[Pesqueeb]

Bummer man.

The California Beer & Beverage Distributors is spending money in the state to oppose a marijuana legalization proposition on the ballot in November, according to records filed with the California Secretary of State. The beer sellers are the first competitors of marijuana to officially enter the debate; backers of the initiative are closely watching liquor and wine dealers and the pharmaceutical industry to see if they enter the debate in the remaining weeks.

The opposition to pot among beer makers, however, is not unanimous among the CBBD's membership. Sierra Nevada and Stone Brewing Co., microbrews that began in California but have become popular national brands, both lashed out at the CBBD after news of the distributor's donation was reported on Celebstoner.com, a popular website focusing on marijuana-related news, and Alternet.com.

"Stone is not a part of this campaign in any way. This issue has caught us off guard," said a statement from the San Diego-based microbrewery, calling itself "merely a non-voting Allied Member of the CA Beer & Beverage Distributors (CBBD).As such, Stone Brewing does not/cannot participate in the political action decisions of the CBBD."

A statement from Sierra Nevada said that the company has "requested the CBBD to remove our name from their list of members, and also to disassociate the brewery from this and any future political actions."

The last thing a California microbrew needs is to be associated with the effort against legalizing marijuana. "We regret any implied association with this action by the CBBD, and maintain our independence and neutrality regarding matters of politics," the Sierra statement said. "The CBBD does not represent Sierra Nevada's political interests in any way, and does not represent the brewery's stance on the issue."

The CBBD did not return calls for comment; it donated $10,000 to Public Safety First, a committee organized to oppose the proposition, on Sept. 7, 2010, though the contribution was only recently made public. The alcohol industry has long seen illicit drugs as a threat to sales, as consumers may substitute pot for booze. A night spent on the couch smoking marijuana and watching television is a night not spent at the bar.

Public Safety First is largely funded by a different industry whose interests are threatened by the legalization of marijuana: law enforcement. Police forces are entitled to keep property seized as part of drug raids and the revenue stream that comes from waging the drug war has become a significant source of support for local law enforcement. Federal and state funding of the drug war is also a significant supplement to local forces' budgets.

The California Narcotics Officers' Association has donated $20,500; the California Police Chiefs Association has contributed $30,000. The Placer County Deputy Sheriff's Association, the California Peace Officers Association, the California District Attorney Association and the Peace Officers Association of Los Angeles County have all contributed, as well. Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca has been an outspoken opponent. Earlier this months, current and former heads of the Drug Enforcement Administration held a press conference in Washington to oppose the proposition and urge the White House to sue to stop it if it passes.

The pro-legalization forces, however, have caught at least one break: The prison guards are staying neutral. One of the most potent political forces in California is the California Correctional Peace Officers Association. The prison guards spent more than a million dollars in 2008 to defeat a proposition that would have sent some nonviolent drug offenders into treatment rather than to prison -- a law that would have cut down on overcrowding and overtime.

So far, the prison guards' bosses have gotten involved -- the California Correctional Supervisors Organization has given $7,500 -- but the guards themselves are on the sidelines.

Advocates for Proposition 19, meanwhile, are running the campaign on a shoestring budget. Wealthy individuals who generally bankroll the legalization movement such as Peter Lewis, the head of Progressive auto insurance, are sitting out.

Organized labor, however, is stepping into the breach. The Service Employees International Union, a major presence in California, has endorsed the proposition. The Teamsters in September made its first successful foray into organizing pot growers. The United Food and Commercial Workers is backing the initiative and organizing cannabis club employees in the Bay Area. The teachers union, citing the revenue that could be raised for the state, is also backing the initiative.

On Saturday, Roger Salazar, a spokesman for Public Safety First, was confronted on CNN over his group's alliance with the beer distributors. He blamed it on the forklift operators. "Let's keep in mind the beer and beverage distributors are the folks who deliver beer and beverage products. The truck driver, the forklift drivers, you know, the warehouse workers. You know, these are folks who have traffic safety and employee safety issues, first and foremost," Salazar said, though the beer distributors are the only distributor of any product to oppose the proposition.

Mason Tvert, head of the organization SAFER, which makes the case that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, told Salazar that driving or operating a fork lift while high would still be illegal if the proposition becomes law -- just as alcohol is legal but it's against the law to drive while drunk.

"With all due respect to this gentleman, he is a political consultant being paid by the booze industry to protect their turf," said Tvert. "We also need to consider the fact that this gentleman mentions all the jobs that are created by the alcohol industry. These are all jobs that can be created by the marijuana industry as well. And at the same time, we're giving Californians the ability to use a substance like marijuana that doesn't contribute to domestic violence and sexual assault and overdose... and all the other problems that alcohol contributes to."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/21/this-buds-not-for-you-bee_n_732901.html

I find the point they bring up about law enforcments opposition being based on revenue stream very interesting.

