Skip to main content

Ballot Measures

Ballot Measures Subtopics:
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020

Drug czar attacks!

Dear friends:

Once again, the White House drug czar is using taxpayer money to lie and interfere in an MPP state ballot initiative campaign. Earlier this week, drug czar John Walters and deputy drug czar Scott Burns appeared in Michigan to campaign against MPP's medical marijuana initiative there.

Walters pulled out his usual despicable lies. His claims in Michigan this week included:

  • Medical marijuana laws lead to “people who are dependent on this drug using the medical excuse to acquire the drug, to use the drug, to remain dependent, to get more teenagers and pre-teenagers to use.” (In fact, teen marijuana use has consistently declined in states with medical marijuana laws.)
  • Marijuana has no legitimate medical use. (In fact, the American Nurses Association, American Public Health Association, American Academy of HIV Medicine, Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, Lymphoma Foundation of America, American Academy of HIV Medicine, and dozens of other medical organizations recognize marijuana's medical value.)

While the drug czar spends taxpayer money to lie to voters, MPP's campaign committee is running out of funds to fight back and badly needs your help. Would you please consider donating $10 or more today?

This isn't the first time that the drug czar's office has campaigned against a state initiative. In fact, the drug czar makes a habit of targeting MPP. He campaigned against the medical marijuana laws that MPP successfully passed in Rhode Island in January of 2006 and in Montana and Vermont in 2004. And he has a history of swarming the airwaves with misleading and fear-mongering TV ads during the last two weeks of MPP's campaigns, so we expect the lies to escalate.

But we're fighting back. Just this week, MPP filed a complaint against the drug czar's office in the form of a Data Quality Act petition. The federal Data Quality Act requires federal agencies, like the drug czar's office, to ensure the quality, objectivity, and integrity of information it distributes. In other words, it mandates that the drug czar's information about marijuana rely on sound science — not twisted propaganda.

MPP's filing is the first of its kind. No organization has ever formally requested that the drug czar redact his lies. If we win, drug czar propaganda about marijuana will have to be corrected.

But there are only 19 days left until Election Day. MPP's campaign committee needs your help now. Won't you be part of making Michigan the 13th medical marijuana state — and the first in the Midwest?

Thank you in advance for anything you can give to help.

Sincerely,
Kampia signature (e-mail sized)

Rob Kampia
Executive Director
Marijuana Policy Project
Washington, D.C.

P.S. As I've mentioned in previous alerts, a major philanthropist has committed to match the first $3.0 million that MPP can raise from the rest of the planet in 2008. This means that your donation today will be doubled.

Press Release: Medical Marijuana Initiatives on the Ballot November 4th, 2008 Voters in 15 towns to decide Medical Marijuana Public Policy Questions

