On Tuesday, January 12, members of the California Assembly will hold a historic vote on statewide marijuana policy. Members of the Public Safety Committee will decide on Assembly Bill 390, the Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act, which seeks to regulate and control the production, distribution, and personal use of marijuana for adults age 21 and older.

[UPDATE from Russ Belville: NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano and MPP's California director Aaron Smith join me this afternoon's NORML SHOW LIVE, airing at 1pm Pacific / 4pm Eastern, to discuss this historic vote in California. Call in with your questions to 347-994-1810]

Tuesday’s vote will mark the first time since 1913, when California became one of the first states in the nation to enact cannabis prohibition, that lawmakers have reassessed this failed policy.

If a majority of the Public Safety Committee votes ‘yes’ on AB 390, the bill will immediately face a separate vote in the California State Assembly Committee on Health. (I have been tentatively invited to testify before this committee; you can read my prepared testimony here.) In short, members of both committees will likely be voting on this historic measure next week. That is why we need your support in contacting the members of these legislative committees today!

To date, over 8,000 of you have contacted your California Assemblymembers via NORML’s Capwiz ‘Take Action’ Center. This is a tremendous outpouring of public support, but we need to ramp up our advocacy before next week’s vote.

Or what happens when we have our first MJ related traffic fatality and no drving while stoned laws?

I was of the impression all, or at least almost all, of the state driving laws had been amended to include impaired ability from drug use, not just being drunk.

It may have a net positive effect, but it's not goign to usher in any utopias.

IN YO FACE!

This. I hope they do it so this will happen and all the stoners everywhere can quit ***** about how it would create a utopia, because I'm sick of hearing it. Here's some anecdotal evidence, IN YO FACE!

How rigid is California's anti smoking laws?

This will create an awesome state-vs.-fed power showdown. Go California!

For the record, I support legalizing it as long as it is treated the same way as alcohol (as I find the effects to be similar). No driving, no doing it on the job, and keep it regulated appropriately.

If it's a hair drug test, secondhand pot smoke could be detected. The protocol for hair tests requires that when a test comes out positive, they take a second sample, wash it, then test both the washed sample and the wash water. When they test the hair the second time they will test for metabolites and NOT for THC itself. If there aren't any metabolites in the hair and the wash water comes out positive, they assume it's secondhand smoke and record the test as negative.

Second-hand marijuana smoke — buzz producing, or not — can leave traces of the chemical tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in your urine for a day or so after breathing the smoke. However, the amount is usually not enough to make you test positive. Most drug tests have intentionally high standards to avoid false positive results due to incidental ingestion of second-hand smoke.

By the way, in order for you to test positive for THC, the marijuana smoke would have to be so thick that it would irritate the eyes of smokers and passive smoke breathers alike. Avoiding smoke-filled cars, unventilated rooms, and other enclosed smoky spaces can help ensure that you can hang out while your friends toke and still be clean for bugle call in the morning.

In both cases wouldn't that be the individual's fault.

likely it will be like fireworks where they make you sign a paper to really really promise to use them in accordance with ohter state laws.

I'll say it before and i'll say it again. We need better testing so I don't loose my job because I accidently got too close to some second hand MJ smoke first.