"JUST SAY NO !" to the Legalize = Legal Lies Smoke Screen
ANOTHER INTELLIGENT OPPOSING VIEW BY KC KIMBER A FLIP-FLOPPER ON THE ISSUE
Why I oppose Prop 19.
by Kc Kimber on Sunday, August 22, 2010 at 1:00pm
I encourage people to vote NO on prop 19 because I am a stoner, a buyer,a seller, a grower, a
defendant, an ex prisoner, and current tax paying cannabis entreprenuer that see's beyond the curtain,
that can see that prop 19 is a prohibitionist trojan horse.
If you study the history of the prohibition on weed you will find out that the FEDERAL prohibition on
cannabis originally began with the
"Marihuana Tax Act of 1937".
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/mjtaxact.htm
"The popular and therapeutic uses of hemp preparations are not categorically prohibited by the
provisions of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. The apparent purpose of the Act is to levy a token tax of
approximately one dollar on all buyers, sellers, importers, growers, physicians,veterinarians, and any
other persons who deal in marijuana commercially, prescribe it professionally, or possess it. "
http://wiki.ssdpedia.org/index.php/Marijuana_Tax_Act_of_1937
The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, the pet project of Harry J.
Anslinger,indirectly prohibited marijuana on the federal level. The bill curbed the traffic of marijuana by
enacting complex and intensive taxation on marijuana and hemp transactions, with penalties of up to
$2000 and 5 years in prison if violated. In turn, the possession and distribution of hemp and marijuana
became too risky for people to do.
The bill used no scientific studies to back it's statements, but Anslinger's propaganda campaign along
with racism and many other factors helped pass the bill with minor opposition.
The bill was later found unconstitutional and repealed in the supreme court case Leary v. United States "
If you read prop 19 and read the tax act of 1937 you will see they sound an awfully lot alike. Right now
Weed is currently legal on the state and federal level's and the locals are pretty much powerless to
change that under prop 215. Currently if you have a doctors recommendation you can grow, trade, sell,
smoke in public, and pretty much anything you want without regulation or restriction by the Government
(and the Fed's are letting our current medical law fly for the most part) with one exception, you can't
legally get rich doing it, nobody can. No taxes,No bribery/extortion fee's for permits, no profits for
corporations,and if following CCE federal law not pocketing more than a $1000 a month when all is
said and done. Prop 19 allows for all those wonderful things prop 215 gives us the right to do to be
taken away by LOCAL governments, while making the ONE things 215/sb420 don't allow the rule of the
day, and instead of the herb being kind, the dollar will be.
The only people who benefit from the passage of prop 19 are the one's who are directly funding it. They
have been funding the campaigns of local politicians
""Cannabis Cash in Mayor's Race
The city of Oakland's mainstreaming of medical marijuana has extended to its mayoral races, where
leading cannabis dispensaries, hydroponics stores,and the Prop 19 campaign are showing up in
campaign finance disclosures for mayoral candidates Rebecca Kaplan, Jean Quan, and Don Perata.
TaxCannabis 2010 volunteer coordinator Jennifer Hall donated the maximum personal amount of $700
to Kaplan's campaign, as did Dan Rush of the UFCW Local 5 who recently helped unionize
Oaksterdam. Potential Oakland cultivator Jeff Wilcox of AgraMed also donated the maximum of $700 to
Kaplan,""
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/LegalizationNation/archives/2010/08/06/oaklands-cannabis-cash-
contributing-to-mayoral-race
These people aren't doing it for the goodwill of the people either, the local legislation they have pushed
is purposely designed to eliminate the small growers and patients who grow for themselves.
""There are current industrial cultivators that may have some claim to legality by maintaining a list of
qualified patients for whom the cultivation is intended, or in at least one case,by keeping the cultivation
divided into compartments, each belonging to a three person collective. If these operations remain in
existence, it will be more difficult to foster industrial cultivation in a licensed,regulated mode. The
proposed ordinance clarifies that the City does not allow any industrial-scale cultivation except on a
permitted basis. This will clearly establish the Cultivation, Manufacturing and Processing permit as the
only legal model, and will greatly simplify police enforcement.""http://clerkwebsvr1.oaklandnet.
com/attachments/25359.pdf
These people who are paying for prop 19 are working with the police. The police have always been
against anybody getting high on anything. They know prop 19 is there trojan horse.http://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=KqoU85VEmWY
Watch they are doing it to please LAW ENFORCEMENT not to PLEASE THE PEOPLE.
Prop 19 isn't legalization it's the wholesale destruction of Cannabis being a part of the counter culture.
It doesn't change any of the current bad things.
Many have claimed that prop 19 won't affect prop 215. Yet here is what actual LAWYERS WHO
PRACTICE CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAW IN CALIFORNIA COURTS HAVE TO SAY...
http://www.rhdefense.com/blog/marijuana-law/blowing-smoke-proposition-19-medical-marijuana/
""the problem isn't with Proposition 19′s proposed addition of section 11300 to the Health & Safety Code.
There is potentially a significant problem, however, with Proposition 19′s proposed addition of section
11301. Ironically, the reason is that same "notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law"
phrase in the proposed language. The entire relevant portion says:
Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances,
regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise
authorize, with conditions, the following....
Remembering the meaning of"notwithstanding any other provision of state law,"
this means "in spite of what the medical marijuana laws say, a local government may"potentially adopt
restrictive rules as pertains to certain activities. The listed activities are all the activities one needs to
carry out in order to obtain, or grow, or consume medical marijuana.
Right now — at least the way I read the law — local governments cannot effectively eliminate the
protections of the medical marijuana laws bypassing local ordinances that "control" or "regulate" them.
If they did, I think many such ordinances would arguably constitute impermissible amendments to the
Compassionate Use Act passed by the People via the initiative process — something no California
government can do. 2 Thus, rules that some counties are passing in an attempted end-run around
medical marijuana laws are probably unenforceable because they are contrary to the Compassionate
Use Act, the Medical Marijuana Program Act, or both.3
Tulare County, for example, has passed such limiting ordinances. Some of these ordinances have not
yet been tested in court, but other portions of the Tulare County ordinances are already illegal and thus
unenforceable. For example, the ordinances include limitations on quantities of marijuana which may
be possessed or cultivated. But the California Supreme Court has already determined that this
constitutes an impermissible amendment to the Compassionate Use Act. 4
Proposition 19, however, will allow local governments to do what the Compassionate Use Act currently
forbids them from doing. Why? Because the Compassionate Use Act was enacted into the law by
initiative: Proposition 215. Initiatives can only be changed by the government if the initiative itself either
expressly permits that, or if the Constitution is changed in some way as to alter the initiative process.
Thus, any California government is,by law, powerless to act on its own to amend an initiative statute. Any
change in this authority must come in the form of a constitutional revision or amendment to article II,
section 10,subdivision (c).5
However, amendments to statutes implemented via an initiative can also be amended, or even
overruled, by initiatives. 6
Well, guess what? Proposition 19 is an initiative, also! So Proposition 19 can amend, or even abolish,
part, or all, of the medical marijuana laws, including the Compassionate Use Act voted into place by
Proposition 215.""
You can further read the lawyers explaination:
http://www.rhdefense.com/blog/marijuana-law/toke-it-easy-man-more-on-proposition-19/
"This post, therefore, is another attempt to focus attention on that point and explain why, regardless of
the intentions of Proposition 19 proponents, Proposition 19 may contain within it the seeds to undoing,
at least in part, what was accomplished with Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act, which
legalized marijuana in California for medical patients who needed it."
Here is what another lawyer says,
"# Jennifer Soares Says: August 21st, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Thank you so much for your insightful article. A common misconception Prop 19 proponents state is that
Prop 19 must explicitly state that it s intention is to overrule or change Prop 215. And no amount of proof
that they are incorrect can stop them from saying so.
This is something I have been battling since April. Attorney to Attorney, be prepared for people to tell you
that you haven't been an attorney long enough to make any sort of judgments (even though the people
saying this have never been attorneys at all). Be prepared for people to call into question your
professionalism, your motives, your ethics, and your morals. And especially be prepared for some
name calling.
What is so funny to me though, is neither of us is per-say Prop 19 opponents. Both of us simply want to
educate the voters on the initiative. And the proponents attack us for doing so."
The proponents of prop 19 couldn't even get the support of Dennis Peron (http://www.castrocastle.
com/<---video of him and I discussing prop 19)... the man who has done more to get weed legal world
wide in the last 30 years than anyone else. WE ALL OWE HIM RESPECT. Richard Lee failed to give him
that respect and listen to him. Otherwise we would have something we could all agree to vote on,
because something that we should actually vote yes on would actually make it impossible to ever be
arrested for weed again period!
Lastly I know people will claim that prop 19 doesn't affect 215 at all. Well if that is the case then why did
Richard Lee say this:
"It will be just like medical marijuana was after [Prop.] 215, when a few cities were doing it, like San
Francisco, Oakland, and Berkeley," Lee told us. "And for cities just coming to grips with medical
marijuana, it will be clean-up language that clarifies how they can regulate and tax it."
http://www.sfbg.com/2010/08/17/high-time?page=0%2C0
WANT TO HEAR WHAT A REAL CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY WITH EXPERIENCE SAYS ABOUT PROP. 19
From the Law Office of Rick Horowitz, RHDefense
http://www.rhdefense.com/blog/marijuana-law/blowing-smoke-proposition-19-medical-marijuana/
Blowing Smoke: Proposition 19 & Medical Marijuana
Saturday, August 7th, 2010
Yesterday, I drove to downtown San Francisco — something which, on a weekday, is definitely not
on my list of favorite things to do — to the Hiram W. Johnson State Building for a meeting of the
Voluntary Committee of Lawyers. The topic of discussion was Marijuana & Federalism: California a
Test Case: The Legal Implications of Proposition 19.1
The meeting was somewhat informative, but when it came to addressing questions of significant
concern to my medical marijuana clients, I guess I’d have to say there was a lot of smoke being
blown — and it didn’t come from any high-quality buds.
The meeting was, in many senses, quite informative. Speakers included Assemblymember Tom
Ammiano from the 13th District of California, a number of attorneys working for various
organizations that deal with drug policies, and even the Sheriff of Mendocino County, Thomas D.
Allman.