 

[sanjuro]

I heard Blockbuster was trying to stop streaming movies. How's that working for them?

 

[eaterofdog]

Anybody notice how cops and prison guards come out against reform? It's a lot easier to hassle stoners than deal with real criminals.

 

[stevew]

I heard Blockbuster was trying to stop streaming movies. How's that working for them?

they are getting their balls stomped.

 

[dante]

CBBD = Bud, Miller, Coors. I'd be shocked if any of the microbreweries out in CA actually support this, and it's just stupid for CBBD to actually get involved...

 

[Silver]

CBBD = Bud, Miller, Coors. I'd be shocked if any of the microbreweries out in CA actually support this, and it's just stupid for CBBD to actually get involved...

I checked out their website when I first saw this late last week and both Stone and Sierra Nevada were listed as members. I sent an email over the weekend to Stone and Sierra Nevada and got back responses that were pretty close to what is in the first post.

I must not have been the only person who noticed...

 

[kidwoo]

Rad. I'm sitting here in a hotel with two beers....one Stone imperial porter.....the other SN tumbler.

I may now drink them.

 

[DaveW]

Rad. I'm sitting here in a hotel with two beers....one Stone imperial porter.....the other SN tumbler.

I may now drink them.

If you didn't drink them I'd propose that you were hunted down and stoned to death with cans of Bud light.

 

[valve bouncer]

Anybody notice how cops and prison guards come out against reform? It's a lot easier to hassle stoners than deal with real criminals.

Don't worry, if dope becomes legal I'm sure they'll find someone else to hassle.

Public Safety First is largely funded by a different industry whose interests are threatened by the legalization of marijuana: law enforcement. Police forces are entitled to keep property seized as part of drug raids and the revenue stream that comes from waging the drug war has become a significant source of support for local law enforcement. Federal and state funding of the drug war is also a significant supplement to local forces' budgets.

This a f*cking outrage. Defend this Manimal.

 

[kidwoo]

If you didn't drink them I'd propose that you were hunted down and stoned to death with cans of Bud light.

I'd rather be hit in the head with that crap than drink it.

 

[ohio]

Rad. I'm sitting here in a hotel with two beers....one Stone imperial porter.....the other SN tumbler.

I may now drink them.

You should at least *offer* one of them to the underage crackwhore you just had delivered.

(that IS why you're in a hotel, right? are there other reasons? I can't think of any.)

 

[Silver]

You should at least *offer* one of them to the underage crackwhore you just had delivered.

(that IS why you're in a hotel, right? are there other reasons? I can't think of any.)

1 man donkey show?

 

[Silver]

Don't worry, if dope becomes legal I'm sure they'll find someone else to hassle.

What do you think Mexicans are for?

 

[Dartman]

I'd rather be hit in the head with that crap than drink it.

Headache either way.

 

[Jim Mac]

Don't worry, if dope becomes legal I'm sure they'll find someone else to hassle.

This a f*cking outrage. Defend this Manimal.

It's actually not that much of an outrage, it's almost SOP here in the states in many formats. For example, the New York State Attorney General and the Medicaid Inspector General's auditing bodies are allowed to keep 20% of whatever wrongdoing they find. I know, I've been audited! (and let's not even go into the extrapolations they use).

So anyway, it does 2 things: it give the image of taking these bodies partially off the dole by using "found $$", but by doing so, allows the beast to grow, so to speak.

 

[Inclag]

Bummer man.


I find the point they bring up about law enforcments opposition being based on revenue stream very interesting.

Just a little FYI, but the big boys of the beer industry (InBev, Miller, Coors, etc.) typically are the prominent distributors of beer not only for their own brands but also for local and microbreweries.

 

[I Are Baboon]

Stone and Sierra Nevada make some good beers...

 

[Inclag]

Stone and Sierra Nevada make some good beers...

Mmmm........Sierra Nevada Glissade

 

[HAB]

Stone and Sierra Nevada make some good beers...

I want an Emperial IPA now.

 

[Inclag]

I want an Emperial IPA now.

Isn't it Friday? What's stopping you?

 

[jimmydean]

If it passes, stoners will have nothing left to talk about.

<edit> On plus side, if you get all the potheads out of jail, then Lindsay Lohan and others might have to do actual time with the added space.

 

[Mr Ridiculous]

Here's what Sierra Nevada posted on their Facebook page on the 20th:

"This week, the California Beer and Beverage Distributors (CBBD) came out against California Proposition 19&#8212;also known as the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010. The CBBD is an industry group that represents the interests of beer distributors and members. Sierra Nevada Brewing Co. and many other independent craft brewers are associate members of the CBBD.

