Soros gives $1M to Calif. pot legalization measure

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Billionaire financier George Soros has thrown his weight behind California's marijuana legalization measure with a $1 million donation a week before the vote. The contribution reported Tuesday by The Sacramento Bee is the single biggest donation from an individual other than Proposition 19's main sponsor, Oakland medical marijuana entrepreneur Richard Lee.

Soros, a high-profile liberal and philanthropist, has long backed drug law reform. He was one of the top financial backers of California's first-in-the-nation measure that legalized medical marijuana in the state in 1996.

But Soros held off on openly endorsing the current measure until writing an op-ed published Tuesday in The Wall Street Journal. In the piece, Soros said legalizing and taxing marijuana would save taxpayers the costs of incarceration and law enforcement while raising revenue for the state.

"Just as the process of repealing national alcohol prohibition began with individual states repealing their own prohibition laws, so individual states must now take the initiative with respect to repealing marijuana prohibition laws," Soros wrote.

The $1 million donation comes a day after the Yes on 19 campaign launched its first television ad. The opposition's campaign also recently took to the airwaves for the first time with a radio ad sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce, claiming the law would threaten workplace safety and harm the state's economy.

Soros' money went to a campaign committee overseen by the Drug Policy Alliance, a drug legalization advocacy group. Soros sits on the group's board and is a major donor.

The money will be spent on get-out-the-vote efforts, on-the-ground campaigning and television advertising, said Ethan Nadelmann, the alliance's executive director and a longtime adviser to Soros on drug policy issues.

Soros has long supported medical marijuana and decriminalizing the drug for personal use but has in fact been ambivalent about broader legalization, Nadelmann said. The 80-year-old investor finally decided to support Proposition 19 after seeing how the ballot measure had "elevated the discourse" around drug law reform, he said.

"For him, it's not been about legalization per se, but about rolling back the drug war," said Nadelmann.

Until now, neither side in the ballot measure contest has seen a huge outpouring of cash, though supporters have significantly out-raised opponents. Supporters of the measure have raised about $3.8 million, including the Soros donation. The No campaign has raised about $300,000.

Other high-profile donations to Proposition 19 in recent days include $50,000 from Men's Wearhouse chief executive George Zimmer and $70,000 from hedge fund president and Paypal co-founder Peter Thiel, according to campaign finance records.

Roger Salazar, spokesman for the No on Prop 19 campaign, called the big-ticket donations to the other side a sign of panic as polls show support for the measure dropping.

"We've always known that they would outspend us. In fact, they've outspent us from Day One," Salazar said. "It seems to us the more they've spent, the more they've gone down in the polls."

Despite the large sums, fundraising for Proposition 19 has been modest compared to other campaigns. For example, campaign finance records show supporters of Proposition 23 to suspend California's greenhouse gas emissions law have raised more than $10 million, while opponents have raised more than $30 million.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9J3NRT00&show_article=1

[Heracles 417]

Pot should be legal and controlled like alcohol. Basically, you would have to be over 18 and could not be high in public or while driving.

It's a waste of time and resources, trying to tackle it. The scarce resources should be used to tackle real drugs, like cocaine, heroin, etc etc.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Pot should be legal and controlled like alcohol. Basically, you would have to be over 18 and could not be high in public or while driving.

It's a waste of time and resources, trying to tackle it. The scarce resources should be used to tackle real drugs, like cocaine, heroin, etc etc.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Pot should be legal and controlled like alcohol. Basically, you would have to be over 18 and could not be high in public or while driving.

It's a waste of time and resources, trying to tackle it. The scarce resources should be used to tackle real drugs, like cocaine, heroin, etc etc.

I wonder if the proposition passes, whether or not it will have to carry the California Proposition 65 Warning Label:

WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.

Edited October 27, 2010 by ##########

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I wonder is the proposition passes, whether or not it will have to carry the California Proposition 65 Warning Label:

Why not? If you sell anything on the market, it is regulated in some fashion. The only exceptions would be homegrown use. And for the record, since you seem to think I smoke pot, I don't, nor do I have any interest in doing so. In fact, I hardly ever drink beer. My life has been more straight-laced than your rigid, Right Wing upbringing.....it's just that my parents were a bit more open to letting us kids think for ourselves, even at an early age.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Why not? If you sell anything on the market, it is regulated in some fashion. The only exceptions would be homegrown use. And for the record, since you seem to think I smoke pot, I don't, nor do I have any interest in doing so. In fact, I hardly ever drink beer. My life has been more straight-laced than your rigid, Right Wing upbringing.....it's just that my parents were a bit more open to letting us kids think for ourselves, even at an early age.

Don't worry. I won't tell your hippie friends that you are a closet square.

I was given the typical Irish Catholic upbringing. Lots of alcohol around the house, JFK Democrats that went to Reagan in 1980, church on Sunday.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I think the real story ultimately is what the Federal Government is going to do.

Will they ultimately 'cut funding' in California if this passes, just as they would if they lowered the drinking age to 18?

[The_Dude 1,142]

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Billionaire financier George Soros has thrown his weight behind California's marijuana legalization measure with a $1 million donation a week before the vote. The contribution reported Tuesday by The Sacramento Bee is the single biggest donation from an individual other than Proposition 19's main sponsor, Oakland medical marijuana entrepreneur Richard Lee.

Soros, a high-profile liberal and philanthropist, has long backed drug law reform. He was one of the top financial backers of California's first-in-the-nation measure that legalized medical marijuana in the state in 1996.

But Soros held off on openly endorsing the current measure until writing an op-ed published Tuesday in The Wall Street Journal. In the piece, Soros said legalizing and taxing marijuana would save taxpayers the costs of incarceration and law enforcement while raising revenue for the state.

