LEGAL-POT BACKERS SPLIT ON TIMING

SAN FRANCISCO -- A majority of Californians in recent polls say the
state should legalize marijuana. What pot proponents can't agree on
is how soon voters will really be ready to approve legalization.

A schism has emerged among California's pot-legalization advocates.
On one side are those pushing to get a proposition to voters quickly,
including activists such as Richard Lee, who last month began
collecting signatures to put a pot-legalization measure on the
state's November 2010 ballot.

On the other side is a go-slow camp calling for a 2012 vote,
including activists like Dale Gieringer, director of the California
chapter of the National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws, or
Norml. "I do think it will take a few more years for us to develop a
proposal that voters will be comfortable with," said Mr. Gieringer.

In recent elections, Californians have been less liberal than their
free-thinking image would suggest. That has led to sharp rifts over
strategy among proponents of a number of liberal causes in the state.
The pot schism mirrors a split in another cause -- the effort to
overturn Proposition 8, which in 2008 banned same-sex marriage --
where advocates likewise disagree over whether to put a measure on
the ballot next year or to wait until 2012.

It is clear to both the 2010 and 2012 supporters that pot
legalization faces significant hurdles in California. While pot is
already widely available under the state's medical-marijuana laws,
and an April Field Poll found that 56% of Californians would support
legalizing and taxing marijuana sales to help with the state's budget
crisis, there is a significant anti-legalization lobby that is
gearing up to fight any pot proposition.

"I don't think it matters if it's in 2010 or 2012," said John Lovell,
a lobbyist for California police groups, "once the public understands
what we're talking about."

Mr. Lovell said a case in point was the 2008 defeat of Proposition 5,
which would have reduced the criminal consequences of drug
possession. Internal polling by a campaign to defeat the measure
initially showed it passing with 68% approval, said Mr. Lovell, who
was chairman of the campaign. But voters changed course and defeated
it with 60% disapproval. Law-enforcement groups who campaigned
against that proposition are ready to battle any new marijuana
initiative, he said.

The 2010 ballot proponents say there is no time like the present,
because California's economic mess gives pot legalization an urgent
fiscal appeal. Taxing pot could help reverse cuts in spending to
education, health care and other services enacted this year, said Mr.
Lee, who along with fellow activist Jeff Jones is gathering
signatures for a 2010 measure. "We're the answer for all of the
things on the news," Mr. Lee said.

Mr. Lee is the founder of Oaksterdam University, an Oakland, Calif.,
school that trains students for jobs in the medical-marijuana field.
California's marijuana industry, which was already growing, got a
boost earlier this year when the Obama administration announced that
it was backing off federal raids of dispensaries.

Mr. Lee's measure would allow local governments to legalize and tax
marijuana sales. He said he was providing most of the $1 million he
thinks is needed to gather the 434,000 signatures to put the
proposition on the ballot. Mr. Lee said he took a private poll of 800
likely voters, which found 54% for an initiative versus 42% against.

His effort got a boost in September when Don Perata, a former
California Senate president and a leading candidate for Oakland's
2010 mayoral race, endorsed the measure. "In this time of economic
uncertainty, it's time we thought outside the box and brought in
revenue we need to restore the California dream," Mr. Perata said last week.

A 2010 initiative would have a reasonable chance of passing, said
Thad Kousser, a visiting professor at Stanford University's Bill Lane
Center. Generally, ballot measures that start with 55% or lower
support in polls lose to well-funded opposition campaigns, Mr.
Kousser said. But marijuana proponents could tip the scale in their
favor if they can tie the initiative to the state's budget woes. "Any
social concerns that Californians have can be overridden by bringing
in more money to the state," he said.

Go-slow advocates say Mr. Lee's camp doesn't understand the
California electorate and the subtle strategies of exploiting
election cycles. "The demographics are clearly much better in 2012,
and victory would therefore be much easier," said Aaron Smith,
California policy director of the Marijuana Policy Project, a
national pot-advocacy group. "You have the younger, more progressive
voters that get out in the presidential elections."

As progressive as California voters may be, they will still
scrutinize any pot bill for holes, said Norml's Mr. Gieringer. For
example, Mr. Lee's 2010 proposal doesn't address the questions of
whether marijuana could be smoked in public or how it could be
advertised. An initiative is worth pursuing only if it has a good
chance of winning, he said, and Mr. Lee's measure "wasn't worth the
expenditures."

Mr. Lee said that if his 2010 measure lost, he would support a 2012
effort as well.