage (without the use of household spring water) to support your farm, you could do what you wanot?

        • Actually the Department of Fish and Wildlife got the 6 gallon per day figure from a white paper presented to the Humboldt board of Supervisors in 2010 by the Humboldt Grower’s Association, an industry group that over the years morphed into the present California Grower’s Association, who’s leading members have since debunked the F&W’s claim.

          The problem with the 6gpd figure is that it was an estimate based off of the old Mendocino zip tie 99 plant program where the object of the growers was to grow as big a plant as possible in the allotted space in the hotter-dryer valleys of Mendocino—far from the average plant in almost all other grows. We’re talking huge multi pound plants. It represented the usage of full grown plants, not the daily usage averaged out over the entire growth cycle from start to harvest. Note it was an estimate only, never scientifically measured using water meters, and Fish and Wildlife still obstinately defends it as the benchmark to measure all cannabis growing activity in California.

          But what’s worse is using gallons per plant per day as a metric. More accurate metrics would be to calculate the total gallons of water it takes to produce one pound of dried flower, or the total gallons used per square foot of flowering full grown plant canopy over the entire growing season, because as any grower worth his or her salt knows, you’d rot the roots of young plants if you poured 6 gallons per day on them .

          • pouring water will do that. But drip a plant. She’ll draw it up.

            plants that get 12 feet tall and weigh up to 15 lbs require 20-30 gals per day.

            You cannot apply gals per square footage here.

            Gals per pound also fluctuates per plant due to strain variation

            • What about dry farming with a high water table you water 2 gal every 2 weeks about for a plant that is 12-14 ft high… they aren’t thirsty either. I think it depends on if your land is well suited for agriculture

      • I agree with you, I don’t see why the No on 64 people have to resort to half-truths and scare tactics when they could use real figures and facts to make their point. Like the scare tactic of saying there will be TV commercials for gummy bear pot edibles for kids to see…completely untrue, as this proposition OUTLAWS candy that appeals to children in shape, color, or packaging. So there won’t even be any legal gummies to show on TV! yet the No on 64 people are using that as one of their biggest arguments…it’s sad, because if they wanted to, I’m sure they have some actual reasons and issues they are against it that they could present, not trotting out old Police figures about plants using a gallon a day, gummies killing future kids, etc…

  • it would be nice if they...

    …completely decriminalized marijuana. humboldt countys board of supervisors have proven themselves to be as greedy and uncompassionate as many claim blackmarket marijuana farmers have been. their plan guarantees a miraculous plant that is a gift for all will remain a high priced luxury for most.

    • Actually, the one thing(almost)everyone agreees on is that the price will go down. This is also the single biggest reason why local growers oppose 64.

      • Price will go down for growers but taxes will keep it high for consumers. Once big ag takes over they will set price where it suits them.

      • it would be nice if they...

        price will stay way too high, proven by other states and countries where its “legal”. the taxes and fees guarantee a high price. can you imagine the cost of tomatoes if the govt. demanded you pay $1 per sq. ft. of growing area and an adtl. $10/ounce tax on them? that in itself is highway robbery, and once implemented theyll never repeal it.

      • I do not think the price will go down and I’m voting no.

      • What do you think about the tax per square foot based on a consumer index for pot? This would require a classification system (for types and quality of product) as well as serious coordination between states and local agencies. I agree with the idea that taxing ag based on ft^2 is touchy, but this is not like any other plant.

  • I understand the NO vote from the points of view expressed on many platforms already. However, my primary interest in voting YES on Proposition 64 is for the sake of the youngsters caught up in simple possession charges.
    Because of the question “Have you ever been convicted” of a drug charge, these kids will be denied admission to most schools offering a higher education and/or training for future employment. And even if admitted, they will be disqualified from scholarships, grants and loan programs to help pay for their education.
    Permanently prohibited from bettering their chances to succeed through higher education, they will also be denied low-income housing (and even Food Stamps!) to survive. Cut off from these services, they will be faced with a choice: Burger King, McDonald’s, or crime. (This is simplified, but you get the idea, I’m sure.)
    Too many of our young have been fed into this system, and their lives have been effectively destroyed by the prison industry and its faithful supporters: Law Enforcement Officials on every level. Keeping Cannabis illegal is LEO’s guaranteed employment; a deadly wheel sustaining itself on the lives of our young.
    So, for the sake of the kids, I will vote YES on 64 however flawed it may be. And it is my hope that you will take this point of view into consideration when making your own decision. af

