SACRAMENTO – Both for
and against groups of California’s Proposition 64, also known as the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, have been ordered to change
the wording of their arguments on the official ballot pamphlet.
been searching out allegedly misleading messages from opponents and proponents
after several lawsuits were filed in Sacramento County Superior Court.
laying out the arguments for both sides will be sent to every home in the state
before the vote but not before each group changes the wording of its argument.
Shelleyanne Chang has ordered 10 minor changes to the pamphlets, requiring both
sides to change the information they are presenting to the public.
want to see the bill pass have accused opponents of exaggerating the potential
to market marijuana to children using TV commercials.
allowed the statement that the proposition “could limit a 45-year ban on
smoking ads on television, allowing marijuana ads airing to millions of
children and teen viewers.”
she altered the wording of the argument to state that “marijuana smoking ads
could be allowed on all broadcast prime-time shows and approximately 95 percent of all
broadcast television programming. Children could be exposed to ads promoting
marijuana gummy candy and brownies.”
change to the opposed camp's publication was the wording that Proposition 64
would repeal countless consumer protections. The court ordered it be changed to
“may weaken countless consumer protections.”
be deciding whether to legalize the recreational use of marijuana in
California, which would make the drug illegal by federal law but legal by state
law. That is something that attorney Jason Meyer of Gordon & Rees Scully
Mansukhani said has becoming the norm.
federal government would normally be the prevailing law or the more powerful
law,” Meyer told the Northern California Record. “What has occurred over the last few years, particularly
with the current administration - and
it has happened a lot longer than the current administration actually - is the
federal government takes a stance and says, ‘Well look, I know this is our law
and our rule for the entire United States however, we are going to give states
leeway with regards to how they want to manage it or handle it.
“I think it
would be fair to say the federal government is essentially turning a blind eye
to the states and … the voters desire to allow or legalize or partially
was not familiar with the ruling, Meyer said it was likely that if one or both
sides did not comply they would be back before the judge.
parties don’t follow it, the proponents and opponents ignore that…then the
judge would call the parties back in and the judge would then see some remedy,
which may be a penalty, a monetary penalty or a gag order or something like
said it was more likely both sides would abide by the order.
experience has kind of been that these orders are taken pretty seriously –
people follow them.”
order only applied to the pamphlet and Meyer said it would not apply in the
case of the groups’ websites or advertisements.
that the parties can say as much or as little as they want (within reason) in
the advertising space which may or may not include web adverts. The
pamphlet referenced is the official pamphlet that voters receive. These
are not supposed to be one-sided. They provide pros and cons for each
voters will make their choice to support or not to support Proposition 64 on Nov.