Good news for Oregon’s Measure 74, a ballot initiative that will regulate medical marijuana supplies in the state: the Democratic Party of Oregon gave its endorsement to the medical marijuana measure. From the Measure 74 press release:
Oregon’s Measure 74, which regulates medical marijuana supplies, has earned the endorsement of state Democratic activists and officials.
The Democratic Party of Oregon officially supports a “yes” vote on Measure 74. That position could help both Measure 74 and Democratic candidates and causes all over Oregon, supporters of the medical marijuana measure said.
“Supporting Measure 74 is smart politics for Democrats this year,” said Sajo. “There may be nothing else on the statewide ballot this year with the potential to excite younger and progressive voters.”
This is big news for Measure 74, which if passed, would create nonprofit clinics like pharmacies to supply marijuana to patients. While Oregon has had medical marijuana since 1998, patients have had to either grow their own or have someone else grow for them. With Measure 74, patients with have better, safer access to medical marijuana in a regulated system.
Anthony Johnson, the chief petitioner and author of Measure 74, explained why Oregon patients need Measure 74 to pass:
Johnson noted that the measure would add a “regulated supply system” to help medical marijuana patients in the state to have a safe supply of medicine, as opposed to growing their own or “risk[ing] their well-being on the black market.”
“First and foremost, it allows compassionate, safe access for Oregon medical marijuana patients,” stated Johnson.
Johnson also added that not only will the revenue generated for the state fund medical research and Oregon health programs, but also that the measure will create “thousands of jobs.”
Some more about what will Measure 74 will do if passed by Oregon voters in November:
- Regulated supply: Qualified patients could obtain medical marijuana from regulated, nonprofit clinics like pharmacies.
- Strict controls & accountability: Suppliers would be subject to background checks, inspections, record-keeping, auditing and zoning, and other regulations.
- State revenues: The system will generate $3 million-$20 million per year for Oregon’s budget from taxes and fees paid by participants, much more than the cost of regulation.
Measure 74′s campaign is smart about how to pass the initiative. While polls show a close fight, it’s going to be a matter of turnout. And the campaign knows it – they hope that the Democratic Party’s endorsement will help reach new voters who won’t otherwise even be aware of a medical marijuana initiative.
“The momentum in favor of Measure 74 is growing,” said John Sajo, a co-author of the initiative and a leader of the Regulate Medical Marijuana campaign. “The more people look at it, and consider the alternatives, the more they support it. We think this bodes well for our chances this year.”
Recent polls have shown Measure 74 trailing, but supporters are optimistic.
“The pollsters make their assumptions about who will actually vote this year,” said Sajo. “We know there’s a vast, uncounted number of voters who are motivated by Measure 74. We are talking to these voters every day. They will be pleased to see that the state Democratic Party stands with them on Measure 74.”
Join Just Say Now’s campaign to pass Measure 74.



17 Comments
Wow! Thanks for the report, Michael.
Thanks for spreading the word and helping legalize freedom. Progressive Reform of Oregon has just released a commercial supporting Measure 74. Please spread it far and wide.
Pro-Oregon‘s Measure 74 Commercial on Youtube
This is wonderful news, contra the stupid Democratic Party of California, which somehow thought ‘neutral’ was a motivating position to take to attract voters to its candidates.
Well-done, Oregon Democrats (of which I am not one, as a Non-Aligned Voter)
holy crap, dem’s actually taking a controversial stand in support of the people – it’s a miracle. I hope this continues cause this type of thing begins to restore my faith in the democratic party… at least the one in oregon. =)
The working and middle class are being reduced to serfdom but it’s looking like the plutocrats will let the serfs smoke pot. Yippeee!!! Real change that the masses can believe in.
*heh* I was just reading your Seminal diary on this very topic, Teddy…! ;-)
FDL is bordering on irrelevancy. Either the “public” isn’t aware of FDL or people don’t give a flying fuck. Probably a bit of both.
Right. You might be in economic chains but as long as you can smoke reefer your a free man or woman.
Not mutually exclusive concepts, as one is not dependent on the other.
I think the powers that be not only recognize how vile the drug “war” is, they’d like the populace nice and calm for the next economic shocks.
I recall an attorney friend repeating the oft-used phrase, “Pot gets you through times of no money better than money gets you through times of no pot.”