    • it would be nice if they...

      argue to the police to stop hassling kids over petty crap. if their job description goes against common sense, you have more reason to complain to them right now. police officers already practice personal discretion. i hope you consider, anon forrest, that people will still be getting clobbered by the cops, so to speak, because of the high price and limited availability of marijuana, especially in cities, where most people live, and other states, where its very illegal despite national consensus. and kids wont be allowed to posess it anyway. the same mark will go on their record. in fact because of an inevitable increase of marijuana in the mainstream, more kids will be busted for smoking and posession. as voters, we have the right and responsibility to tell our government “this isnt what weve been asking for, get it right.” completely decriminalize marijuana, remove profit/supply/criminal motives altogether.


    • Don’t do it seriously that’s not the answer, it won’t help them at all

    • Anon Forrest- Please check out the link I provided above. I believe you are working with old information. We have had a life-long struggle against some terrible government policies and I still react when I hear helicopters over the woods. But today’s landscape is different. I believe the argument for youngsters and minorities is not valid in this case. I remember what you are talking about, even public housing denials over weed arrests on a joint. But that doesn’t happen in CA any more. Further- I believe it is a misrepresentation promoted by the supporters of this Prop 64 to cloud the issue. It is a billion-dollar economic capture by the corporate world. Support small farms and families!

      • I’ve read it (now) and thank you for posting it. #4 straightened me out, and I’m grateful. Back to NO on 64 for me. Thanks again, af

      • Is it “support small farms and families” or is it support the black market that fuels greed grows and environmental devestation? Give me one good reason to continue to encourage abuse of the TPZ zonation, the trespass grows, the proliferation of fragmentation, creek diversions, pesticide overuse, etc.. because I’m finding it difficult to buy the “small farm and families” meme the No on 64 folks are selling.

        • I am with you on that! I’d prefer responsible anarchy but since that didn’t work (an understatement!) then regulation it must be… with prosecution or fines for environmental destruction. Which we are doing! Prop 64 opens up a permit system that will allow grows of unlimited size beginning in 5 years. That will happen and indeed there are multi-national corporate interests already gearing up for the kill. This is a new industry and we can direct it if we choose. Why not proceed in a way that puts some limit on grow sizes? That would spread the profits among more producers instead of allowing them to be concentrated in the hands of the well-financed and already-wealthy? We always talk about supporting the family farms because that is a more sustainable economy and it makes strong communities. Why are we treating weed production differently and allowing the huge corporate interests to take it?! Because some bad growers pissed us off? Our scene did become a shitshow …but this Prop rewards the truly greedy! We can do better. The economic argument is not trivial. We are discussing a multi-billion dollar business and it’s future shape. Some huge industrial farms where the corporate profits leave the area… or thousands of middle-class family-operated farms throughout the state?

          • Doesn’t the 5-year window protect the family farms to give them time to get established before having to deal with bigger competition? There really isn’t any industry out there that is exempt from having to deal with competition. Tobacco farming used to be highly regulated which limited who could grow how much, but hasn’t been since 2004. So the model you have is to either accept and embrace intense regulation and limitation or deal with free-market competition.

            Organic farmers and high-end vintners make it work despite the big Ag competitors, why would weed be any different?

            Plus, you have 5 years to devise rules and regulations and convince lawmakers to protect you.

          • Agree strongly with Cy. If it is legal, the corporate interests should be expected to try and capitalize on the opportunity. The vintner comparison is apt. Do you prefer Two-Buck Chuck or an Anderson Valley Pinot? More people will go with the former, but many will appreciate the latter.

            • I agree with this comparison. I believe that people put way too much stock in how the government handles the market. Ultimately, it is up to the consumers. If people continue to support local, env. friendly, organically/responsibly produced products, while at the same time refusing to purchase products from huge corporations, then the corporation will cease to exist. And if the corporations begin to farm in the same way as the small, responsible farmer, then they cease to be the corporation and begin to be the small responsible farmer who is bankrolled by a corporation.
              I guess that you could say that about most things, though.