One question that did not receive a full answer, though, had to do with the intersection of Proposition
19 and California’s current medical marijuana laws. I attempted to ask the question, but I stood up
too late. I was waiting, under the erroneous assumption that someone would address this
important issue without provocation. However, once I realized that the mantra of the people
presenting was that Proposition 19 was either not going to impact medical marijuana users, or that
it would improve things for them, and that apparently they subscribed to the theory that if you repeat
something often enough, that alone makes it true, I decided to ask my question.
As I said, though, I was too late; I didn’t get the chance to pose my question publicly.
Fortunately — or so I thought – Richard Lee, the so-called “grandfather of the medical marijuana
movement,” was present. Surely, he can answer my question.
I stopped Mr. Lee as we were leaving the meeting. I introduced myself. He shook my hand and I
asked my question. “How will Proposition 19′s proposed limitations on amounts people can own or
cultivate impact current medical marijuana laws?” Perhaps — and based on the responses of Mr.
Lee and the two people accompanying him, I suspect this is the case — he’s grown tired of hearing
this question. Perhaps he was in a hurry. Maybe he just always comes across as irritated and
angry.
Perhaps he just needed to chill and toke before being able to fully appreciate my question. I don’t
know. I’m just trying to be charitable.
Suffice it to say that Mr. Lee immediately began trying to move on, as he barked out that the
language of the initiative, wherein it states, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law…,” meant
that Proposition 19 would not negatively impact existing laws.
A woman accompanying him, who I believe may have been Christine Wagner, smilingly shoved
some cards at me and referred me to “the FAQ on our website” for more information.
The card indicates Christine Wagner is a lawyer, which gave me hope, because surely an attorney
would not point me to an answer that wasn’t an answer, would she? Well, maybe!
Not. The most comprehensive answer I can find on the website is nothing more than a slightly-more-
clear restatement of the same bald assertions barked at me by the retreating and muttering Mr. Lee.
I’m sure you can tell I not only felt I did not get an answer to my question, but I was almost as
irritated by the encounter as Mr. Lee.
The problem here, though, is not — or at least not so much — that I felt I was given a rather rude
brush-off. The problem, as I said, is that the FAQ provides no more information than was shouted
over their shoulders as Mr. Lee’s group hustled down the street. Mr. Lee appeared to be angrily
muttering about “these questions.” He’s obviously grown tired of them.
“These questions,” however, are important. The way Proposition 19 reads, “these questions” are
not addressed. In fact, Proposition 19 appears to be capable of undoing all the work those
promoting medical marijuana have done to enable patients to receive their medication without
suffering consequences under California’s criminal laws.
I think it’s quite likely that Proposition 19 will trump California’s medical marijuana laws and allow
local municipalities to apply restrictions that, thus far, they have been blocked from implementing by
the combination of the Compassionate Use Act and the California Supreme Court.
Here’s why:
Mr. Lee and his compatriots tried to say — in the few words they threw my way — that Proposition
19 is worded to ensure that it does not impact existing law. (I have to take it that they meant
“existing medical marijuana law,” because obviously it impacts existing law. That’s the whole
point. If it didn’t impact existing law, it wouldn’t “legalize marijuana.”)
In fact, Proposition 19 is replete with language that says, “Notwithstanding any other provision of
law….” Mr. Lee & Co. apparently believe, based on what they told me, that “notwithstanding any
other provision of law” means that if there are other laws, those other laws are not overruled,
altered, erased, modified — choose your poison: they say it’s not poisonous.
Anyone who doesn’t already know the meaning of “notwithstanding” can see that this is wrong
merely by grabbing the nearest dictionary. According to Webster’s Third International Dictionary,
Unabridged (2002), for example, the word means “without prevention or obstruction from or by : in
spite of.”
With respect to some parts of Proposition 19, this is not necessarily a problem. In particular — and I
think this is what Mr. Lee & Co. focus upon (too much) — the proposed addition of section 11300 to
Article 5 of Chapter 5 of Division 10 of the Health & Safety Code probably does not encroach upon
the rights of medical marijuana users. The reason for this depends not upon the “notwithstanding”
language to which Mr. Lee & Co. tried to point me, but because the words following say, “it is lawful
and shall not be a public offense under California law….”
In other words, section 11300 essentially says, “Here are some things that will be legal.” The
“notwithstanding” language has the effect of adding, “regardless of what any other law might
state.” So, take Health & Safety Code § 11357 which says,
Except as authorized by law, every person who possesses not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana,
other than concentrated cannabis, is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not
more than one hundred dollars ($100).
If Proposition 19 passes, this would no longer be true, because Proposition 19 says,
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense…to possess,
process, share or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis solely for that individual’s
personal consumption, and not for sale.
Assuming it passes, Proposition 19, being the newer law, trumps 11357 on this issue. That’s a good
thing, because that’s what we want it to do. Additionally, Proposition 19′s proposed section 11300
addition does not trump the medical marijuana laws because while 11300 basically says
“regardless of what any other law says, these things are legal,” it does not say, “only these things
are legal.” In other words, 11300 provides a list of some things that are legal, regardless of whether
some other law says they are not. But it’s not necessarily the only way that things can be legal.
Lots of other things, including things allowed by the medical marijuana laws, can be legal, too.
Thus, the problem isn’t with Proposition 19′s proposed addition of section 11300 to the Health &
Safety Code.
There is potentially a significant problem, however, with Proposition 19′s proposed addition of
section 11301. Ironically, the reason is that same “notwithstanding any other provision of state or
local law” phrase in the proposed language. The entire relevant portion says:
Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances,
regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise
authorize, with conditions, the following….
Remembering the meaning of “notwithstanding any other provision of state…law,” this means “in
spite of what the medical marijuana laws say, a local government may” potentially adopt restrictive
rules as pertains to certain activities. The listed activities are all the activities one needs to carry
out in order to obtain, or grow, or consume medical marijuana.
Right now — at least the way I read the law — local governments cannot effectively eliminate the
protections of the medical marijuana laws by passing local ordinances that “control” or “regulate”
them. If they did, I think many such ordinances would arguably constitute impermissible
amendments to the Compassionate Use Act passed by the People via the initiative process —
something no California government can do.2 Thus, rules that some counties are passing in an
attempted end-run around medical marijuana laws are probably unenforceable because they are
contrary to the Compassionate Use Act, the Medical Marijuana Program Act, or both.3
Tulare County, for example, has passed such limiting ordinances. Some of these ordinances have
not yet been tested in court, but other portions of the Tulare County ordinances are already illegal
and thus unenforceable. For example, the ordinances include limitations on quantities of marijuana
which may be possessed or cultivated. But the California Supreme Court has already determined
that this constitutes an impermissible amendment to the Compassionate Use Act.4
Proposition 19, however, will allow local governments to do what the Compassionate Use Act
currently forbids them from doing. Why? Because the Compassionate Use Act was enacted into
the law by initiative: Proposition 215. Initiatives can only be changed by the government if the
initiative itself either expressly permits that, or if the Constitution is changed in some way as to alter
the initiative process. Thus, any California government is, by law,
powerless to act on its own to amend an initiative statute. Any change in this authority must come in
the form of a constitutional revision or amendment to article II, section 10, subdivision (c).5
However, amendments to statutes implemented via an initiative can also be amended, or even
overruled, by initiatives.6 Well, guess what? Proposition 19 is an initiative, also! So Proposition 19
can amend, or even abolish, part, or all, of the medical marijuana laws, including the Compassionate
Use Act voted into place by Proposition 215.
Let me be clear about something. I’m not trying to play “hide the ball bud” here. There is an
argument against what I just said. One could argue that 11301 says “control, license, regulate,
permit or otherwise authorize, with conditions,” and that it does not say, “forbid, prohibit, or
prevent.” One can also argue that allowing local governments to place restrictions on medical
marijuana would violate the intent of the laws, because “clearly” Proposition 19 is intended to
loosen up, or liberate, marijuana from the strictures of State prohibitions. “Clearly,” with this as the
intent, it would not make sense to read Proposition 19 as allowing local governments to “control” or
“regulate” or place unreasonable “conditions” on medical marijuana patients, or their caregivers.
Myself, I’m not comfortable sitting around hoping that local governments “clearly” understand this. I
happen to think a well-written Proposition to legalize marijuana should explicitly state that it cannot
be read in a way that restricts current medical marijuana laws. But that’s me. And I don’t smoke
pot, so maybe what I think doesn’t count.
I guess another way to see how this plays out is to vote “yes” on Proposition 19. And then just wait
until the smoke clears.
1. At the time of this blog post, the VCL main page advertised the conference, so I linked it. As time
passes, I suspect they will change the content of that website, but it still may be useful to people to
know where it was. [↩]
2. People v. Kelly (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1008, 1012 [222 P.3d 186]. [↩]
3. Additionally, even where the local governments do not press a criminal penalty, but merely
confiscate or destroy marijuana grown “out of compliance” with local ordinances, there may be
recourse under the law. (See City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 355 [68
Cal.Rptr.3d 656].) [↩]
4. People v. Kelly, supra, 47 Cal.4th at 1043. [↩]
5. People v. Kelly, supra, 47 Cal.4th at 1045-1046. [↩]
6. Proposition 103 Enforcement Project v. Charles Quackenbush (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1473, 1484
[76 Cal.Rptr.2d 342]. [↩]
http://www.rhdefense.com/blog/marijuana-law/toke-it-easy-man-more-on-proposition-19/comment-
page-1/#comment-3730
Toke It Easy, Man: More on Proposition 19
Saturday, August 14th, 2010
My last post, “Blowing Smoke: Proposition 19 & Medical Marijuana,” has perhaps drawn more
readers than just about any other post I’ve written (including “A Drowning Man”).
Some comments indicate an incomplete grasp of what my original post was intended to point out:
there is a possibility for Proposition 19, as worded, to undo the protections of the existing rights of
medical marijuana patients.
This post, therefore, is another attempt to focus attention on that point and explain why, regardless
of the intentions of Proposition 19 proponents, Proposition 19 may contain within it the seeds to
undoing, at least in part, what was accomplished with Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act,
which legalized marijuana in California for medical patients who needed it.