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 15, 2008 CONTACT: Scott Mortimer at 978-463-3788, Maddy Webster at 617-776-8344, or Bill Downing at 781-944-2266 Boston — Drug Policy Forum of Massachusetts announces that, for the 5th consecutive election cycle, Massachusetts citizens will vote on marijuana reform Public Policy Questions. Since 2000, voters in over 125 towns representing one-third of the Commonwealth have voted overwhelmingly in favor of marijuana reform (see attachment PPQtotal.doc or http://www.dpfma.org for detailed election results). For the 2008 election, activists from DPFMA and MassCann/NORML have placed four Public Policy Questions in State Representative districts concerning the medicinal use of marijuana. Voters in 15 towns will be able to decide the following ballot question: “Shall the State Representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation that would allow seriously ill patients, with their doctor’s written recommendation, to possess and grow small amounts of marijuana for their personal medical use?” 1st Middlesex Representative Robert S. Hargraves Question 4 – Towns of Ayer, Dunstable, Groton, Pepperell, and Townsend. 13th Norfolk Representative Lida E. Harkins Question 4 – Medfield, Needham, and precincts 1 and 2 of Dover. (The PPQ will appear as Question 5 in Needham) 21st Middlesex Representative Charles A. Murphy Question 4– Bedford, Burlington, precinct 3 of Wilmington. 6th Plymouth Representative Daniel K. Webster Question 4– Hanson, Pembroke, precincts 2,3,4,5 of Duxbury, precinct 2 of Halifax. In January 2008 the American College of Physicians released a landmark position paper endorsing full legal protection for medical marijuana patients. (report available at http://www.acponline.org/acp_news/medmarinews.htm) The ACP represents 124,000 member doctors and is the second largest physician group in the US. Since 2000 Massachusetts voters have passed 41 marijuana reform PPQs by a wide margin, 68% yes for medical marijuana and 62% for decriminalization. This year all Massachusetts voters will also vote on Question 2, a binding referendum that will make simple possession a civil offense with $100 fine. DPFMA has been working with the state legislature to pass H.2247, “An Act to Regulate the Medical Use of Marijuana by Patients Approved by Physicians and Certified by the Department of Public Health” sponsored by Rep. Frank Smizik. Currently twelve states including Vermont, Rhode Island, and Maine have passed similar legislation to protect medical marijuana patients from arrest and imprisonment. ###

Massachusetts DAs claim that tobacco is safer than marijuana

Dear friends:

Opponents of Massachusetts' marijuana decriminalization ballot initiative just can't stop lying.

Here are some the lies they're flooding the media with, in a cynical attempt to scare voters into defeating the measure on November 4:

  • Marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco — because tobacco takes a long time to kill you and alcohol has health benefits. (Yes, you read that right.) That's according to Bristol County District Attorney Sam Sutter.

And here are four gems from the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association:

  • “By empowering drug dealers with decriminalization of marijuana, we would be empowering them to continue their violent ways: carrying and brandishing weapons; ripping off kids who get in over their heads; engaging in bloody turf wars; and indiscriminately assaulting or murdering when things don't go the way they want.”
  • “Marijuana arrests are strongly associated with violent crime — dangerous criminals who make the wrong choice time and time again.” (In reality, research shows unmistakably that marijuana — unlike alcohol — is almost never the cause of aggression or violence.)
  • “Very few arrests involving marijuana charges are for simple possession.” (In reality, according to FBI statistics, a full 89% of marijuana arrests are for simple possession.)
  • The initiative “will allow drug dealers to operate with impunity and make it easier for them to do business with your children.”

You and I know this is outrageous. Don't sit by and let law enforcement officials get away with this blatant lying and fear-mongering — help the campaign fund an aggressive response.

This is the first time in history that an initiative to decriminalize marijuana will be on any statewide ballot, and the campaign needs our help to fight back hard in the little time that remains. Will you please visit www.SensibleMarijuanaPolicy.org/donate to donate $10 or more today?

As always, thank you for your generous support of MPP and our allies.

Sincerely,
Kampia signature (e-mail sized)

Rob Kampia
Executive Director
Marijuana Policy Project
Washington, D.C.