Although we are members of this organization, we were neither consulted&#8212;nor informed of&#8212;their decision to take a stand against California Proposition 19. Sierra Nevada&#8217;s role as an associate member grants no access or influence on the political agendas of the CBBD, and we had no knowledge of the organization&#8217;s intention to fight this ballot proposition.

The CBBD does not represent Sierra Nevada&#8217;s political interests in any way, and does not represent the brewery&#8217;s stance on the issue. We&#8217;ve requested the CBBD to remove our name from their list of members, and also to disassociate the brewery from this and any future political actions.

Over the past three decades, Sierra Nevada has maintained neutrality concerning political issues. We feel that people have the obligation to choose what is right for themselves without influence from outside interests.

We regret any implied association with this action by the CBBD, and maintain our independence and neutrality regarding matters of politics."

I thought it was pretty cool of them. It's pretty easy to see why the alcohol industry doesn't support legalization. Same with law enforcement. Simply about the money. Lots of police stand to lose their jobs if marijuana is legalized, as so much funding for police forces is spent investigating, arresting marijuana charges. Same with nearly the entire legal system. Legalization will give them a lot less to do, and make it harder to justify keeping them all around.

 

[jimmydean]

I thought it was pretty cool of them. It's pretty easy to see why the alcohol industry doesn't support legalization. Same with law enforcement. Simply about the money. Lots of police stand to lose their jobs if marijuana is legalized, as so much funding for police forces is spent investigating, arresting marijuana charges. Same with nearly the entire legal system. Legalization will give them a lot less to do, and make it harder to justify keeping them all around.

I think you need to do some research. Many in law enforcement support Prop 19, just not openly as it would put them in the spotlight. But the fact is that the numbers don't lie. An estimated $2B in tax revenue squashes anything they could bring in on busts and that doesn't include the money saved by not busting people. $250M in court costs and fees each year saved if there were no more possession/sales charges. That alone makes up the difference. You can have room for violent offenders in jail if there are no small time pot dealers locked up causing the overcrowding.

There will be no lost jobs, there are still plenty dangerous drugs out there if pot is now regulated.

<edit> Not to mention the savings in medical care:

According to a 2009 report by the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, health-related costs per user are eight times higher for drinkers than they are for those who use cannabis, and are more than 40 times higher for tobacco smokers. It states: "In terms of (health-related) costs per user: tobacco-related health costs are over $800 per user, alcohol-related health costs are much lower at $165 per user, and cannabis-related health costs are the lowest at $20 per user."

 

[jimmydean]

Here's some easy reading to back it up:

Fiscal impact

In the time leading to 2010, California's state government's budget deficit has grown to be the largest of all American states. The State Board of Equalization has estimated that imposing a $50 per ounce levy on marijuana sales could generate $1.4 billion a year in new tax revenue, thus generating a large amount of revenue at a time when the state is experiencing financial pressure.[7]
According to the States Legislative Analyst's office the following fiscal impact would result from the bill:
-Result in significant savings to state and local governments, potentially up to several tens of millions of dollars annually due to reduction of individuals incarcerated, on probation or on parole.
-Cells currently being used to house marijuana offenders could be used for other criminals, many of whom are now being released early because of a lack of jail space.
-Major reduction in state and local costs for enforcement of marijuana-related offenses and the handling of related criminal cases in the court system, providing the opportunity for funds to be used to enforce other existing criminal laws.
-Potential increase in the costs of substance abuse programs due to speculated increase in usage of marijuana, possibly having the effect of reducing spending on mandatory treatment for some criminal offenders, or result in the redirection of these funds for other offenders.
-The measure could potentially reduce both the costs and offsetting revenues of the state's medical marijuana program as some adults over 21 would be less likely to participate in the existing program as obtaining marijuana would be easier for those patients.
-The measure would provide the opportunity for significant additional revenues as the result of the taxation of sales and businesses engaged in commerce relating to marijuana.
-There would be a reduction in fines collected under current state law but a possible increase in local civil fines authorized by existing local laws.

 

[Mr Ridiculous]

Oh I agree with you, and I admit that was a pretty poorly-chosen statement on my part (mainly due to the fact that I'm at work and sent the post off in haste). I'm 100% for legalization, btw. The economic benefits are undeniable, among other things.

The justice system would obviously be freed up to handle the myriad other, more serious offenses that they're strained to handle right now. I had some stats/commentary I vaguely recalled that I can't seem to find at the moment regarding enforcement budgets and the percentage that was based on marijuana enforcement, and it just seemed to me like it would make it tougher on departments to justify some of their spending, at least at the beat cop level.

My bigger concern, and one that is at least tangentially related, is the rise of private prisons in the US. They would seem to have the most at stake as far as money goes, and regardless it seems awfully terrible for somebody to be profiting off of keeping people in prison.