I am left with the impression that, like the original writers of Proposition 19, many commenters
believe that governments will willingly acquiesce to both the stated intentions of Proposition 19 and
what they believe are the wishes of the voters. This does not always happen. This is why, in the old
days, laws were written by lawyers with particular experience writing laws. Writing laws is a
science which aims at ensuring that the laws themselves are not susceptible to misinterpretation
or misapplication. It is not simply a matter of knowing something about marijuana — e.g., how it is
used, grown, transported, sold, or otherwise operates in the real world — and knowing the goals
that you are after. It’s also about knowing how laws work, or don’t.
There actually are people in the world who want their particular point of view to control what
happens, regardless of what you, me, or anyone else may wish.
Please understand, my questioning of Proposition 19 is not aimed at trying to prevent the
legalization of marijuana; i.e., I am not trying to shoot down Proposition 19 in order to prevent what
its proponents wish will happen. Quite the contrary, I firmly believe that marijuana should be
legalized. I personally have never benefited from marijuana (except as an attorney who gets paid to
defend people who try to utilize it in accordance with medical marijuana objectives and laws). I don’t
use it. But I know numerous people who do, including some about whom I care very much.
Even if there were not people about whom I care very much who use it, I would want it legalized. At
heart, I am libertarian. I believe government should be as small as possible and regulate our lives as
little as possible. I would be quite happy in a world with very, very few laws and only think those
directly related to discouraging and punishing harmful activities should exist.
Nor do I have ulterior motives because I sometimes make money defending medical marijuana
patients. Frankly, even the proponents of Proposition 19 at the recent conference I attended
referred to the Proposition, jokingly, as “the Marijuana Lawyer’s Full Employment Act.” If
Proposition 19 passes, attorneys like me will probably get even more clients, not less. So I’ve no
business reason for wanting to see Proposition 19 fail, either.
My current tendency to think Proposition 19 is not a good proposition is based upon my fear that it
may constitute a step backwards for those people who actually need marijuana, as opposed to
those who “merely” wish to exercise their rights to recreational use. I think people should be able
to do both, but I think medical marijuana use is much more important.
Because, as I said, there are people who do not share my views, who want their views to be
controlling, regardless of any law that might try to prevent them from doing so, I have concerns.
Some commenters to my previous post make a lot of noise about “the intent” of Proposition 19.
Their statements about the intent of Proposition 19 appear to be accurate. I don’t know that I’ve
ever denied that, or that anyone has heard me object that people making arguments about “what the
intent is” are wrong.
I am pointing out that intent is not enough.
I practice law in Fresno, California. My practice covers Fresno, Tulare, Kings and sometimes (ugh)
Madera counties. These are some of the most conservative counties in California. In the “red
state/blue state” drawing of maps, if all California were like the counties in which I live, California
would be red, not blue. The deepest, darkest red.
Law enforcement, government officials, and ordinary citizens in our area who do not “appreciate”
marijuana, who do not like marijuana, do not care what the intent of Proposition 215, (possibly) the
MMPA, and the now-proposed Proposition 19 may be. They do not want marijuana in their backyard;
they do not want marijuana in your backyard; they do not want marijuana in anyone’s backyard.
Growing it indoors doesn’t change the equation much.
It is important that any proposition intending to legalize marijuana keep this in mind. Laws that
intend to do things that those with power do not want done are not automatically successful. Look
at the civil rights war if you want a lesson on that issue. Forget intent: laws requiring the integration
of schools in the South during the 1960s were seldom effective in and of themselves.
I know. I lived there.
So when one of my commenters, Dag, valiantly and with voluminous quotation of Proposition 19 and
other texts attempts to argue for the intent of the Proposition, he misses my point.
I know, I know. People hate to hear that they’ve missed the point. The response is, “No! I did not
miss the point! I tried to show you that the point is wrong!”
Okay. You missed the point. You cannot use the language, which I have already acknowledged,
stating what the intent of the law is, to counter my argument that the intent of the law is not enough
to protect against those who do not like what the law intends. While the intent of the law is
important to those of us who wish to see that intent followed, it is irrelevant to those who do not.
More importantly, while the intent of the law assists in helping to interpret the law, the intent of the
law is not the law. This is the primary weakness of Proposition 19. A lot of time and “ink” (so to
speak) may have been spent on laying out the intent of the law. If the plain language of the law itself
allows something contrary to the intent, there is a problem.
One point proponents of Proposition 19′s “intent” miss is this: the laws to be implemented by the
Proposition do not only “limit the application and enforcement of state and local laws relating to
possession, transportation, cultivation, consumption and sale of cannabis”; they also introduce their
own limitations relating to possession, transportation, cultivation, consumption and sale of cannabis.
Furthermore, one glaring statement of Proposition 19 should serve to demonstrate that — as far as
its intent — it hopes to do that which cannot be done. The Proposition states that, among other
things, it intends to limit “application and enforcement of state and local laws” which might be
passed in the future. This is something that simply cannot be done.
Think about that. A law is passed today. That law states that any other laws that the legislature,
voters, or anyone else may wish to pass regarding its subject matter in the future are intended to be
limited by the law which is passed today. Thus, for now and forever, anyone trying to pass any law
that hasn’t even been thought of as being necessary today cannot get it passed in the future when it
is decided that it is necessary? Or that this today law intends to limit that future, as yet unthought-
of, law? No matter what it might be? Good or bad? And we believe someone is going to be bound by
that?
Not even the United States Constitution does that. While the Constitution does limit what
governments can do — and, despite the stupidity of anti-gay-marriage assholes, it also limits what
voters can do — it does not limit the ability to pass laws in the future which will be contrary to the
Constitution. It simply requires that before that can be done, we would have to amend the
Constitution to allow such laws.
Even that isn’t always required, as far as our government is concerned. Consider that our elected
officials properly believed a constitutional amendment was required to make alcohol illegal, but
decided no such amendment was needed to make marijuana (and other drugs) illegal. Consider the
fact that the Constitution is ignored by our government, particularly when it comes to the so-called
War on Drugs, on a daily basis. The War on Drugs is the number one reason for the desecration, the
shredding, the loss of the protections of our Constitution and its Bill of Rights.
And we think this drug law will be different because it contains a lengthy statement of intent? If
anything, history should teach us that a law that intends to remove a drug from the list of targets in
this long-running, empire-building, military-industrial-complex-driven war would need to be as
careful and specific as possible in stating what the law itself will be.
But I digress.
Dag states, among other things, that “since there is no specific language exempting 215 from the
intent to limit clause 215 is unaffected.” This is patently false.
The Proposition specifically allows local governments “notwithstanding any other provision of state
or local law,” to “control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise authorize, with conditions,” various
activities necessary to obtain, grow, or consume marijuana.
“Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law” means that no other state or local law —
including the laws implemented by Proposition 215 — prevent local governments from passing new
local ordinances that control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the
various activities designated in the proposed Health & Safety Code section 11301.
Anyone who thinks this does not mean that local governments won’t try to place limitations on
marijuana users — including medical marijuana users — needs only to stop for a moment and
remember what happened with the Medical Marijuana Program Act passed by the legislature after
Proposition 215 became law.
Among other things, the Medical Marijuana Program Act, or MMPA, caused all medical marijuana
users who wished to take advantage of the Compassionate Use Act and theoretically avoid arrest to
register with the government. Now, I know, some people don’t care about their privacy. They don’t
care if the government puts cameras everywhere, quietly asks for information on their Internet use,
or keeps track of who smokes dope. After all, as long as you aren’t doing anything illegal, you
shouldn’t even care if the government posts a tape recorder and video camera inside your car and
home just to be sure, right?
The second thing the MMPA tried to do was place limits on medical marijuana users which the
Compassionate Use Act had not done. The Compassionate Use Act said medical marijuana users
could possess or grow amounts reasonably necessary for treating their medical issues. The
legislature thought that was “too vague,” so limitations were added by the MMPA. That some
patients needed more than the limits allowed was irrelevant. Fortunately, the California Supreme
Court overturned that limit in People v. Kelly (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1008 [222 P.3d 186].
Do not think this means that Dag and the others are right. Do not think this means “intent wins.”
That is not what the Kelly Court said when it removed the limitations the MMPA had created. The
Kelly Court looked at the actual wording of the law itself. The Kelly Court noted that the
Compassionate Use Act could not be modified by the legislature without the approval of voters. That’
s how initiatives work in California. Unless the initiative itself allows the legislature to change what
the initiative allows, the legislature cannot do so. Since the Compassionate Use Act did not give
permission for modification, the legislature could not modify it.
As it turned out, the Compassionate Use Act actually specified a limit to how much marijuana could
be grown and possessed. The limit was the amount reasonably needed by the patient. So when the
MMPA tried to limit that to a specific amount, that was an illegal modification of the Compassionate
Use Act.
Proposition 19 specifically undoes that. Proposition 19 is an initiative. It therefore may legally
modify the Compassionate Use Act. It does this by permitting local governments, “notwithstanding
any other provision of state or local law,” to pass their own laws regulating and controlling
marijuana. You can read it this way: “No matter what any other provision of state law, such as the
Compassionate Use Act, might say, local governments can do what section 11301 allows them to
do.” That is, local governments can “control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise authorize, with
conditions,” the activities necessary to obtain, grow, or consume marijuana.
Remember, Kelly did not stop the legislative attempt to limit quantities of marijuana that medical
marijuana users could grow, possess, or transport because the limitations were contrary to the
intent of the Compassionate Use Act. Kelly stopped the legislature because of the wording of the
law itself, which had already provided a limit on quantity.
The concern I am raising about Proposition 19 is not that it has bad intentions. It doesn’t. It has
good intentions. But the proposed law was apparently written by someone who fails to completely
grasp the ways in which those who do not approve of marijuana might try to legally thwart that intent.
By allowing local governments to control and regulate cultivation, transportation, sale, and
consumption of marijuana “notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law,” including the
provisions of the state laws known as the Compassionate Use Act, Proposition 19 potentially allows
anti-marijuana local governments to place limitations on everyone who uses marijuana, including
medical marijuana users.
And the mere fact that my argument — even if you don’t like it — makes sense shows that this is a
danger. When — not if — some local government tries to pass an ordinance that effectively makes
it difficult, or impossible, to grow or obtain medical marijuana, some court could very well look at
this the same way I just did.
I hope they don’t, but there’s nothing in Proposition 19 that prevents it.
