Ballot Initiative #30
"Regulation of Marijuana"
of Colorado Cannabis (Marijuana) Ballot Initiatives
Read a comparison between the Legalize2012.com Initiative
and Initiative 30.
Marijuana Policy Project, a Washington DC-based lobbying group,
has written a Constiutional Amendment and is currently collecting
signatures to put the Amendment on the Colorado ballot.
Init. 30 was modeled after HB 10-1284, the medical marijuana regulatory
model created by the General Assembly in 2010, which was designed
to put most dispensaries out of business through an onerous and
burdensome model of over-regulation, controlled by law enforcement.
Init. 30 gives sweeping powers to Department of Revenue "pot
police" to regulate cannabis for all Coloradans in any way
they want. It also creates an unlimited funding source for the police.
Even more dangerous, Init. 30 puts DUI-Marijuana into the state
Constitution and does nothing to protect Colorado citizens from
the federal government's enforcement of federal marijuana prohibition
laws. Since HB 10-1284 was opposed by most patients and cannabis
activists in the state as a statute, activists think it is a bad
idea to put this language into the Colorado Constitution, which
is so difficult to amend.
Be prepared to educate yourself and other voters who may be confused
by the two campaigns. Read more about the two campaigns on our website.
Initiative 30 is Not
"Legalization" and is Not
"Similar to Alcohol"
Comparison of Colorado Ballot Initiatives
Legalization Models: Freedom
The lobbied to take the word "legalization" out of the
ballot title, but are still marketing their ballot initiative as
"legalization", deceiving and misleading voters. This
ballot initiative is supported by Sensible, SAFER, NORML, DPA. It
is funded by almost $1 million in out-of-state funding, primarily
from Peter Lewis, the chairman of the board of Progressive Insurance
NOTE TO PRESS: REPORTS OF IN-FIGHTING INACCURATE
The differences between the Legalize2012.com campaign and the Initiative
30 campaign cannot be characterized as "in-fighting" any
more than the campaign for the Republican presidential nomination
can be called "in-fighting." The differences between the
two proposals represent a fundamental policy question in cannabis
politics: How will cannabis be re-legalized and how the states will
protect themselves from federal intervention?
Since Init. 30 creates more laws, more penalties and more prohibitions,
and creates unlimited funding for law enforcement, it cannot be
considered a "baby step" towards full legalization. Even
the authors of Init. 30 agreed that their model should not
even be called "legalization."
By creating new marijuana crimes and funding the police to enforce
different prohibitions, this law enforcement model actually does
the exact opposite of true legalization. This is why many cannabis
activists will always be opposed to such a model, whether it is
proposed by the General Assembly or by other marijuana law reform
groups. This is not "in-fighting", it is a fundamental
policy difference between groups with two completely different goals.
However, comparisons to the Occupy movement are appropriate: The
Legalize2012.com initiative represents the 99% through an independent
citizen's commission, while the Init. 30 campaign represents corporate
cannabis control to benefit a small percentage of businesses.
July 6, 2011: MPP
Initiative is NOT "Legalization" and Not "Similar
June 15: 2011: MPP/DPA/Sensible/SAFER
Colorado Initiative is Not "Legalization" ;
"It would be inaccurate to call this legalization," says
May 20, 2011: Restrictive Pot
Initiatives Complicate Colorado Cannabis Reform; Will out-of-state
interests amend Colorado's Constitution again?
May 23, 2011: Legalize 2012 Reply
to the MPP/DPA/Sensible/SAFER alliance
May 31, 2011: Review and Comment
Hearing on MPP/DPA/Sensible/SAFER 2012 ballot initiatives