    • Read the initiative! 18-21 year-olds will have plenty of ways to get records.

    • You claim to want to protect kids?
      Why are there no MJ DUI limits set in this proposition? The old MJ DUI laws were based on “illegal” use of pot; if pot becomes legal, the old MJ DUI laws become void until rewritten. So much for protecting that bus full of kids that will get hit by a legally stoned driver…
      What about edibles? What provisions protect kids are written in this proposition to keep kids from getting ahold of edible MJ products purchased by adults? Edibles can contain up to 10 times the THC dosage of a single joint! Imagine a 6 year old getting ahold of a 10 shot cookie…you think they won’t eat the whole cookie and overdose?
      What about addressing honey oil labs? Once legal, anyone can make their own little lab at home! How many protections were addressed on this issue? ZERO! How many kids are you protecting from home lab explosions by voting Yes?

      This proposition does NOTHING to address public safety, especially that of children, when/if pot becomes legal. Not a single safety issue is in the proposition; it only addresses profit.

      As for prior convictions? If we follow your line of thought, I suppose if robbing banks somehow becomes legal, we should overturn all past convictions that occurred while it was still a crime. Blanket amnesty will create a nasty precedent that can potentially snowball into chaos. If you commit the crime, while you know you are violating the law, pay the consequences!

  • “Unrolling the issues”, eh?

    Dabble around and hash them out all you like; Prop 64 is going to pass, you bunch of bogarts.

  • Southern California will pass it, our yay or nay doesn’t amount to much,we’re just a pawn in a political greed scheme

  • This will not pass. California like the entire United States is divided in half with regards to politricks. All elections and propositions are won or lost within approximately 3-4%. California as liberal as it may seem has many conservative counties. Where this proposition will be struck down. If you think just because it seems to have more momentum this run in comparison to 2010, it does. But California is the true litmus test for this malarky they call legalization. If it doesn’t pass this time it’s gonna be a huge set back for any legalization effort at the federal level. But this proposition sucks like we all know. If you vote yes you are as ignorant as they come. If N.O.R.M.A.L is opposed to it which they are that pretty much sums it up for me. Bye bye emerald family flammers. Good luck paying the mortgage on the golf course to the Tonkins. As well as back taxes and penalties to the IRS. Once your pipe dream ends. I personally can’t wait till all these parasites close up shop and leave. They and many others like them are the real problem in this county. Keep it real. Vote no!

    • I heard Pat already paid the golf course off.

      • That’s not what the Tonkin’s said !!!! He must be washing his money at the laundromat in Willow to have done that. Hilarious. What a bust waiting to happen. His gift shop in eureka isn’t a very good front either. That sells little to nothing on a daily basis . Remember his go fund me page for his dumb ear problem?? Why didn’t he use his millions to pay his own medical bills? That’s purty lame in my opinion!!!!! Seems like Daniel has more class. Pat needs to eat less and exercise more. That would really help with his annoying voice.

    • Jorge, NORML is listed as an official supporter of Prop 64. I just confirmed that from their website and Ballotpedia. Who’s ignorant here?

      • Actually Uti the gentleman from cal-norml was on the kmud news de-bunking prop. 64. With regards to it actually having quite the opposite effect that it appears to have been intended for. With regards to ignorance my man. I think it’s clear you are the ignorant one having been a supporter of said proposition before you actually delved deeper into it my man! I have been a staunch opponent since day one for many of the same reasons you now flipped flopped. It’s all good this is America where you and I have the right to change our minds. Don’t believe everything you read on the inter web is a good starting point for you sounds like.

  • For all of you who say you believe that corporations will set up shop and wipe out the “mom and pops” if prop 64 passes I have a question. Will corporations really do business in an industry that will still be illegal federally? Will they invest all that money to only be allowed to do business in one state or at best a few states? I guess I had two questions.

    Are there any other corporate industries out there that only do business in one state?

  • Good grief you growers are so selfish. All you greedy lot care about is keeping your oh so precious weed at an artificially high price. There’s so much more to be concerned about. Here’s to 64 passing. Hope that greed money you buried lasts you long enough.