Why I oppose Prop 19.
by Kc Kimber on Sunday, August 22, 2010 at 1:00pm
I encourage people to vote NO on prop 19 because I am a stoner, a buyer,a seller, a grower, a
defendant, an ex prisoner, and current tax paying cannabis entreprenuer that see's beyond the curtain,
that can see that prop 19 is a prohibitionist trojan horse.
If you study the history of the prohibition on weed you will find out that the FEDERAL prohibition on
cannabis originally began with the
"Marihuana Tax Act of 1937".
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/mjtaxact.htm
"The popular and therapeutic uses of hemp preparations are not categorically prohibited by the
provisions of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. The apparent purpose of the Act is to levy a token tax of
approximately one dollar on all buyers, sellers, importers, growers, physicians,veterinarians, and any
other persons who deal in marijuana commercially, prescribe it professionally, or possess it. "
http://wiki.ssdpedia.org/index.php/Marijuana_Tax_Act_of_1937
The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, the pet project of Harry J.
Anslinger,indirectly prohibited marijuana on the federal level. The bill curbed the traffic of marijuana by
enacting complex and intensive taxation on marijuana and hemp transactions, with penalties of up to
$2000 and 5 years in prison if violated. In turn, the possession and distribution of hemp and marijuana
became too risky for people to do.
The bill used no scientific studies to back it's statements, but Anslinger's propaganda campaign along
with racism and many other factors helped pass the bill with minor opposition.
The bill was later found unconstitutional and repealed in the supreme court case Leary v. United States "
If you read prop 19 and read the tax act of 1937 you will see they sound an awfully lot alike. Right now
Weed is currently legal on the state and federal level's and the locals are pretty much powerless to
change that under prop 215. Currently if you have a doctors recommendation you can grow, trade, sell,
smoke in public, and pretty much anything you want without regulation or restriction by the Government
(and the Fed's are letting our current medical law fly for the most part) with one exception, you can't
legally get rich doing it, nobody can. No taxes,No bribery/extortion fee's for permits, no profits for
corporations,and if following CCE federal law not pocketing more than a $1000 a month when all is
said and done. Prop 19 allows for all those wonderful things prop 215 gives us the right to do to be
taken away by LOCAL governments, while making the ONE things 215/sb420 don't allow the rule of the
day, and instead of the herb being kind, the dollar will be.
The only people who benefit from the passage of prop 19 are the one's who are directly funding it. They
have been funding the campaigns of local politicians
""Cannabis Cash in Mayor's Race
The city of Oakland's mainstreaming of medical marijuana has extended to its mayoral races, where
leading cannabis dispensaries, hydroponics stores,and the Prop 19 campaign are showing up in
campaign finance disclosures for mayoral candidates Rebecca Kaplan, Jean Quan, and Don Perata.
TaxCannabis 2010 volunteer coordinator Jennifer Hall donated the maximum personal amount of $700
to Kaplan's campaign, as did Dan Rush of the UFCW Local 5 who recently helped unionize
Oaksterdam. Potential Oakland cultivator Jeff Wilcox of AgraMed also donated the maximum of $700 to
Kaplan,""
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/LegalizationNation/archives/2010/08/06/oaklands-cannabis-cash-
contributing-to-mayoral-race
These people aren't doing it for the goodwill of the people either, the local legislation they have pushed
is purposely designed to eliminate the small growers and patients who grow for themselves.
""There are current industrial cultivators that may have some claim to legality by maintaining a list of
qualified patients for whom the cultivation is intended, or in at least one case,by keeping the cultivation
divided into compartments, each belonging to a three person collective. If these operations remain in
existence, it will be more difficult to foster industrial cultivation in a licensed,regulated mode. The
proposed ordinance clarifies that the City does not allow any industrial-scale cultivation except on a
permitted basis. This will clearly establish the Cultivation, Manufacturing and Processing permit as the
only legal model, and will greatly simplify police enforcement.""http://clerkwebsvr1.oaklandnet.
com/attachments/25359.pdf
These people who are paying for prop 19 are working with the police. The police have always been
against anybody getting high on anything. They know prop 19 is there trojan horse.http://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=KqoU85VEmWY
Watch they are doing it to please LAW ENFORCEMENT not to PLEASE THE PEOPLE.
Prop 19 isn't legalization it's the wholesale destruction of Cannabis being a part of the counter culture.
It doesn't change any of the current bad things.
Many have claimed that prop 19 won't affect prop 215. Yet here is what actual LAWYERS WHO
PRACTICE CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAW IN CALIFORNIA COURTS HAVE TO SAY...
http://www.rhdefense.com/blog/marijuana-law/blowing-smoke-proposition-19-medical-marijuana/
""the problem isn't with Proposition 19′s proposed addition of section 11300 to the Health & Safety Code.
There is potentially a significant problem, however, with Proposition 19′s proposed addition of section
11301. Ironically, the reason is that same "notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law"
phrase in the proposed language. The entire relevant portion says:
Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances,
regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise
authorize, with conditions, the following....
Remembering the meaning of"notwithstanding any other provision of state law,"
this means "in spite of what the medical marijuana laws say, a local government may"potentially adopt
restrictive rules as pertains to certain activities. The listed activities are all the activities one needs to
carry out in order to obtain, or grow, or consume medical marijuana.
Right now — at least the way I read the law — local governments cannot effectively eliminate the
protections of the medical marijuana laws bypassing local ordinances that "control" or "regulate" them.
If they did, I think many such ordinances would arguably constitute impermissible amendments to the
Compassionate Use Act passed by the People via the initiative process — something no California
government can do. 2 Thus, rules that some counties are passing in an attempted end-run around
medical marijuana laws are probably unenforceable because they are contrary to the Compassionate
Use Act, the Medical Marijuana Program Act, or both.3
Tulare County, for example, has passed such limiting ordinances. Some of these ordinances have not
yet been tested in court, but other portions of the Tulare County ordinances are already illegal and thus
unenforceable. For example, the ordinances include limitations on quantities of marijuana which may
be possessed or cultivated. But the California Supreme Court has already determined that this
constitutes an impermissible amendment to the Compassionate Use Act. 4
Proposition 19, however, will allow local governments to do what the Compassionate Use Act currently
forbids them from doing. Why? Because the Compassionate Use Act was enacted into the law by
initiative: Proposition 215. Initiatives can only be changed by the government if the initiative itself either
expressly permits that, or if the Constitution is changed in some way as to alter the initiative process.
Thus, any California government is,by law, powerless to act on its own to amend an initiative statute. Any
change in this authority must come in the form of a constitutional revision or amendment to article II,
section 10,subdivision (c).5
However, amendments to statutes implemented via an initiative can also be amended, or even
overruled, by initiatives. 6
Well, guess what? Proposition 19 is an initiative, also! So Proposition 19 can amend, or even abolish,
part, or all, of the medical marijuana laws, including the Compassionate Use Act voted into place by
Proposition 215.""
You can further read the lawyers explaination:
http://www.rhdefense.com/blog/marijuana-law/toke-it-easy-man-more-on-proposition-19/
"This post, therefore, is another attempt to focus attention on that point and explain why, regardless of
the intentions of Proposition 19 proponents, Proposition 19 may contain within it the seeds to undoing,
at least in part, what was accomplished with Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act, which
legalized marijuana in California for medical patients who needed it."
Here is what another lawyer says,
"# Jennifer Soares Says: August 21st, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Thank you so much for your insightful article. A common misconception Prop 19 proponents state is that
Prop 19 must explicitly state that it s intention is to overrule or change Prop 215. And no amount of proof
that they are incorrect can stop them from saying so.
This is something I have been battling since April. Attorney to Attorney, be prepared for people to tell you
that you haven't been an attorney long enough to make any sort of judgments (even though the people
saying this have never been attorneys at all). Be prepared for people to call into question your
professionalism, your motives, your ethics, and your morals. And especially be prepared for some
name calling.
What is so funny to me though, is neither of us is per-say Prop 19 opponents. Both of us simply want to
educate the voters on the initiative. And the proponents attack us for doing so."
The proponents of prop 19 couldn't even get the support of Dennis Peron (http://www.castrocastle.
com/<---video of him and I discussing prop 19)... the man who has done more to get weed legal world
wide in the last 30 years than anyone else. WE ALL OWE HIM RESPECT. Richard Lee failed to give him
that respect and listen to him. Otherwise we would have something we could all agree to vote on,
because something that we should actually vote yes on would actually make it impossible to ever be
arrested for weed again period!
Lastly I know people will claim that prop 19 doesn't affect 215 at all. Well if that is the case then why did
Richard Lee say this:
"It will be just like medical marijuana was after [Prop.] 215, when a few cities were doing it, like San
Francisco, Oakland, and Berkeley," Lee told us. "And for cities just coming to grips with medical
marijuana, it will be clean-up language that clarifies how they can regulate and tax it."
http://www.sfbg.com/2010/08/17/high-time?page=0%2C0
WANT TO HEAR WHAT A REAL CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY WITH EXPERIENCE SAYS ABOUT PROP. 19
From the Law Office of Rick Horowitz, RHDefense
http://www.rhdefense.com/blog/marijuana-law/blowing-smoke-proposition-19-medical-marijuana/
Blowing Smoke: Proposition 19 & Medical Marijuana
Saturday, August 7th, 2010
Yesterday, I drove to downtown San Francisco — something which, on a weekday, is definitely not
on my list of favorite things to do — to the Hiram W. Johnson State Building for a meeting of the
Voluntary Committee of Lawyers. The topic of discussion was Marijuana & Federalism: California a
Test Case: The Legal Implications of Proposition 19.1
The meeting was somewhat informative, but when it came to addressing questions of significant
concern to my medical marijuana clients, I guess I’d have to say there was a lot of smoke being
blown — and it didn’t come from any high-quality buds.
The meeting was, in many senses, quite informative. Speakers included Assemblymember Tom
Ammiano from the 13th District of California, a number of attorneys working for various
organizations that deal with drug policies, and even the Sheriff of Mendocino County, Thomas D.
Allman.
One question that did not receive a full answer, though, had to do with the intersection of Proposition
19 and California’s current medical marijuana laws. I attempted to ask the question, but I stood up
too late. I was waiting, under the erroneous assumption that someone would address this
important issue without provocation. However, once I realized that the mantra of the people
presenting was that Proposition 19 was either not going to impact medical marijuana users, or that
it would improve things for them, and that apparently they subscribed to the theory that if you repeat
something often enough, that alone makes it true, I decided to ask my question.