I suppose it is time for Obama to step in now and delcare, statesman-like, that this legalization business is a dangerously rushed idea, and that we should maybe wait for Congress to appoint a Commission to find Consensus.
His drug czar would be one step closer to out of work. It’s time for action!
Call for the Obananation!
A hundred million emails! Ten million eager phone bank workers! Behold! The magic of David Plouffe!
I doubt the White House would be eager to get into the business of pissing off half of the state of California, let alone the voters in Oregon, Arizona, etc.
Here comes the youth vote.
A “bipartisan” commission with Joe Arpaio as Chairman.
W00000t, w000000t! All aboa—rrrrd the Peace Train!
Freedom one step at a time.
Here are ten studies the Feds wish they’d never done:
01) MARIJUANA USE HAS NO EFFECT ON MORTALITY:
A massive study of California HMO members funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) found marijuana use caused no significant increase in mortality. Tobacco use was associated with increased risk of death. Sidney, S et al. Marijuana Use and Mortality. American Journal of Public Health
. Vol. 87 No. 4, April 1997. p. 585-590. Sept. 2002.
02) HEAVY MARIJUANA USE AS A YOUNG ADULT WON’T RUIN YOUR LIFE:
Veterans Affairs scientists looked at whether heavy marijuana use as a young adult caused long-term problems later, studying identical twins in which one twin had been a heavy marijuana user for a year or longer but had stopped at least one month before the study, while the second twin had used marijuana no more than five times ever. Marijuana use had no significant impact on physical or mental health care utilization, health-related quality of life, or current socio-demographic characteristics. Eisen SE et al. Does Marijuana Use Have Residual Adverse Effects on Self-Reported Health Measures, Socio-Demographics or Quality of Life? A Monozygotic Co-Twin Control Study in Men. Addiction. Vol. 97 No. 9. p.1083-1086. Sept.
1997
03) THE “GATEWAY EFFECT” MAY BE A MIRAGE:
Marijuana is often called a “gateway drug” by supporters of prohibition, who point to statistical “associations” indicating that persons who use marijuana are more likely to eventually try hard drugs than those who never use marijuana – implying that marijuana use somehow causes hard drug use. But a model developed by RAND Corp. researcher Andrew Morral demonstrates that these associations can be explained “without requiring a gateway effect.” More likely, this federally funded study suggests, some people simply have an underlying propensity to try drugs, and start with what’s most readily available. Morral AR, McCaffrey D and Paddock S. Reassessing the Marijuana Gateway Effect. Addiction. December 2002. p. 1493-1504.
04) PROHIBITION DOESN’T WORK (PART I):
The White House had the National Research Council examine the data being gathered about drug use and the effects of U.S. drug policies. NRC concluded, “the nation possesses little information about the effectiveness of current drug policy, especially of drug law enforcement.” And what data exist show “little apparent relationship between severity of sanctions prescribed for drug use and prevalence or frequency of use.” In other words, there is no proof that prohibition – the cornerstone of U.S. drug policy for a century – reduces drug use. National Research Council. Informing America’s Policy on Illegal Drugs: What We Don’t Know Keeps Hurting Us. National Academy Press, 2001. p. 193.
05) PROHIBITION DOESN’T WORK (PART II):
DOES PROHIBITION CAUSE THE “GATEWAY EFFECT”?): U.S. and Dutch researchers, supported in part by NIDA, compared marijuana users in San Francisco, where non-medical use remains illegal, to Amsterdam, where adults may possess and purchase small amounts of marijuana from regulated businesses. Looking at such parameters as frequency and quantity of use and age at onset of use, they found the following: Cannabis (Marijuana) use in San Francisco was 3 times the prevalence found in the Amsterdam sample. And lifetime use of hard drugs was significantly lower in Amsterdam, with its “tolerant” marijuana policies. For example, lifetime crack cocaine use was 4.5 times higher in San Francisco than Amsterdam. Reinarman, C, Cohen, PDA, and Kaal, HL. The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and San Francisco. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 94, No. 5. May 2004. p. 836-842.
06) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART I):
Federal researchers implanted several types of cancer, including leukemia and lung cancers, in mice, then treated them with cannabinoids (unique, active components found in marijuana). THC and other cannabinoids shrank tumors and increased the mice’s lifespans. Munson, AE et al. Antineoplastic Activity of Cannabinoids. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Sept. 1975. p. 597-602.
07) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER, (PART II):
In a 1994 study the government tried to suppress, federal researchers gave mice and rats massive doses of THC, looking for cancers or other signs of toxicity. The rodents given THC lived longer and had fewer cancers, “in a dose-dependent manner” (i.e. the more THC they got, the fewer tumors). NTP Technical Report On The Toxicology And Carcinogenesis Studies Of 1-Trans- Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, CAS No. 1972-08-3, In F344/N Rats And B6C3F Mice, Gavage Studies. See also, “Medical Marijuana: Unpublished Federal Study Found THC-Treated Rats Lived Longer, Had Less Cancer,” AIDS Treatment News no. 263, Jan. 17, 1997.
08) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART III):
Researchers at the Kaiser-Permanente HMO, funded by NIDA, followed 65,000 patients for nearly a decade, comparing cancer rates among non-smokers, tobacco smokers, and marijuana smokers. Tobacco smokers had massively higher rates of lung cancer and other cancers. Marijuana smokers who didn’t also use tobacco had no increase in risk of tobacco-related cancers or of cancer risk overall. In fact their rates of lung and most other cancers were slightly lower than non-smokers, though the difference did not reach statistical significance. Sidney, S. et al. Marijuana Use and Cancer Incidence (California, United States). Cancer Causes and Control. Vol. 8. Sept. 1997, p. 722-728.
09) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART IV):
Donald Tashkin, a UCLA researcher whose work is funded by NIDA, did a case-control study comparing 1,200 patients with lung, head and neck cancers to a matched group with no cancer. Even the heaviest marijuana smokers had no increased risk of cancer, and had somewhat lower cancer risk than non-smokers (tobacco smokers had a 20-fold increased Lung Cancer risk). Tashkin D. Marijuana Use and Lung Cancer: Results of a Case-Control Study. American Thoracic Society International Conference. May 23, 2006.
10) MARIJUANA DOES HAVE MEDICAL VALUE:
In response to passage of California’s medical marijuana law, the White House had the Institute of Medicine (IOM) review the data on marijuana’s medical benefits and risks. The IOM concluded, “Nausea, appetite loss, pain and anxiety are all afflictions of wasting, and all can be mitigated by marijuana.” While noting potential risks of smoking, the report added, “we acknowledge that there is no clear alternative for people suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking marijuana, such as pain or AIDS wasting.” The government’s refusal to acknowledge this finding caused co-author John A. Benson to tell the New York Times that the government “loves to ignore our report … they would rather it never happened.” Joy, JE, Watson, SJ, and Benson, JA. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy Press. 1999. p. 159. See also, Harris, G. FDA Dismisses Medical Benefit From Marijuana. New York Times. Apr. 21, 2006
As you all may well know, Jerry Brown, democrat candidate for governor of California, has come out against Prop 19. He’s also accepted more than $200,000 in campaign contributions from alcohol companies, according to the California Secretary of State Campaign Finance website http://tinyurl.com/2vddpqg
CALIFORNIA BEER & BEVERAGE DISTRIBUTORS COMMUNITY AFFAIRS $25,900 5/13/10 1487716-16309
ALLIED BEVERAGES, INC. $25,900 5/13/10 1487716-16303
MARKSTEIN BEVERAGE CO. OF SACRAMENTO $25,000 5/18/10 1488493-16496
HORIZON BEVERAGE COMPANY 20000 5/18/10 1488493-16506
BAY AREA BEVERAGE COMPANY $20,000 5/13/10 1487716-16310
CALIFORNIA BEER & BEVERAGE DISTRIBUTORS COMMUNITY AFFAIRS $19,900 5/13/10 1487716-16307
ACE BEVERAGE CO. $17,500 5/17/10 1488493-16448
MARKSTEIN BEVERAGE CO. OF SAN MARCOS $14,900 5/18/10 1488493-16501
MARKSTEIN BEVERAGE CO. OF SAN MARCOS $10,100 5/18/10 1488493-16502
WILLIAM LAZZERINI $10,000 5/13/10 1487716-16306
PACIFIC BEVERAGE $10,000 5/8/10 1486926-16155
MISSION BEVERAGE COMPANY $7,500 5/17/10 1488493-16447
HORIZON BEVERAGE COMPANY $5,000 9/14/10 1518320-33050
Total: $211,700