Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Measure Falls Short By Roughly 3,000 Signatures

The Colorado Secretary of State's office determined that the "Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol" campaign fell short of the necessary amount of valid signatures, on Friday.

While the campaign handed in nearly double the amount of the 86,105 signatures needed, it fell short by about 3,000 verifiable signatures. Last month the Secretary of State's office conducted a random sample of the signatures that showed only roughly 50 percent of the signatures handed in were valid. Colorado state law requires that a random signature sample meet a certain threshold of validity or it triggers an automatic review.

According to a report by the Denver Post, supporters of Initiative 30 now have 15 days to collect the remaining 2,409 valid signatures to qualify for the November ballot.

"This is just part of the process. We are confident that we collected more than enough valid signatures to make the ballot. This is why initiative campaigns collect so many more signatures than they need," Initiative 30 organizer Mason Tvert told the Colorado Independent just two weeks ago.

In a statement today, Tvert said he remains confident about collecting the remaining signatures and called the announcement "just a very small bump in the road."

The amendment seeks to make the personal use, possession and limited home-growing of marijuana legal for adults aged 21 and older. It establishes a system in which marijuana is regulated and taxed similarly to alcohol is currently. The act also would allow for the cultivation, processing, and sale of industrial hemp, according to the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol website.

The Associated Press reports that if the measure makes it onto the 2012 ballot, which appears likely, the much more difficult road of convincing a majority of Coloradans to challenge a federal drug law, like this measure would do, is ahead.

This would be the second recreational use legalization measure to appear on Colorado ballots, the first, which appeared in 2006, was voted down.

Related on HuffPost:

Comments

[ray christl]

10:50 PM on 02/04/2012

Was listening to Mason Tvert of NORML LIVE Show yesterday...that is one COOL customer. Author of a great book & activist of the blessed sacrament---WHAT A GUY !!!

[DenverBigDaddy]

06:22 PM on 02/04/2012

1.........2..........3.......4..........son of a........1........2.......3.......4........5.......6.......what were we talking about again?........1........2.........3........4.......5

[Justin Baker2]

10:14 PM on 02/04/2012

That sentiment would relate a little more to alcohol in my opinion.

[ringmaster]

12:25 PM on 02/04/2012

It would be interesting to physically verify, find and ask, a significant sample of the rejected signers, whether they are real people.

[Ron Booth]

12:25 PM on 02/04/2012

"Wow man, I can't remember if I signed this already or not." "OK, I'll sign it just in case."

IF there's any doubt whether you already signed the petition or not, it doesn't hurt to sign it again, if it is in fact a second or third time, it will be disqualified BUT If you're not sure and you do sign then yours could be the signature that gets the issue on the ballot!!!

[banana republican]

12:38 PM on 02/04/2012

If you can't remember whether or not you already signed it, thats a good indicator that legalization of the stuff maybe isn't in your best interest. That you wrote that post is a good indicator that your brain isn't operating at maximum capacity.

[KodiakT]

04:20 PM on 02/04/2012

Your ignorance is sad.

Cannabis does not impact memory in a significant way. It does NOT kill brain cells. Please quit spreading false stereo types.

The way THC bonds to a brain cell is in such a way that the cells are coating in a fatty waxy substance.. the cells however are not impacted permanently as that coating dissolves off.

The short term memory loss occurs because of this coating. Their is no issue with the storage of memory or ability to access after the high. There is NO permanent damage. Smoking Cannabis also does NOT cause cancer (again proven)

I suggest you take the time to actually learn about how Cannabis interacts with the human body instead of believing the hyperbole.

http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/GL.pdf

[Ron Booth]

10:41 AM on 02/05/2012

Personally I haven't smoked in decades and in fact I signed the petition and signed it once and remember it quite well. You might note that the beginning lines of my post were in quatation marks as in something a generic stoner might say. But hey, I guess you have a need to slam someone for something to help make yourself feel imprtant so go ahead and have at it.

[Coinspinner]

12:17 PM on 02/04/2012

Mason Tvert, fix this!!

[Hunter W]

12:15 PM on 02/04/2012

An additional 3,000 signatures should be easy to get. I wonder how organized they are though and if they can find the 20 people to put in a day's work to get them.

[juliedc]

12:12 PM on 02/04/2012

I don't believe this at all. This smells like a rat.