As I said, though, I was too late; I didn’t get the chance to pose my question publicly.
Fortunately — or so I thought – Richard Lee, the so-called “grandfather of the medical marijuana
movement,” was present. Surely, he can answer my question.
I stopped Mr. Lee as we were leaving the meeting. I introduced myself. He shook my hand and I
asked my question. “How will Proposition 19′s proposed limitations on amounts people can own or
cultivate impact current medical marijuana laws?” Perhaps — and based on the responses of Mr.
Lee and the two people accompanying him, I suspect this is the case — he’s grown tired of hearing
this question. Perhaps he was in a hurry. Maybe he just always comes across as irritated and
angry.
Perhaps he just needed to chill and toke before being able to fully appreciate my question. I don’t
know. I’m just trying to be charitable.
Suffice it to say that Mr. Lee immediately began trying to move on, as he barked out that the
language of the initiative, wherein it states, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law…,” meant
that Proposition 19 would not negatively impact existing laws.
A woman accompanying him, who I believe may have been Christine Wagner, smilingly shoved
some cards at me and referred me to “the FAQ on our website” for more information.
The card indicates Christine Wagner is a lawyer, which gave me hope, because surely an attorney
would not point me to an answer that wasn’t an answer, would she? Well, maybe!
Not. The most comprehensive answer I can find on the website is nothing more than a slightly-more-
clear restatement of the same bald assertions barked at me by the retreating and muttering Mr. Lee.
I’m sure you can tell I not only felt I did not get an answer to my question, but I was almost as
irritated by the encounter as Mr. Lee.
The problem here, though, is not — or at least not so much — that I felt I was given a rather rude
brush-off. The problem, as I said, is that the FAQ provides no more information than was shouted
over their shoulders as Mr. Lee’s group hustled down the street. Mr. Lee appeared to be angrily
muttering about “these questions.” He’s obviously grown tired of them.
“These questions,” however, are important. The way Proposition 19 reads, “these questions” are
not addressed. In fact, Proposition 19 appears to be capable of undoing all the work those
promoting medical marijuana have done to enable patients to receive their medication without
suffering consequences under California’s criminal laws.
I think it’s quite likely that Proposition 19 will trump California’s medical marijuana laws and allow
local municipalities to apply restrictions that, thus far, they have been blocked from implementing by
the combination of the Compassionate Use Act and the California Supreme Court.
Here’s why:
Mr. Lee and his compatriots tried to say — in the few words they threw my way — that Proposition
19 is worded to ensure that it does not impact existing law. (I have to take it that they meant
“existing medical marijuana law,” because obviously it impacts existing law. That’s the whole
point. If it didn’t impact existing law, it wouldn’t “legalize marijuana.”)
In fact, Proposition 19 is replete with language that says, “Notwithstanding any other provision of
law….” Mr. Lee & Co. apparently believe, based on what they told me, that “notwithstanding any
other provision of law” means that if there are other laws, those other laws are not overruled,
altered, erased, modified — choose your poison: they say it’s not poisonous.
Anyone who doesn’t already know the meaning of “notwithstanding” can see that this is wrong
merely by grabbing the nearest dictionary. According to Webster’s Third International Dictionary,
Unabridged (2002), for example, the word means “without prevention or obstruction from or by : in
spite of.”
With respect to some parts of Proposition 19, this is not necessarily a problem. In particular — and I
think this is what Mr. Lee & Co. focus upon (too much) — the proposed addition of section 11300 to
Article 5 of Chapter 5 of Division 10 of the Health & Safety Code probably does not encroach upon
the rights of medical marijuana users. The reason for this depends not upon the “notwithstanding”
language to which Mr. Lee & Co. tried to point me, but because the words following say, “it is lawful
and shall not be a public offense under California law….”
In other words, section 11300 essentially says, “Here are some things that will be legal.” The
“notwithstanding” language has the effect of adding, “regardless of what any other law might
state.” So, take Health & Safety Code § 11357 which says,
Except as authorized by law, every person who possesses not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana,
other than concentrated cannabis, is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not
more than one hundred dollars ($100).
If Proposition 19 passes, this would no longer be true, because Proposition 19 says,
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense…to possess,
process, share or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis solely for that individual’s
personal consumption, and not for sale.
Assuming it passes, Proposition 19, being the newer law, trumps 11357 on this issue. That’s a good
thing, because that’s what we want it to do. Additionally, Proposition 19′s proposed section 11300
addition does not trump the medical marijuana laws because while 11300 basically says
“regardless of what any other law says, these things are legal,” it does not say, “only these things
are legal.” In other words, 11300 provides a list of some things that are legal, regardless of whether
some other law says they are not. But it’s not necessarily the only way that things can be legal.
Lots of other things, including things allowed by the medical marijuana laws, can be legal, too.
Thus, the problem isn’t with Proposition 19′s proposed addition of section 11300 to the Health &
Safety Code.
There is potentially a significant problem, however, with Proposition 19′s proposed addition of
section 11301. Ironically, the reason is that same “notwithstanding any other provision of state or
local law” phrase in the proposed language. The entire relevant portion says:
Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances,
regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise
authorize, with conditions, the following….
Remembering the meaning of “notwithstanding any other provision of state…law,” this means “in
spite of what the medical marijuana laws say, a local government may” potentially adopt restrictive
rules as pertains to certain activities. The listed activities are all the activities one needs to carry
out in order to obtain, or grow, or consume medical marijuana.
Right now — at least the way I read the law — local governments cannot effectively eliminate the
protections of the medical marijuana laws by passing local ordinances that “control” or “regulate”
them. If they did, I think many such ordinances would arguably constitute impermissible
amendments to the Compassionate Use Act passed by the People via the initiative process —
something no California government can do.2 Thus, rules that some counties are passing in an
attempted end-run around medical marijuana laws are probably unenforceable because they are
contrary to the Compassionate Use Act, the Medical Marijuana Program Act, or both.3
Tulare County, for example, has passed such limiting ordinances. Some of these ordinances have
not yet been tested in court, but other portions of the Tulare County ordinances are already illegal
and thus unenforceable. For example, the ordinances include limitations on quantities of marijuana
which may be possessed or cultivated. But the California Supreme Court has already determined
that this constitutes an impermissible amendment to the Compassionate Use Act.4
Proposition 19, however, will allow local governments to do what the Compassionate Use Act
currently forbids them from doing. Why? Because the Compassionate Use Act was enacted into
the law by initiative: Proposition 215. Initiatives can only be changed by the government if the
initiative itself either expressly permits that, or if the Constitution is changed in some way as to alter
the initiative process. Thus, any California government is, by law,
powerless to act on its own to amend an initiative statute. Any change in this authority must come in
the form of a constitutional revision or amendment to article II, section 10, subdivision (c).5
However, amendments to statutes implemented via an initiative can also be amended, or even
overruled, by initiatives.6 Well, guess what? Proposition 19 is an initiative, also! So Proposition 19
can amend, or even abolish, part, or all, of the medical marijuana laws, including the Compassionate
Use Act voted into place by Proposition 215.
Let me be clear about something. I’m not trying to play “hide the ball bud” here. There is an
argument against what I just said. One could argue that 11301 says “control, license, regulate,
permit or otherwise authorize, with conditions,” and that it does not say, “forbid, prohibit, or
prevent.” One can also argue that allowing local governments to place restrictions on medical
marijuana would violate the intent of the laws, because “clearly” Proposition 19 is intended to
loosen up, or liberate, marijuana from the strictures of State prohibitions. “Clearly,” with this as the
intent, it would not make sense to read Proposition 19 as allowing local governments to “control” or
“regulate” or place unreasonable “conditions” on medical marijuana patients, or their caregivers.
Myself, I’m not comfortable sitting around hoping that local governments “clearly” understand this. I
happen to think a well-written Proposition to legalize marijuana should explicitly state that it cannot
be read in a way that restricts current medical marijuana laws. But that’s me. And I don’t smoke
pot, so maybe what I think doesn’t count.
I guess another way to see how this plays out is to vote “yes” on Proposition 19. And then just wait
until the smoke clears.
1. At the time of this blog post, the VCL main page advertised the conference, so I linked it. As time
passes, I suspect they will change the content of that website, but it still may be useful to people to
know where it was. [↩]
2. People v. Kelly (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1008, 1012 [222 P.3d 186]. [↩]
3. Additionally, even where the local governments do not press a criminal penalty, but merely
confiscate or destroy marijuana grown “out of compliance” with local ordinances, there may be
recourse under the law. (See City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 355 [68
Cal.Rptr.3d 656].) [↩]
4. People v. Kelly, supra, 47 Cal.4th at 1043. [↩]
5. People v. Kelly, supra, 47 Cal.4th at 1045-1046. [↩]
6. Proposition 103 Enforcement Project v. Charles Quackenbush (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1473, 1484
[76 Cal.Rptr.2d 342]. [↩]
http://www.rhdefense.com/blog/marijuana-law/toke-it-easy-man-more-on-proposition-19/comment-
page-1/#comment-3730
Toke It Easy, Man: More on Proposition 19
Saturday, August 14th, 2010
My last post, “Blowing Smoke: Proposition 19 & Medical Marijuana,” has perhaps drawn more
readers than just about any other post I’ve written (including “A Drowning Man”).
Some comments indicate an incomplete grasp of what my original post was intended to point out:
there is a possibility for Proposition 19, as worded, to undo the protections of the existing rights of
medical marijuana patients.
This post, therefore, is another attempt to focus attention on that point and explain why, regardless
of the intentions of Proposition 19 proponents, Proposition 19 may contain within it the seeds to
undoing, at least in part, what was accomplished with Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act,
which legalized marijuana in California for medical patients who needed it.
I am left with the impression that, like the original writers of Proposition 19, many commenters
believe that governments will willingly acquiesce to both the stated intentions of Proposition 19 and
what they believe are the wishes of the voters. This does not always happen. This is why, in the old
days, laws were written by lawyers with particular experience writing laws. Writing laws is a
science which aims at ensuring that the laws themselves are not susceptible to misinterpretation
or misapplication. It is not simply a matter of knowing something about marijuana — e.g., how it is
used, grown, transported, sold, or otherwise operates in the real world — and knowing the goals
that you are after. It’s also about knowing how laws work, or don’t.