"Just as the process of repealing national alcohol prohibition began with individual states repealing their own prohibition laws, so individual states must now take the initiative with respect to repealing marijuana prohibition laws," Soros wrote.

The $1 million donation comes a day after the Yes on 19 campaign launched its first television ad. The opposition's campaign also recently took to the airwaves for the first time with a radio ad sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce, claiming the law would threaten workplace safety and harm the state's economy.

Soros' money went to a campaign committee overseen by the Drug Policy Alliance, a drug legalization advocacy group. Soros sits on the group's board and is a major donor.

The money will be spent on get-out-the-vote efforts, on-the-ground campaigning and television advertising, said Ethan Nadelmann, the alliance's executive director and a longtime adviser to Soros on drug policy issues.

Soros has long supported medical marijuana and decriminalizing the drug for personal use but has in fact been ambivalent about broader legalization, Nadelmann said. The 80-year-old investor finally decided to support Proposition 19 after seeing how the ballot measure had "elevated the discourse" around drug law reform, he said.

"For him, it's not been about legalization per se, but about rolling back the drug war," said Nadelmann.

Until now, neither side in the ballot measure contest has seen a huge outpouring of cash, though supporters have significantly out-raised opponents. Supporters of the measure have raised about $3.8 million, including the Soros donation. The No campaign has raised about $300,000.

Other high-profile donations to Proposition 19 in recent days include $50,000 from Men's Wearhouse chief executive George Zimmer and $70,000 from hedge fund president and Paypal co-founder Peter Thiel, according to campaign finance records.

Roger Salazar, spokesman for the No on Prop 19 campaign, called the big-ticket donations to the other side a sign of panic as polls show support for the measure dropping.

"We've always known that they would outspend us. In fact, they've outspent us from Day One," Salazar said. "It seems to us the more they've spent, the more they've gone down in the polls."

Despite the large sums, fundraising for Proposition 19 has been modest compared to other campaigns. For example, campaign finance records show supporters of Proposition 23 to suspend California's greenhouse gas emissions law have raised more than $10 million, while opponents have raised more than $30 million.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9J3NRT00&show_article=1

I hate to do it Bill, but I need to attack the source here. It is Breitbart afterall, king of cherrypicked quotes and edited videos to suit his agenda. The article mentions only those who have donated money towards the legalization effort, not the mountain of cash being donated by conservatives, most notably, trade groups. The alcohol produrcers trade union has pumped in tens of millions of dollars to fight this initiative, yet only gets a mention in a mother jones article? Seriously, nobody cares that the only real opposition to this initiative is Budweiser, and more obviously, Coors. It should be noted that upon the publication of the mother jones article, Samuel Adams and Sierra Nevada made statements withdrawing their support of the trade groups PAC.

I think the real story ultimately is what the Federal Government is going to do.

Will they ultimately 'cut funding' in California if this passes, just as they would if they lowered the drinking age to 18?

I've been saying that since it first appeared on the ballot. Sounds like a good idea at first. Tax it, sell it and stop clogging the jails up with potheads. Could be a nice cash crop for the state too. But ultimately, if the federal government maintains its hardline approach, this will be a whole lot of money wasted on a forgone conclussion. I think it would be a great thing for the state, and even the country if they ever get on board, but I just don't have any confidence that it would be allowed to pass unscathed.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Wrong thread.

Edited October 27, 2010 by spookyturtle

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I've been saying that since it first appeared on the ballot. Sounds like a good idea at first. Tax it, sell it and stop clogging the jails up with potheads. Could be a nice cash crop for the state too. But ultimately, if the federal government maintains its hardline approach, this will be a whole lot of money wasted on a forgone conclussion. I think it would be a great thing for the state, and even the country if they ever get on board, but I just don't have any confidence that it would be allowed to pass unscathed.

Yeah, it's sad really. It became illegal starting with a single state, I just hope the same can happen with re-legalization. I guess it depends what the moral majority in Washington wants, which there again is stupid, but whatever. If people would educate themselves why it was made illegal in the early 1900's in the first place, then perhaps things could be different. God forbid the media do its jobs and educate people properly there either....

[The_Dude 1,142]

Yeah, it's sad really. It became illegal starting with a single state, I just hope the same can happen with re-legalization. I guess it depends what the moral majority in Washington wants, which there again is stupid, but whatever. If people would educate themselves why it was made illegal in the early 1900's in the first place, then perhaps things could be different. God forbid the media do its jobs and educate people properly there either....

It was made illegal because of Harry Anslinger and the DuPont company. Boycott DuPont!!! Even more reason to hate Jeff Gordon

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I hate to do it Bill, but I need to attack the source here. It is Breitbart afterall,...

Check the byline-

By MARCUS WOHLSEN

Associated Press.

Brietbart's own stuff is Brietbart-TV

Edited October 27, 2010 by ##########

[The_Dude 1,142]

Check the byline-

Brietbart's own stuff is Brietbart-TV

I stand corrected. However, the article is deceptive none the less.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I stand corrected. However, the article is deceptive none the less.

Yep. You can't trust AP and UPI to tell the whole story.

As far a legal marijuana, it is pretty much de facto legal around here. They advertise on the radio with impunity, for all sorts of services related to, "Your 4:20 Lifestyle". Now the kids are raiding the parents' medicinal stash, along with the liquor cabinet. Even still, the kids are more sober than I remember being at that age, but a whole lot dumber for anything useful.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The article mentions only those who have donated money towards the legalization effort, not the mountain of cash being donated by conservatives, most notably, trade groups.

and the drug cartels. They are the one's profiting from keeping pot illegal.