DrugSense FOCUS Alert: The 7 State Ballot Propositions and Proposals

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #385 - Tuesday, 30 September 2008 Voters in California, Oregon, Massachusetts, and Michigan will all vote Tuesday, November 4th on issues - a total of seven - which will if passed change laws which impact those arrested for the use of currently illegal drugs. The following highlights these issues. CALIFORNIA: PROPOSITION 5, the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act (NORA) - This measure (1) expands drug treatment diversion programs for criminal offenders, (2) modifies parole supervision procedures and expands prison and parole rehabilitation programs, (3) allows inmates to earn additional time off their prison sentences for participation and performance in rehabilitation programs, (4) reduces certain penalties for marijuana possession, and (5) makes miscellaneous changes to state law related mainly to state administration of rehabilitation and parole programs for offenders. Perhaps the least understood Proposition 5 change is the marijuana possession change. Here is what California's nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) has published on the issue: Change in Marijuana Possession Penalties Current state law generally makes the possession of less than 28.5 grams of marijuana by either an adult or a minor a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $100 (plus other penalties and fines that can bring the total cost to as much as $370) but not jail. Possession of greater amounts of marijuana, or repeat offenses, can result in confinement in jail or a juvenile hall, greater fines, or both. Revenues generated from these fines (including the additional penalties) are distributed in accordance with state law to various specified state and county government programs. Penalties for Marijuana Offenses Would Become Infraction This measure would make the possession of less than 28.5 grams of marijuana by either an adult or a minor an infraction (similar to a traffic ticket) rather than a misdemeanor. Adults would be subject, as they are today, to a fine of up to $100. However, the additional penalties of any kind would be limited under this measure to an amount equal to the fine imposed. (For example, imposition of the maximum $100 fine could result in an additional $100 in penalties.) Persons under age 18 would no longer be subject to a fine for a first offense, but would be required to complete a drug education program. Also, under this measure, fines collected for marijuana possession would be deposited in a special fund to provide additional support of the new youth programs created by this measure. The LAO analysis of Proposition 5 is at http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2008/5_11_2008.aspx Please see the YES on Prop. 5 website http://www.prop5yes.com/ The influential Orange County Register recently supported Proposition 5 in an editorial http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n901/a06.html PROPOSITION 6 - Makes some 30 changes to state criminal laws. The measure requires that Youthful Offender Block Grant funds--provided by the state to house, supervise, and provide various types of treatment services to juveniles--be distributed to county probation offices and eliminates existing provisions that permit these funds to be provided directly to drug treatment, mental health, or other county departments. Defines possession of methamphetamines as a felony - this crime currently can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor or a felony - but it does not change eligibility for some offenders for drug treatment diversion under Proposition 36. The LAO analysis of Proposition 6 is at http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2008/6_11_2008.aspx PROPOSITION 9 - This measure amends the State Constitution and various state laws to (1) expand the legal rights of crime victims and the payment of restitution by criminal offenders, (2) restrict the early release of inmates, and (3) change the procedures for granting and revoking parole. The LAO analysis of Proposition 9 is at http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2008/9_11_2008.aspx The Los Angeles Times recently opposed all three propositions in editorials http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n895/a03.html ********************************************************************** MASSACHUSETTS: QUESTION 2 - This proposed law would replace the criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of civil penalties, to be enforced by issuing citations, and would exclude information regarding this civil offense from the state's criminal record information system. Offenders age 18 or older would be subject to forfeiture of the marijuana plus a civil penalty of $100. Offenders under the age of 18 would be subject to the same forfeiture and, if they complete a drug awareness program within one year of the offense, the same $100 penalty. Offenders under 18 and their parents or legal guardian would be notified of the offense and the option for the offender to complete a drug awareness program developed by the state Department of Youth Services. Such programs would include ten hours of community service and at least four hours of instruction or group discussion concerning the use and abuse of marijuana and other drugs and emphasizing early detection and prevention of substance abuse. The penalty for offenders under 18 who fail to complete such a program within one year could be increased to as much as $1,000, unless the offender showed an inability to pay, an inability to participate in such a program, or the unavailability of such a program. Such an offender's parents could also be held liable for the increased penalty. Failure by an offender under 17 to complete such a program could also be a basis for a delinquency proceeding. The proposed law would define possession of one ounce or less of marijuana as including possession of one ounce or less of tetrahydrocannibinol ("THC"), or having metabolized products of marijuana or THC in one's body. Under the proposed law, possessing an ounce or less of marijuana could not be grounds for state or local government entities imposing any other penalty, sanction, or disqualification, such as denying student financial aid, public housing, public financial assistance including unemployment benefits, the right to operate a motor vehicle, or the opportunity to serve as a foster or adoptive parent. The proposed law would allow local ordinances or bylaws that prohibit the public use of marijuana, and would not affect existing laws, practices, or policies concerning operating a motor vehicle or taking other actions while under the influence of marijuana, unlawful possession of prescription forms of marijuana, or selling, manufacturing, or trafficking in marijuana. The money received from the new civil penalties would go to the city or town where the offense occurred. The YES on Question 2 website is at http://sensiblemarijuanapolicy.org/ Many, but not all, of the newspaper clippings about Question 2 may be found at http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Committee+for+Sensible+Marijuana+Policy ********************************************************************** MICHIGAN: PROPOSAL 1: The proposed law would: Permit physician approved use of marijuana by registered patients with debilitating medical conditions including cancer, glaucoma, HIV, AIDS, hepatitis C, MS and other conditions as may be approved by the Department of Community Health. Permit registered individuals to grow limited amounts of marijuana for qualifying patients in an enclosed, locked facility. Require Department of Community Health to establish an identification card system for patients qualified to use marijuana and individuals qualified to grow marijuana. Permit registered and unregistered patients and primary caregivers to assert medical reasons for using marijuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marijuana. The YES on Proposal 1 website is at http://stoparrestingpatients.org/ Most, but not all, of the newspaper clippings about Proposal 1 may be found at http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Michigan+Coalition+for+Compassionate+Care ********************************************************************** OREGON: MEASURE 57 - Increases sentences for drug trafficking (methamphetamine, heroin, "ecstasy," cocaine), theft against elderly and specified repeat property and identity theft crimes; requires addiction treatment for certain offenders. MEASURE 61 - Creates mandatory minimum prison sentences for certain theft, identity theft, forgery, drug, and burglary crimes. Please see this website for additional details http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/nov42008/meas.html If both measures pass, the one with more votes becomes law. Most of the newspaper editorial page statements from Oregon newspapers have opposed both measures or recommended Measure 57 as the better choice. **********************************************************************