There actually are people in the world who want their particular point of view to control what
happens, regardless of what you, me, or anyone else may wish.
Please understand, my questioning of Proposition 19 is not aimed at trying to prevent the
legalization of marijuana; i.e., I am not trying to shoot down Proposition 19 in order to prevent what
its proponents wish will happen. Quite the contrary, I firmly believe that marijuana should be
legalized. I personally have never benefited from marijuana (except as an attorney who gets paid to
defend people who try to utilize it in accordance with medical marijuana objectives and laws). I don’t
use it. But I know numerous people who do, including some about whom I care very much.
Even if there were not people about whom I care very much who use it, I would want it legalized. At
heart, I am libertarian. I believe government should be as small as possible and regulate our lives as
little as possible. I would be quite happy in a world with very, very few laws and only think those
directly related to discouraging and punishing harmful activities should exist.
Nor do I have ulterior motives because I sometimes make money defending medical marijuana
patients. Frankly, even the proponents of Proposition 19 at the recent conference I attended
referred to the Proposition, jokingly, as “the Marijuana Lawyer’s Full Employment Act.” If
Proposition 19 passes, attorneys like me will probably get even more clients, not less. So I’ve no
business reason for wanting to see Proposition 19 fail, either.
My current tendency to think Proposition 19 is not a good proposition is based upon my fear that it
may constitute a step backwards for those people who actually need marijuana, as opposed to
those who “merely” wish to exercise their rights to recreational use. I think people should be able
to do both, but I think medical marijuana use is much more important.
Because, as I said, there are people who do not share my views, who want their views to be
controlling, regardless of any law that might try to prevent them from doing so, I have concerns.
Some commenters to my previous post make a lot of noise about “the intent” of Proposition 19.
Their statements about the intent of Proposition 19 appear to be accurate. I don’t know that I’ve
ever denied that, or that anyone has heard me object that people making arguments about “what the
intent is” are wrong.
I am pointing out that intent is not enough.
I practice law in Fresno, California. My practice covers Fresno, Tulare, Kings and sometimes (ugh)
Madera counties. These are some of the most conservative counties in California. In the “red
state/blue state” drawing of maps, if all California were like the counties in which I live, California
would be red, not blue. The deepest, darkest red.
Law enforcement, government officials, and ordinary citizens in our area who do not “appreciate”
marijuana, who do not like marijuana, do not care what the intent of Proposition 215, (possibly) the
MMPA, and the now-proposed Proposition 19 may be. They do not want marijuana in their backyard;
they do not want marijuana in your backyard; they do not want marijuana in anyone’s backyard.
Growing it indoors doesn’t change the equation much.
It is important that any proposition intending to legalize marijuana keep this in mind. Laws that
intend to do things that those with power do not want done are not automatically successful. Look
at the civil rights war if you want a lesson on that issue. Forget intent: laws requiring the integration
of schools in the South during the 1960s were seldom effective in and of themselves.
I know. I lived there.
So when one of my commenters, Dag, valiantly and with voluminous quotation of Proposition 19 and
other texts attempts to argue for the intent of the Proposition, he misses my point.
I know, I know. People hate to hear that they’ve missed the point. The response is, “No! I did not
miss the point! I tried to show you that the point is wrong!”
Okay. You missed the point. You cannot use the language, which I have already acknowledged,
stating what the intent of the law is, to counter my argument that the intent of the law is not enough
to protect against those who do not like what the law intends. While the intent of the law is
important to those of us who wish to see that intent followed, it is irrelevant to those who do not.
More importantly, while the intent of the law assists in helping to interpret the law, the intent of the
law is not the law. This is the primary weakness of Proposition 19. A lot of time and “ink” (so to
speak) may have been spent on laying out the intent of the law. If the plain language of the law itself
allows something contrary to the intent, there is a problem.
One point proponents of Proposition 19′s “intent” miss is this: the laws to be implemented by the
Proposition do not only “limit the application and enforcement of state and local laws relating to
possession, transportation, cultivation, consumption and sale of cannabis”; they also introduce their
own limitations relating to possession, transportation, cultivation, consumption and sale of cannabis.
Furthermore, one glaring statement of Proposition 19 should serve to demonstrate that — as far as
its intent — it hopes to do that which cannot be done. The Proposition states that, among other
things, it intends to limit “application and enforcement of state and local laws” which might be
passed in the future. This is something that simply cannot be done.
Think about that. A law is passed today. That law states that any other laws that the legislature,
voters, or anyone else may wish to pass regarding its subject matter in the future are intended to be
limited by the law which is passed today. Thus, for now and forever, anyone trying to pass any law
that hasn’t even been thought of as being necessary today cannot get it passed in the future when it
is decided that it is necessary? Or that this today law intends to limit that future, as yet unthought-
of, law? No matter what it might be? Good or bad? And we believe someone is going to be bound by
that?
Not even the United States Constitution does that. While the Constitution does limit what
governments can do — and, despite the stupidity of anti-gay-marriage assholes, it also limits what
voters can do — it does not limit the ability to pass laws in the future which will be contrary to the
Constitution. It simply requires that before that can be done, we would have to amend the
Constitution to allow such laws.
Even that isn’t always required, as far as our government is concerned. Consider that our elected
officials properly believed a constitutional amendment was required to make alcohol illegal, but
decided no such amendment was needed to make marijuana (and other drugs) illegal. Consider the
fact that the Constitution is ignored by our government, particularly when it comes to the so-called
War on Drugs, on a daily basis. The War on Drugs is the number one reason for the desecration, the
shredding, the loss of the protections of our Constitution and its Bill of Rights.
And we think this drug law will be different because it contains a lengthy statement of intent? If
anything, history should teach us that a law that intends to remove a drug from the list of targets in
this long-running, empire-building, military-industrial-complex-driven war would need to be as
careful and specific as possible in stating what the law itself will be.
But I digress.
Dag states, among other things, that “since there is no specific language exempting 215 from the
intent to limit clause 215 is unaffected.” This is patently false.
The Proposition specifically allows local governments “notwithstanding any other provision of state
or local law,” to “control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise authorize, with conditions,” various
activities necessary to obtain, grow, or consume marijuana.
“Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law” means that no other state or local law —
including the laws implemented by Proposition 215 — prevent local governments from passing new
local ordinances that control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the
various activities designated in the proposed Health & Safety Code section 11301.
Anyone who thinks this does not mean that local governments won’t try to place limitations on
marijuana users — including medical marijuana users — needs only to stop for a moment and
remember what happened with the Medical Marijuana Program Act passed by the legislature after
Proposition 215 became law.
Among other things, the Medical Marijuana Program Act, or MMPA, caused all medical marijuana
users who wished to take advantage of the Compassionate Use Act and theoretically avoid arrest to
register with the government. Now, I know, some people don’t care about their privacy. They don’t
care if the government puts cameras everywhere, quietly asks for information on their Internet use,
or keeps track of who smokes dope. After all, as long as you aren’t doing anything illegal, you
shouldn’t even care if the government posts a tape recorder and video camera inside your car and
home just to be sure, right?
The second thing the MMPA tried to do was place limits on medical marijuana users which the
Compassionate Use Act had not done. The Compassionate Use Act said medical marijuana users
could possess or grow amounts reasonably necessary for treating their medical issues. The
legislature thought that was “too vague,” so limitations were added by the MMPA. That some
patients needed more than the limits allowed was irrelevant. Fortunately, the California Supreme
Court overturned that limit in People v. Kelly (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1008 [222 P.3d 186].
Do not think this means that Dag and the others are right. Do not think this means “intent wins.”
That is not what the Kelly Court said when it removed the limitations the MMPA had created. The
Kelly Court looked at the actual wording of the law itself. The Kelly Court noted that the
Compassionate Use Act could not be modified by the legislature without the approval of voters. That’
s how initiatives work in California. Unless the initiative itself allows the legislature to change what
the initiative allows, the legislature cannot do so. Since the Compassionate Use Act did not give
permission for modification, the legislature could not modify it.
As it turned out, the Compassionate Use Act actually specified a limit to how much marijuana could
be grown and possessed. The limit was the amount reasonably needed by the patient. So when the
MMPA tried to limit that to a specific amount, that was an illegal modification of the Compassionate
Use Act.
Proposition 19 specifically undoes that. Proposition 19 is an initiative. It therefore may legally
modify the Compassionate Use Act. It does this by permitting local governments, “notwithstanding
any other provision of state or local law,” to pass their own laws regulating and controlling
marijuana. You can read it this way: “No matter what any other provision of state law, such as the
Compassionate Use Act, might say, local governments can do what section 11301 allows them to
do.” That is, local governments can “control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise authorize, with
conditions,” the activities necessary to obtain, grow, or consume marijuana.
Remember, Kelly did not stop the legislative attempt to limit quantities of marijuana that medical
marijuana users could grow, possess, or transport because the limitations were contrary to the
intent of the Compassionate Use Act. Kelly stopped the legislature because of the wording of the
law itself, which had already provided a limit on quantity.
The concern I am raising about Proposition 19 is not that it has bad intentions. It doesn’t. It has
good intentions. But the proposed law was apparently written by someone who fails to completely
grasp the ways in which those who do not approve of marijuana might try to legally thwart that intent.
By allowing local governments to control and regulate cultivation, transportation, sale, and
consumption of marijuana “notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law,” including the
provisions of the state laws known as the Compassionate Use Act, Proposition 19 potentially allows
anti-marijuana local governments to place limitations on everyone who uses marijuana, including
medical marijuana users.
And the mere fact that my argument — even if you don’t like it — makes sense shows that this is a
danger. When — not if — some local government tries to pass an ordinance that effectively makes
it difficult, or impossible, to grow or obtain medical marijuana, some court could very well look at
this the same way I just did.
I hope they don’t, but there’s nothing in Proposition 19 that prevents it.
FIRST OF ALL LET ME SAY, YOU WOULD NOT BELIEVE THE INTERNET AND PC PROBLEMS, HOURS
OF AGGRAVATION, WORK I SUFFERED THROUGH TO PLACE ALL THIS INFORMATION HERE IN ONE
SPOT WHERE EVERYONE COULD FIND IT, EXAMINE IT AND COMPARE IT.
THE FOLLOWING ARE MY VIEWS, WRITTEN RESPONSES. AS WELL AS, THE VIEWS AND
RESPONSES OF OTHERS, INCLUDING EXPERTS AND PROFESSIONALS. THEIR EXPLANATIONS
AND SOME OF THE DOCUMENTATION ABOUT WHY PROP. 19 AND WHY THE "LEGALIZE = LEGAL
LIES PROPAGANDA" IT IS BASED UPON, MAKES IT BAD LEGISLATION. END PROHIBITION [ . ]
"IF I AM WRONG. THEN WHY ALL THE CENSORSHIP ? ANOTHER RESPONSE/COMMENT/POST
DELETED"
by Diverse Sanctuary on Saturday, August 21, 2010 at 2:31pm
A RESPONSE I POSTED TO THIS ARTICLE
"The 8 Most Absurd Excuses for Trying to Defeat Legal Pot | | AlterNet"I've collect...
http://www.alternet.
org/story/147891/the_8_most_absurd_excuses_for_trying_to_defeat_legal_pot/comments/#disqus
_thread
DELETED
WHY ?
WHAT WAS THE RESPONSE I POSTED ?
THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE CONTAINS WITH-IN IT THE PRIMARY REASON CALI. SHOULD VOTE
NO ON PROP. 19
IN RESPONSE TO M.P.P. AND RAND PAUL'S WISHY WARSHY POLITICS
by Diverse Sanctuary on Wednesday, August 18, 2010 at 3:54pm
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/rand-paul-now-opposed-to-medical-marijuana {WHO ALSO
DELETED THIS RESPONSE}
YES, I SAID "WISHY WARSHY" POLITICS FOR A REASON. THIS IS ALL ABOUT "WAR" THEY THE
POLITICIANS = CORPORATE BOUGHT GOVERNMENT DO "WISH" TO CONTINUE.
SO I AM TO BE SURPRISED THAT RAND PAUL IS YET ONE MORE OF HIS KIND ?
YOU KNOW THE TYPE OF POLITICIAN THAT CHANGES HIS MIND ACCORDING TO THE LOBBY
OR THE POLLS AND SPEAKS WITH A FORKED TONGUE.
DID YOU KNOW THE WORD POLITICS COMES FROM THE LATIN "POLI" = "MANY" AND "TICS" =
"BLOODSUCKING PARASITES"
WHICH IN MY OPINION EXPLAINS THE ENTIRE MESS
WHILE EXPLAINING WHY MOST AMERICANS DO NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY READ
THOUGH I MUST SAY. I AM RATHER DISAPPOINTED IN RAND PAUL FOR HAVING NO REAL
TRUTH, KNOWLEDGE, BACKBONE OR BALLS.
JUST AS DISAPPOINTED AS I AM IN CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM, AS WELL AS VOTER REFORM
{OR THE LACK OF REPAIR TO THE MACHINES OR THE SYSTEM}
I ASK YOU ?
HOW IS IT THAT NOT EVERY POLITICIAN AND EDUCATED AMERICAN ISN'T COMING FORWARD
AND DEMANDING THE TRUTH TO BE RELEASED AND TOLD IN SUPPORT OF THE
CANNABIS/MARIJUANA/HEMP PLANT, IT'S FREEDOM, IT'S PROTECTION, IT'S USE, IT'S SCIENCE
AND IT'S EMERGENCY UTILIZATION AT THIS POINT IN OUR HISTORY ?
GOD FEARING OR NOT ?
FACTS ARE FACTS AND TRUTH IS TRUTH.
I MEAN BESIDES THE FACT THAT "THIS IS 2010."
SOME MORE IMPORTANT FACTS IN MAKING THIS CASE ARE...
* NEARLY HALF OF ALL AMERICAN'S ARE UN-EMPLOYED, HOMELESS, OR UNABLE TO PAY
TAXES.
* THE HUNGER RATE IS AT AN ALL TIME HIGH IN THE U.S.A.
* NEARLY 80 % OF AMERICAN'S ARE IN NEED OF MEDICAL TREATMENT OR DOCTORS CARE;
NEARLY 1/3 ARE CONSIDERED DISABLED; AND MILLIONS WHO ARE STILL UNABLE TO AFFORD
HEALTH CARE GO UNTREATED.
*ENVIRONMENTAL TOXINS AND DISASTERS ARE AT AN ALL TIME HIGH. WITH AT LEAST TWO
"HISTORICAL SPILLS" AFFECTING THE U.S. IN THE LAST YEAR.
*WHEN CLEAN ENERGY IS SO DESPERATELY NEEDED ON A GLOBAL SCALE.
*WHEN ALL THESE ISSUES ABOVE ARE GLOBAL ISSUES.
*WHILE PEOPLE, PATIENTS, FAMILIES, HOMES AND FARMS ARE DESTROYED, LOST,
IMPRISONED AND DIE.
*WHILE THE EARTHS NATURAL RESOURCES ARE BEING DEPLETED AND WARS ARE BEING
FOUGHT OVER THEM.
IN SO MANY SO-CALLED WARS INVENTED AND CREATED BY CORPORATIONS AND
GOVERNMENT FOR PROFIT.
LIKE THIS FAILED SO-CALLED WAR ON DRUGS.
ALL BASED IN LIES CREATED AND REPEATED BY MEN.
FROM THE CORPORATION, TO THE POLITICIAN, ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THEIR CORPORATE
AND FEDERALLY FUNDED OFFICES, SCHOOLS, CHURCHES AND EVEN THE "LEGALIZATION"
GROUPS AND ORGS. WHO REPEAT THEIR "LEGALIZE" - "LEGAL LIES" PROPAGANDA. WHILE
THEY SELL THEIR LIES, MEMBERSHIPS, COLLECT INFO AND LYE IN WAIT TO PROFIT EVEN
MORE THROUGH GMO PATENT, OWNERSHIP, COMMERCIALIZATION, BIG PHARMA, BIG CHEMA
AND TOTAL CONTROL OVER THE PLANT.
THE EGOIST, THE LAZY AND/OR THE GREEDY FEED ON THE UN-INFORMED, UNDER-
EDUCATED, DESPERATE, NEEDY OR WELL MEANING.
"THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS" {OF SOME AND THE EVIL
MANIPULATIONS OF OTHERS.}
WHILE LEADING THE WAY TO GIVING BIG BROTHER = BIG GOV EVEN MORE POWER TO PASS
AND ISSUE ALL SORTS OF NEW AND IMPROVED RESTRICTIONS. I MEAN REGULATIONS AND
CONTROL OVER THE PLANT AND IT'S MANY USES.
AS THEY CONTINUE TO FILL THEIR INDUSTRIAL PRISON COMPLEX.
THEY INVENTED, AT THE SAME TIME IN HISTORY THAT THEY CAME UP WITH U.S. CITIZENSHIP,
S.S., AND THE I.R.S. SHORTLY AFTER THE "CIVIL WAR" IN ORDER TO DECLARE YOU DEAD =
"YOUR NAME IN CAPITAL LETTERS". IN ORDER TO BUY AND SELL THE "SOVEREIGNTY OF THE
INDIVIDUAL"= STATE CITIZENS OR COMMON MAN, INCLUDING THE RECENTLY FREED SLAVE
THROUGH THE STOCK MARKET TO THE WORLD BANKS AND CORPORATIONS IN ORDER
REPLACE OUR GOLD AND REPAY OUR WAR DEBT. THROUGH EVEN MORE SLAVERY.
WHY YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS WHEN YOU ANSWER TO THE COURTS OR THE JUDGES BENCH.
BENCH IN LATIN = BANK. THIS IS WHY THE JUDGE WEARS BLACK.
I MEAN AFTER ALL, WE DO HAVE MORE PEOPLE IN PRISON FOR THE "ILLEGAL USE OF LEGAL
DRUGS" {PRESCRIPTION DRUGS, ALCOHOL, OVER THE COUNTER...} THAN WE DO FOR THE
"ILLEGAL USE OF PROHIBITED DRUGS".
LET US NOT FORGET THIS IS THE VERY SAME GOVERNMENT THAT HOLDS A "LEGAL U.S.
PATENT" FOR THE MEDICAL USE OF CANNABIS, WHICH NOTES IT CAN BE USED TO CURE
CANCER. "US Patent # 6630507 titled "Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants" which
is assigned to The United States of America, as represented by the Department of Health and
Human Services." WHILE THEY DE-NIGH ANY PROOF OR EVIDENCE EXIST THAT IT IS A
MEDICINE. "
WHILE THEY CONTINUE TO DENIGH KNOWING ANY CURE EXIST FOR CANCER,... AS THEY
CONTINUE TO ALLOW THESE PATIENTS TO DIE AND BE IMPRISONED.
WHO CLAIMS IT AND IT'S USE IS AGAINST FEDERAL LAW
DESPITE THESE FACTS...
*THEY CONTINUE TO "USE" IT... AS THEY GROW AND PROVIDE IT TO 6 REMAINING FEDERAL
PATIENTS.
*THEY RECOGNIZED IT AS LEGAL THROUGH TAXATION IN THE 1937 MARIJUANA TAX ACT.
WHICH WAS REPEALED {1969 Leary v. United States} AND YET, THEY CURRENTLY "USE" IT TO
EXCEPT TAXES ON THE PROFITS MADE BY MEDICAL CANNABIS GROWERS, TAX STAMPS, ...
*THEY WHO MADE THE HISTORIC FILM "HEMP FOR VICTORY" LOBBYING THE AMERICAN
FARMER TO GROW HEMP FOR THEIR "USE" AFTER PASSING THE 1937 MARIJUANA TAX ACT.
*WHO THEN REGULATED IT THROUGH DEA AND THE 1970 CSA "CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE
ACT" AND THEN "USED" IT TO DECLARE A WAR ON DRUGS.
