Toke Signals Header - Your Source for Uncut, Uncensored, Non-Corporate Controlled Cannabis News toke signals logo - two crossed smoking joints with a cannabis leaf above

with

STEVE ELLIOTT

Your source for uncut, uncensored, no holds barred, non-corporate controlled cannabis news

Yes On 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana (AUMA) campaign, says official arguments submitted by anti-marijuana opponents contain multiple statements that are categorically and provably wrong

The campaign committee for an initiative to legalize the recreational use of marijuana in California filed a lawsuit Thursday alleging that the official ballot arguments by the measure’s opponents contain multiple “false and/or misleading statements.”

Jason Kinney, Yes On 64: "Quote" [Cannabis Business Executive]
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Pinterest
  • reddit
  • Tumblr
  • Gmail

Jason Kinney, Yes On 64:
“Defenders of the failed war on marijuana are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts”
[Cannabis Business Executive]

The Yes on Proposition 64 campaign on Thursday announced that it has filed suit in Superior Court demanding that those statements be rejected, deleted or substantially amended.

“Defenders of the failed war on marijuana are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts,” said Jason Kinney, spokesperson for Yes on 64.  “More so than any I’ve seen in recent memory, the ballot arguments submitted with a straight face by the opponents fundamentally and factually misrepresent this ballot measure and are riddled with obvious falsehoods.

“These aren’t evidence-based arguments – they are scare tactics – and they’re sadly reminiscent of the ‘reefer madness’-style disinformation campaigns that subverted honest dialogue around this issue for decades,” Kinney said. “California’s voters demand and deserve better – and I have every confidence that an objective legal authority will reject these false and misleading statements out of hand.”
The following are “Gratuitous false and misleading statements contained in either the Argument Against Proposition 64 or the Rebuttal to the Argument in Favor in Proposition 64 – submitted by the opposition,” according to Yes On 64.

FALSEHOOD #1: “Children will be exposed to ads promoting marijuana gummy candy and brownies . . .”

FACT: The statement is false and/or misleading because Proposition 64 specifically prohibits marijuana products “designed to be appealing to children or easily confused with commercially sold candy or foods that do not contain marijuana.” (Exh. K, p. 33 [New Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26130(a)(1)].)  Proposition 64 also prohibits advertising of marijuana or marijuana products “in a manner intended to encourage persons under the age of 21 years to consume marijuana or marijuana products,” and prohibits advertisements containing “symbols, language, music, gestures, cartoon characters, or other content elements known to be appeal primarily to persons below the legal age of consumption.”  (Id. at p. 35 [New Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26152 (e), (f)].)  Since Proposition 64 BOTH prohibits the manufacture of marijuana gummy candy and brownies that could be easily confused with non-marijuana-containing foods AND prohibits advertisements directed at children, it is provably false to suggest children will in any way be exposed to advertisements promoting marijuana gummy candy or brownies.

FALSEHOOD #2: “Proposition 64 . . . would repeal countless consumer protections just passed last year and signed into law by Governor Brown.”

FACT: The statement in the Argument Against Proposition 64 is false and misleading because Proposition 64 does not “repeal” any recently enacted laws, including the new consumer protections signed into law last year by Governor Brown for medical marijuana.  In fact, Proposition 64 specifically doesn’t impact the new Medical Marijuana Safety and Regulation Act (MMRSA).  Instead, it builds on those laws and protections and adopts them as the framework for a new, regulated adult-use marijuana system.

FALSEHOOD #3: “Rolls back the total prohibition of smoking ads on TV.”  “Why does Proposition 64 exempt marijuana from the ban on smoking commercials on TV?”  “Proposition 64, in effect, overturns a 45-year ban on smoking ads on television . . . .”

FACT: These statements are false and misleading because the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969, a federal law, bans tobacco smoking advertisements on television.  The federal Controlled Substances Act separately makes it illegal to use television broadcasts as a means of advertising the sale or use of marijuana.  Proposition 64 cannot, as a matter of law, “roll back” or “overturn” these federal laws, or “exempt” any conduct from these federal laws.

FALSEHOOD #4: “Proposition 64, in effect, overturns a 45-year ban on smoking ads on television,legalizing marijuana ads airing to millions of children and teen viewers.”  “These marijuana smoking ads will be legal on all broadcasts primetime shows and approximately 95% of all broadcast television programming.”

FACT: These statements are false and misleading because the federal Controlled Substances Act makes it illegal to use television broadcasts as a means of advertising the sale or use of marijuana.  Proposition 64 cannot, as a matter of law, “legalize” or make “legal” the broadcast of marijuana-related advertisements that are illegal under federal law.  Only a change in federal law could make the broadcast of such advertisements legal.

 

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This

Share This

Share this post with your friends!

toke signals logo - two crossed smoking joints with a cannabis leaf above

Facebook bans me often! Join the Toke Signals emaillist.

Join the email list to be notified when I post new articles.  Since Facebook routinely bans me for little or no reason, this is the best way to stay up to date with Uncut, Uncensored, No Holds Barred, Non Corporate Controlled Cannabis News.

Thanks for subscribing! One more step: Please check your email and click the link to verify your email address.

wordpress statistics
Trafficroots Analysis Pixel