[Coinspinner]

12:18 PM on 02/04/2012

Yeah they weren't trying to hard to figure out those signatures. Oh well, at least we have a small bit of time. I'd round up 2500 people and bring them in personally :)

[Mojito]

12:08 PM on 02/04/2012

From 1930 to 1931, income-tax revenues fell by 15 percent in the U.S. In 1932 they fell another 37 percent; 1932 income-tax revenues were 46 percent lower than just two years earlier. And by 1933 they were fully 60 percent lower than in 1930.

With no end of the Depression in sight, Washington got anxious for a substitute source of revenue.
That source was liquor sales.

So, if the history of alcohol prohibition is a guide, drug prohibition will not end merely because there are many sound, sensible and humane reasons to end it. Instead, it will end only if and when Congress gets desperate for another revenue source.

[fumes]

12:03 PM on 02/04/2012

the FDA can't not approve Sativex..

after which the DEA can't not de-schedule Cannabis..

WAR OVER!!!

[Coinspinner]

12:21 PM on 02/04/2012

DEA a-gonna' try to ban the plant but legalize the plant compounds. Quite a tightrope walk, but you have to remember this will be decided by the Judiciary in the USA, and the Judiciary is 99% corrupt and will go right along with the nonsense.

[Jordan Kratz]

11:57 AM on 02/04/2012

Legalize Marijuana Now !!!
We should all of us in USA March on Washington by the millions and demand Legalization.

[Czechster]

02:42 PM on 02/04/2012

Name the time and lets roll.

[Czechster]

11:54 AM on 02/04/2012

NOTE to the President - Decriminalization of cannabis is important so we can get on with tackling the drug problems of the U.S.: Meth, cocaine, heroin, prescription drugs, and alcohol.
Can we rely on you doing your job Mr. President?

[Czechster]

11:52 AM on 02/04/2012

Regarding the video attached to this article it dawned on me that the DOJ is being questioned about sending weapons to the cartels while at the same time the DOJ is busting medical dispensaries.
The criminals appear to be in the White House.

[simian sez]

11:42 AM on 02/04/2012

Good morning!
Are you ready to have your intelligence insulted?

[simian sez]

11:22 AM on 02/04/2012

172,210 signatures collected...86,105 needed...3,000 were unverified?
Did anyone take the time to verify the count? Who verified the process, the same people who opposed the campaign?
You mean to tell me, that someone took the time to actually TRY to verify all 172,210 signatures and it still came up short?
Really?!...

[Hunter W]

12:12 PM on 02/04/2012

Yes - all 172k were reviewed. They came up short by 3,000 signatures.

[simian sez]

12:23 PM on 02/04/2012

Believe that and I got a bridge you may be interested in. ;)

[J0E1]

12:44 PM on 02/04/2012

No, that's not how it works.  What they do is take a sample, say 1,000, and try and verify them.  Then they take the total, say 500, which could be verified and determine that on average 50% of the signatures are unverifiable.  Take 50% of the total number of signatures and there is your "verifiable" number.

[simian sez]

01:09 PM on 02/04/2012

So then it is in fact far from accurate.
It's a S.W.A.G.
("Scientific Wild A55 Guess")
Sounds like the 2004 Presidential election.

[Hunter W]

01:19 PM on 02/04/2012

That's how it works for the random sample. It's my understanding they verify all of them when the first sample doesn't meet the threshold.

[El 84]

11:16 AM on 02/04/2012

The signature campaign itself is part of the problem. I didn't sign the initiative for two reasons: 1. Cannabis shouldn't be regulated, it should be completely legal. 2. More than once, the person collecting signatures was an uninformed idiot.
I hope they collect enough valid signatures. Decriminalization is important so we can get on with tackling the drug problems of the U.S. : Meth, cocaine, heroin, prescription drugs, and alcohol.

[pkafin]

11:55 AM on 02/04/2012

I don't see why the intelligence of the person collecting signatures would be determinative of your decision to not sign the initiative.

How can you hope they collect enough while simultaneously making excuses for not signing it.

[dahile00]

12:10 PM on 02/04/2012

The people OPPOSING the end of prohibition are far more dangerous: They're uninformed idiots with the power of hijacked government agencies behind them.

[El 84]

07:22 PM on 02/04/2012

I totally agree. I actually hope it makes the ballot, and wins, because the reality is that Colorado won't vote in a complete legalization, and this is more likely to pass. I tend to be more cynical or satirical than objective here sometimes, and was more knocking the signature drive than anything. But in fairness, a lot of informed, dedicated people worked on the drive, and accomplished a lot. May they get enough signatures.