Press Release: Federal Court Throws Out Nevada Petition Rule as Unconstitutional

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE   
SEPTEMBER 29, 2008   

Federal Court Throws Out Nevada Petition Rule as Unconstitutional
Marijuana Policy Project, ACLU Had Challenged Rule That Gave Excess Clout to Smallest Counties

CONTACT: Neal Levine, MPP director of state campaigns, 612-424-7001

LAS VEGAS — U.S. District Judge Philip M. Pro today ruled in favor of the Marijuana Policy Project, its Nevada campaign committee and co-plaintiffs, invalidating a Nevada rule for petition signatures that gives voters in the state's smallest counties as much as 1,000 times the clout of voters in Clark or Washoe counties.

    The law, NRS 295.012, was passed by the Legislature after federal courts tossed out the old "13 counties rule" because it discriminated against residents of the more populous counties by giving extra weight to initiative petition signatures from smaller counties. MPP and its Nevada campaign committee, the Committee to Regulate and Control Marijuana, were joined by the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada and four individual Clark County voters in seeking to overturn the new law, arguing that it actually magnified the disparities that had caused the 13 counties rule to be judged in violation of the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

    MPP director of state campaigns Neal Levine urged the state not to appeal the judge's decision. "With Nevada's economy in such a dire situation, you would think the state would have better things to do than pass and defend unconstitutional laws and pay our lawyers fees," Levine said. "This is now the second time we've defeated the state on the exact same issue. How many more times do you think it's going to take before they stop passing unconstitutional initiative laws?"

    With more than 25,000 members and 100,000 e-mail subscribers nationwide, the Marijuana Policy Project is the largest marijuana policy reform organization in the United States. MPP believes that the best way to minimize the harm associated with marijuana is to regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol. For more information, please visit http://MarijuanaPolicy.org.

####

Marijuana Decriminalization Campaign Uncovers Criminal Acts by Opposition

Dear friends:

You might think that the people who are paid to uphold the law would also follow the law themselves. In Massachusetts, you'd be wrong.

The Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy (CSMP) — which is running the campaign to pass a marijuana decriminalization ballot initiative in Massachusetts this Election Day — has uncovered at least 15 violations of Massachusetts campaign finance and election laws committed by the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association and other opponents of the initiative. You can read media coverage of yesterday's press conference calling for charges to be filed here.

If you support forcing marijuana policy reform opponents to follow the law, please help out the campaign today.

CSMP has filed official complaints with the Office of Campaign and Political Finance and the Office of the Attorney General, charging that opponents of the initiative participated in 14 counts of raising funds illegally, as well as one count of publishing false statements relating to the initiative, which are clear violations of the law. The campaign is calling on the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance to punish them to the fullest extent of the law. Each violation carries a penalty of up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Specifically:

  • Under Massachusetts law, it is illegal to solicit, receive, or spend funds to support or oppose a ballot initiative without first forming a political committee. CSMP has from its inception followed all of these rules, but the district attorneys solicited, received, and spent donations before they were legally allowed to — blatantly ignoring state law in a cynical attempt to conceal their campaign activity for as long as they could, undermining the very laws they have sworn to uphold.
  • Additionally, the district attorneys used public funds to post and house a statement urging voters to reject the decriminalization initiative on its Web site ... clear, indisputable violation of Massachusetts election law, which prohibits public officials from using public resources to advocate for or against a ballot initiative.
  • What's more, this illegal statement — itself an abuse of public office and taxpayer resources — is riddled with bald-faced lies ... like the claim that the initiative would permit any person to carry and use marijuana at any time. In reality, the measure simply changes the type of penalty for possession of less than an ounce and specifically reiterates that public use remains illegal.

It's past time for prohibitionist officials to be held to the same standards and laws as everyone else. If you support these aggressive tactics to hold our opponents accountable for their lies, deception, and lawbreaking, would you please consider donating $10 or more to the campaign today?

Thank you,
Kampia signature (e-mail sized)

Rob Kampia
Executive Director
Marijuana Policy Project
Washington, D.C.

P.S. If convicted, the initiative opponents would risk more than fines and jail time. They'd also face loss of their driver's licenses, suspension of their licenses to practice law or medicine; and placement in a permanent database of offenders that employers, landlords, and schools can search and use to preclude offenders from getting jobs, housing, and school loans ... the same penalties that marijuana offenders currently face in Massachusetts and which the ballot initiative would remove.

Decriminalization Campaign Announces Prominent Endorsers

Dear friends:

Yesterday, the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy (CSMP) released a list of prominent endorsers of the marijuana decriminalization initiative that will appear on Massachusetts' November 4 ballot — including a former first attorney general, legislators, and public health experts.

Would you please consider donating $10 or more today to CSMP today so the campaign has the resources to keep this momentum going?

Prominent endorsers of the initiative announced yesterday include:

  • Tom Kiley, Massachusetts' first assistant attorney general
  • Sergeant Howard Donohue, a 33-year veteran of the Boston Police Department
  • Lieutenant Thomas W. Nolan, a 30-year veteran of the Boston Police Department, now a professor at Boston University
  • Dr. Robert Meenan, dean of the Boston University School of Public Health
  • Lester Grinspoon, M.D., associate professor emeritus of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School
  • Jeffrey Miron, Ph.D, senior lecturer in the Harvard University Department of Economics
  • Massachusetts state Sen. Patricia Jehlen (D), chair of the Joint Committee on Elder Affairs and vice-chair of the Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight
  • Massachusetts state Rep. Frank Smizik (D), chair of the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture
  • John H. Halpern, M.D., assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School
  • Charles Barron, professor at Boston College School of Law
  • ACLU of Massachusetts
  • the Union of Minority Neighborhoods

Meanwhile, the opposition, which is composed of the usual suspects — district attorneys, sheriffs, and police chiefs — has made a cornerstone of its opposition the allegation that the initiative is somehow outside of the mainstream ... which these endorsements belie.

There are only seven weeks left to go until Election Day — when Massachusetts voters will have the chance to remove the threat of arrest or jail for possessing an ounce or less of marijuana, replacing it with a $100 fine — and your help is needed for this final stretch.

Would you please consider donating $10 or more today to the campaign to help push it to victory?

As always, thank you for anything you can do to help.

Sincerely,
Kampia signature (e-mail sized)

Rob Kampia
Executive Director
Marijuana Policy Project
Washington, D.C.

Put "Yes on 5" on TV

You Can Make a Difference

Dear friends,

The gloves have come off!

In July, California’s major law enforcement groups tried to get Proposition 5 —the largest sentencing and prison reform in U.S. history — thrown off the state ballot. But the California Supreme Court rejected their challenge, and affirmed that the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act will appear on the November state ballot as Prop. 5.

As you can see, opposition to Prop. 5 is mounting from some of the staunchest opponents of criminal justice reform in the state. We need your support to address the misrepresentations they’ve begun to spread about this urgent package of reforms. Please give to “Yes on 5” today and help us put commercials on TV in the final days of the campaign.

The 34 district attorneys and two former California governors (Wilson and Davis) involved in the suit all know that Prop. 5 has strong public support, so they tried to keep it away from voters. But their effort, built upon slick legal arguments that badly mischaracterized Prop. 5, has failed.

Now the state’s voters will decide whether to pass Prop. 5 and, with it, create new youth treatment programs, improve and expand treatment offered through the court system, and work to end the state’s prison overcrowding crisis.

This won’t be the last we hear from law enforcement groups. As a recent issue of California Political Week put it, “to top ranking officials from law enforcement, nothing is more important than the defeat of Prop. 5…” The California District Attorneys Association is heading up the fight, with support from associations of sheriffs and police chiefs.

We’re working hard to make sure that the “pro” voices are even louder. Our growing coalition of reform advocates includes the League of Women Voters, the Consumer Federation of California, the NAACP of California, the Latino Voters League and a wide range of youth advocates and treatment experts. And, hopefully, you!

Please make a contribution toward the “Yes on 5” campaign today. Help us stop the lies and broadcast the truth about treatment for nonviolent offenders. Please donate today to help put the truth about Prop. 5 on TV before November 4. With your help, we will make ourselves heard above our opponents’ fear-mongering — and win in November!

Sincerely,

Margaret Dooley-Sammuli
Deputy Campaign Manager, Yes on 5
Deputy State Director, Southern California
Drug Policy Alliance Network

P.S. Help us fight regressive law enforcement opposition and broadcast the truth about treatment for nonviolent offenders. Please support the “Yes on 5” campaign today.

Paid for by NORA Campaign -- Yes on 5, sponsored by Campaign for New Drug Policies and Drug Policy Alliance Network. / Major funding by George Soros and Bob Wilson / ID# 1302707 / 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1425, Sacramento, CA 95814

District attorneys lie about marijuana decriminalization initiative

Dear friends:

Sometimes it seems like the prohibitionists just can't help themselves.

In what has become a predictable routine, our opposition is once again openly lying to voters. This time, it's the members of the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association (MDAA), who have posted on their Web site a statement of opposition to the Massachusetts marijuana decriminalization initiative so riddled with misleading claims, inaccuracies, and outright lies that it almost defies belief.

Among other outrageous claims, the DAs allege:

* That currently, first-time marijuana offenders are placed on probation and their records are sealed. In reality, simply getting arrested — not even convicted — for possessing a small amount of marijuana in Massachusetts generates a permanent record in a database that employers, landlords, and schools can search and use to preclude offenders from getting jobs, housing, and school loans.

* That “decriminalization of marijuana will increase its availability and use.”  In reality, both the National Research Council (in 2001) and the World Health Organization (just this year) have published studies explicitly debunking this myth.
 
* And that “there is a direct link between marijuana use and criminal activity” because a “significant number of male arrestees test positive.” In reality, this is literally a meaningless claim that doesn't show any causal relationship ... and is, in any case, entirely irrelevant to the policy change that the initiative proposes.

If you are outraged by these lies and bad faith arguments, would you please consider donating $10 or more today to the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy (CSMP), which is running the campaign?

As demonstrably false as these claims are, they are being made by a prominent and respected organization with a bully pulpit, so the campaign will need substantial resources to counter the lies.

It's not hard to understand why the opposition has been reduced to these tactics. According to an independent poll released earlier this month, a whopping 71% of Massachusetts residents support the initiative to replace the state's current criminal penalties for possession of an ounce or less of marijuana with a system of civil fines. And Massachusetts voters have passed 30 out of 30 non-binding public policy questions (PPQs) calling for such a reform since 2000 — with an average of 62% of the vote in favor.

But this public support is not in itself enough to win. Between now and November 4, we expect well-financed and powerful groups to attempt to sway voter opinion with these sorts of exaggerations, scare tactics, and lies. Would you please consider donating what you can today to CSMP, so it has the funds to fight back and pass the initiative into law on Election Day?

As always, thank you in advance for your generous support.

Sincerely,
Kampia signature (e-mail sized)

Rob Kampia
Executive Director
Marijuana Policy Project
Washington, D.C.

Press Release: Fayetteville Voters to Vote on Low Priority

Fayetteville, AR: Fayetteville voters will have the choice on Election Day to vote on making adult marijuana possession the lowest police priority. Sensible Fayetteville initiative sponsors turned in just over 1000 additional signatures on August 29 to meet a shortfall of 310 valid signatures. City Clerk Sondra Smith contacted campaign coordinator Ryan Denham today to say that the petition has qualified with over the total of 3686 signatures required. Denham praised the city clerk and staff for their professional conduct and courtesy during the laborious verification process. "They worked hard. We were impressed by city operations." "Now we turn our attention to providing more in-depth information to the voters leading up to Election Day. This initiative offers residents an important opportunity to help guide Fayetteville's future through better allocation of our resources. It also shows that Fayetteville is willing to take a leadership role among other cities across the nation in addressing failed public policy. And we believe this will benefit Fayetteville's largest industry, the University of Arkansas, by reducing the number of students penalized with loss of financial aid for marijuana prosecutions. We respect the dedication of our police and prosecutor and believe this measure spells out the public's full support for their use of enforcement discretion." Sensible Fayetteville formed in 2007 as a coalition of OMNI Center for Peace, Justice, & Ecology, the Green Party of Washington County, the University of Arkansas student group NORML-SSDP, and the Alliance for Reform of Drug Policy in Arkansas, Inc. The measure, entitled "Lowest Law Enforcement and Prosecutorial Priority Policy Ordinance," would require Fayetteville police and prosecutor to treat adult marijuana possession offenses as their lowest priority. Further, the measure requires the city clerk to send an annual letter to state and federal legislators, governor, and president stating: "The citizens of Fayetteville have passed an initiative to de-prioritize adult marijuana offenses, where the marijuana is intended for personal use, and request that the federal and Arkansas state governments take immediate steps to enact similar laws." This duty shall be carried out until state and federal laws are changed accordingly. The full text of the proposed ordinance can be viewed at www.sensiblefayetteville.com Similar laws have been passed by communities in Missouri, Montana, Washington, California, and Colorado. In Arkansas, a similar measure in Eureka Springs passed with 62% of the vote in 2006. Sponsors state that more than one survey by Zogby International have show that over two-thirds of Arkansas voters support reforms that would reduce penalties for adult marijuana use. Denele Campbell, Executive Director Alliance for Reform of Drug Policy in Arkansas,Inc. "The Alliance" www.arkansasalliance.org [email protected] P O Box 692 Fayetteville AR 72702 "Taking Action on Failed Drug Policy"
Subscribe to Ballot Measures