  • I think If it passes more landlords would be able to do a cash crop in their own place. Which would basically reduce the amount of local growers that currently rent grow spots. They would have to move on.

  • Anyone who votes yes hasn’t taken the time to look at prop 64, it’s poorly written ,I’m not against legalization but it has to be done right, NO ON PROP 64 !

  • Henchman Of Justice

    Here is how to get pot right at the end.


    Eating is health

    Breathing is health

    Smoking is health (not recreational)

    Putting anything inside your body is a health related action……

    to call it recreational, waste california tax dollars on politicians lying to us all, is treasonist whether you end up voting no or yes……

    individuals control their own body and health……

    to say an individual can’t take his or her own life in his or her own way is wrong (no more strawberry rock climbing adventures, it may kill you)……

    a lifestyle being controlled on how you treat your own body is universally insane to jump on board with……

    Vote No if there is any sense of human integrity inside you that has not been burned out…….

  • Number One decider for me is the tax revenue. The state is going to make millions if not billions of this and none of it will go to the general fund. It is all earmarked for law enforcement and junk. 20% of the leftovers will go to environmental restoration, what bs…

    • Inflation adjusted tax

      From my big voting book “analysis by the legislative analyst”
      “Beginning in 2020 the tax on growing marijuana would be adjusted annually for inflation “.

      Quick thought we have had 18.99%+ inflation in the past ten years.essentially a couple of billionaires have had a law written for them and have got the governor to go along by agreeing to pay the state any amount in taxes to grow..A 3 -5 % return for corporation is a huge profit so they won’t mind paying 60to 95% tax to grow marijuana .eventually the legislators will put more taxes on pot growers as government expands and budgets fall short, pot growers will be consider the easy money to squeeze out more revenue.
      5.20 in Obama talks about corporate capture .He knows his sh*t.

  • Anthony Paul’s comment above is a typical rehashing of the consensus opposition issues to 64: stoned drivers, kids eating edibles, home BHO labs.

    The complaint boils down to not enough public safety provisions in the initiative.

    It’s like the old Looney Toons cartoons with the Tasmanian Devil in a crate…before we let it out, we’d better make damned sure we have all the protections in place, or that thing will devour us all!!

    I don’t put a lot of stock in this way of looking at things. In fact, from my point of view, it’s disappointing to see how much the pro-64 campaign has made a deal with the devil by premising its message on the idea that cannabis is “a dangerous and ill-advised substance–that’s why it has to be controlled.”

    We’ve already lost the chance to start California cannabis law reform at square one, with the admission not just that the war on drugs is a failure, but that cannabis is something like an innocent bystander caught in the crossfire. It’s not a Tasmanian Devil in the crate, it’s an herb.

    Proponents have tried to craft what looks like smart, responsible policy for the soccer mom vote, but by implicitly agreeing that cannabis is dangerous and needs a lot of state control, they’ve really done the opposite.

    That’s partly because the special interests lining up to get their share of the cannabis pie are now invested in preserving the illusion that cannabis is a social menace: if you are getting millions to investigate cannabis DUI, for example, you can bet that you’re going to treat the phenomenon as quite real. “Legalization” premised on controlling the Tasmanian Devil in the Box is not likely to be reformed in significant ways, despite supporters’ assertions that “you have to start somewhere.”

    But 64 (and MMRSA, for that matter) are bad policy for another reason, one that’s not getting talked about much at all.

    Rather than treat the cannabis market as an issue of statewide concern, which it certainly is, these laws forestalled vociferous opposition from city and county governments by agreeing that the question of “local control” was off the table, leaving localities free to ban medical cannabis activity completely.

    That’s very irresponsible, given the fact that much of the state’s outdoor cultivation is done in the so-called Ban Wagon counties, including Shasta, Tehama, Butte, and others. The local constituencies that want cannabis to “go away” refuse to recognize that if they choose to opt out, they’ll be fighting guerrilla growers for years, with busts as the only tool.

    It’s a total trainwreck, with the kicker that the inevitable bad results of prohibition will, in the minds of local supes and city councillors, only reinforce the conviction that cannabis attracts criminals and breeds crime.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *