California Prop 64
Sep 10, 2016. By William Kroger.
Beverly Hills attorney William Kroger, has not only specialized in defending marijuana crimes, in Los Angeles, for decades, but also teaches at a university, and is a sought after legal expert with a track record of success. Although the Kroger Law Group has defended people all over California, and federal cases across the United States, when California's Proposition 64 was proposed to allow recreational use of marijuana, a different point of view was taken for a few key reasons.
First, legalizing recreational marijuana undermines the decade effort to gain the public's trust and medical validation there is a need for it. It sends a message to other states seeking to allow medicinal marijuana, that once medicinal marijuana is legalized, it paves the way for recreational use. Simply put, this is not the message patients who need medicinal marijuana in other states want their legislatures to hear. California would set a bad example for the collective industry and victimize those who want medicinal marijuana legalized in there state.
Second, it demonstrates government has a price on both morals and medicine. Prop 64, would undermine police efforts to eradicate marijuana from the communities, and create more problems than solve them purely to make money through taxes. As expected numerous police departments oppose Prop 64, but so to do many marijuana collectives. See Article, Cops, Growers Unite Against Prop. 64. Although money made on the front end is the tip of the spear argument, there is no mention of the expected cost for tax payers to pay for drug rehabilitation, increase in auto and work accidents, higher insurance rates, loss of work productivity, or other common sense issues illuminating how recreational use of marijuana would impact California on a day-to- day basis.
Additionally, the manner in which to reach voters is suspect where an anti-Prop 64 lawsuit was filed due to advocates making false and/or misleading statements to voters. The lawsuit states in part the, “Sale of nonmedical marijuana will be legal only at highly-regulated, licensed marijuana businesses, and only adults 21+ will be permitted to enter. This statement is false and misleading because it is intended to lead voters to believe that recreational marijuana will “only” be sold “at” brick and mortar retail establishments that will monitor those persons “permitted to enter” the establishment.”
The lawsuit also contends Prop 64 advocates misrepresented to voters where, “The Independent Legislative Analyst's Office found that … it will save $100 million in reduced law enforcement costs.” This statement is false and misleading because the LAO's report does not say that it will save “$100 million” in reduced law enforcement costs.” Thus, the belief Prop 64 would aide law enforcement, and save taxpayers money has not been proven, but merely misrepresented.
Further, after decades of government telling kids to “Just Say No” to drugs, it was allowable to say “Yes” to marijuana for people with health concerns, verified by a doctor. Los Angeles Attorney William Kroger believes if Prop 64 is allowed to pass, it may also paint anti-drug campaigns as a lie, and get people thinking ‘if marijuana was supposed to be harmful for years, and now legal, then possibly heroin which is also derived from a plant isn't so bad either.'