*WHO'S USDA HAS ALREADY RECOGNIZED IT'S "USE" IN FACTS THAT THEY DOCUMENTED OF
IT'S ABILITIES TO CLEAN AND RESTORE TOXIC GROUND WATER, SOIL AND AIR IN THEIR
REPORT
http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/management/files/sq_utn_3.pdf
*THOUGH THEY REFUSE TO "USE" IT FOR THIS GOOD PURPOSE AND CONTINUE TO ATTEMPT
TO ERADICATE IT FROM THE WILD. DESPITE THEIR OFFICE OF THE E.P.A., THEIR ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL BIOLOGY OF THE "WEB OF LIFE" SCIENCE, AND THEIR OWN E.S.A. "ENDANGERED
SPECIES ACT" THAT THEY CREATED TO KEEP ANY SPECIES FROM BEING ERADICATED.
ALLOWING A DOMINO AFFECT THAT ENDANGERS MANY SPECIES AND ALL LIFE.
*WHO "On December 10th 2009 the United States House of Representatives passed the Omnibus
Spending Appropriations Bill of 2010. The bill contains language that authorizes Washington D.C. to
implement it's medical marijuana program Initiative 59. Thus congress legislated accepted medical
use for cannabis. The United States Senate passed the same bill on December 13th 2009. With the
stroke of a pen on December 16th President Barack Obama signed into United States Law
accepted "use" for medical cannabis."
http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform-hiv-aids-religion-belief-reproductive-freedom/president-signs-
omnibus-bill-including
WHO'S VA {A FEDERAL OFFICE} THEN APPROVED IT'S MEDICAL "USE" FOR OUR VETERAN'S
{BUT ONLY TO THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD TO LIVE IN STATES WITH CURRENT LAWS ?}
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2010/July/25/medical-marijuana-for-vets.aspx
*AS THEY ALL CONTINUE TO TALK OUT BOTH SIDES OF THEIR A$$E$
*WHILE THEY PLOT TO DESTROY AND "USE" IT ONCE AGAIN FOR THEIR PROFIT ! A HOLY
SACRED PLANT THAT WAS TO BE GIVEN AND RECEIVED FREELY
GEN. 1: 11-12 ~ "HERB YIELDING SEED","WHO'S SEED WAS IN ITSELF"
GEN. 1: 29 ~ "TO YOU IT SHALL BE FOR MEAT"
PS. 104: 14 ~ "FOR THE SERVICE OF MAN"
EXODUS 30: 22-30 ~ "fragrant cane" FROM THE HEBREW TORAH = "KANEH BOSEM" = CANNABIS
~ "FOR THE ANOINTING OF PRIEST AND HEALING"
HIGHLY REGARDED AND REVERED AS THE "TREE OF LIFE"
REV. 22:2 ~ "FOR THE HEALING OF THE NATIONS"
REV. 1-8 ~ "I AM THE APHA AND OMEGA"
A PLANT WHO'S SEED IS PROVEN TO CONTAINS THE HIGHEST PROTEIN AND ALL OF THE
ALPHA AND OMEGAS.
THAT FROM THE BEGINNING WAS GIVEN AS MEAT. AS WELL AS FOR THE HEALING AND
SERVICE OF MAN. THAT IF IT WAS FARMED COULD EASILY FEED THE WORLD BOTH BREAD
AND MILK.
WONDER IF IT HAD NOT BEEN REMOVED FROM OUR GARDENS AND OUR TABLES. IF SO MANY
WOULD BE IN NEED IT'S MEDICINE TODAY ? PROVEN TO HEAL, RESTORE CELLS AND FIGHT
DISEASE.
CONSIDERING THAT THE MAJORITY OF DISEASE AND ILLNESSES ARE CAUSED BY
MALNUTRITION, POOR NUTRITION AND/OR A LACK OF CLEAN GROUND WATER = DRINKING
WATER.
A PLANT THAT IS PROVEN SAFER THAN ASPIRIN AND OUR DRINKING WATER. WHICH IS ALSO
PROVEN TO HEAL ADDICTION.
WHICH IS PROVEN AND KNOWN TO RESTORE OUR TOXIC SOIL, GROUND WATER AND AIR AS
IT GROWS. RESTORING THE EARTH NATURALLY.
PROVEN TO PROVIDE A CLEAN ENERGY ALTERNATIVE TO OIL, COAL, GASOLINE, FUEL...
CREATING A CLOSED CARBON CYCLE WHILE IT BURNS. RESTORING OUR OZONE.
A PLANT THAT ALSO PROVIDES CLOTHING, SHELTER, INK, PLASTIC, RUBBER, CEMENT,...
AS WELL AS PROVIDING SPIRITUAL HEALING AND GOD'S ANOINTING.
THERE WILL COME A TIME WHEN AMERICA AS A COUNTRY AND ENTIRE OUR GLOBE WILL
HAVE TO FIND A NEW WAY TO EMPLOY AND SUSTAIN IT'S SELF. OTHER THAN THROUGH WAR,
CAPITALISM = ADDICTION = CONSUMERISM, SLAVERY, DEATH, AND THE CONSUMPTION OF
OUR CHILDREN AND THE EARTH'S RESOURCES.
JUST SAY NO !
TO GMO HEMP
JUST SAY NO !
TO PROP 19 IT IS A LIE.
IN THE END, IT WILL NOT KEEP YOU FROM BEING FINED, FROM ENDING UP IN COURT OR
GOING TO JAIL. IT DOES NOT PROMISE THOSE WHO NEED THE MEDICINE WILL RECEIVE IT OR
WILL BE ABLE TO AFFORD IT. IT ONLY GIVES THEM MORE CONTROL.
IF YOU MUST PASS A BILL AND JUST SAY NOW...
SUPPORT BRUCE CAIN AND M.E.R.P. NOW ! TODAY !
http://www.newagecitizen.com/MERP.htm
JUST SAY NO !
TO BIG GOVERNMENT, SOCIAL SECURITY & U.S. CITIZENSHIP. IT'S A LIE. {LIKE OUR FEDERAL
RESERVE} ASK HOW MANY ON IT ARE SOCIALLY SECURE IN THEIR PRESENT NEEDS. IT ONLY
STEALS YOUR LIFE & SOVEREIGNTY = NATURAL BORN FREEDOMS AND RIGHTS. MAKING YOU
A PRODUCT OF THE STOCK MARKET OWNED BY THE GOVERNMENT & WORLD BANK. A SLAVE
TO REPAY OUR NATIONAL DEBTS.
SEE THE EVIDENCE HERE
http://www.designingyourworld.com/Redemption
CALL OUT FOR COMPLETE GOVERNMENT REFORM NOW !
JUST SAY NO !
TO THE U.N. WHICH AT THIS POINT IS THE N.W.O. WHICH = OLD WORLD ORDER {LOOK AT THE
OLD TESTAMENT AND THE STORY OF ISRAEL}
SINCERELY,
MUCH PEACE & LOVE...
REV. MARY
I SHOULD HAVE ADDED IF CALI WANTS PERSONAL USE THEY SHOULD SUPPORT AND HONOR
JACK HERER'S WISHES & INITIATIVE
http://www.jackherer.com/initiative.html
BUT IT TOO WOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN DELETED.
AT SOME POINT YOU HAVE TO ASK YOURSELF. WHY I AM CONTINUOUSLY CENSORED BY ALL
THOSE MAJOR ORGANIZATIONS, GROUPS, FORUMS, RAGS,... WHO CLAIM TO BE IN THIS SO-
CALLED TRUTH ABOUT CANNABIS MOVEMENT. INCLUDING MAIN STREAM NEWS,...???
DOES DELETING OR BLOCKING THE TRUTH REALLY CHANGE IT OR MAKE IT GO AWAY ?
THERE ARE OTHERS WHO SEE PAST THE SMOKE SCREEN
A NOTE FROM BRUCE CAIN THE AUTHOR OF M.E.R.P.
I am forming a group that is out to oppose Prop19 and push forward with MERP and CCHH. The
story done on ASA was just great as it exposes the sort of crap that has been going on for decades
now. This group already has at least two very smart attorneys and possible one ex-Judge. Send me
your email so I can send you an invitation to join this group.
Bruce Cain
www.newagecitizen.com/NoOnProp19.htm
A COMMENT BY GATEWOOD GALBRAITH CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR IN KY. OPPOSING PROP. 19
Gatewood said...
I am an out-of-state observer who may have a hand in writing the future marijuana laws of Kentucky.
I immediately felt great hope when I first heard about the "legalization" forthcoming in Nov. in
California but when I heard that my good friends Jack Herer and Dennis Peron opposed its
passage, I was greatly intrigued. Now I thoroughly understand their positions. Thanks for your
exhaustive effort. I can sympathize with having such a burden lifted. Gatewood Galbraith
July 15, 2010 7:06 AM
IN RESPONSE TO, "WHY PRO-POT ACTIVISTS OPPOSE PROP. 19: 19 REASONS TO VOTE KNOW"
http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-pro-pot-activists-oppose-2010-tax.html
WHY PRO-POT ACTIVISTS OPPOSE PROP. 19: 19 REASONS TO VOTE KNOW
“People think it’s legalization, it’s being sold as legalization—even though it’s the opposite of
legalization.” - Dennis Peron, author of Prop. 215 that legalized medical marijuana in California
Dragonfly De La Luz
When most marijuana activists, growers and consumers first heard about an initiative that would
legalize cannabis in California, they thought it was a pipe dream come true. To many, legalization
implied that it would no longer be a crime to possess, consume or distribute marijuana. Cannabis
consumers rejoiced at the idea of being able to buy from their neighbors or at parties—just as they
already do—with no legal retribution. Small-time growers envisioned being free to sell their product
to those who sought them out, with no legal repercussions. Marijuana activists thought it meant that
people would stop getting arrested for pot, and that the drug war would finally be over. But now that
the initiative is headed to ballot, many pro-legalization supporters are coming out against it. Why?
Simply put, the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative does not reflect most people’s ideas of
what legalization would be. The media often incorrectly reports that this initiative calls for “full
legalization” of marijuana. It does not. In fact, it reverses many of the freedoms marijuana
consumers currently enjoy, pushes growers out of the commercial market, paves the way for the
corporatization of cannabis, and creates new prohibitions where there are none now. Apparently, to
be pro-legalization and pro-initiative are two different things entirely.
The late-Jack Herer, legendary marijuana activist known as the father of the legalization movement,
vehemently opposed the initiative. In the last words of his impassioned final speech, moments
before the heart attack that would eventually claim his life, he urged people not to support it.[1]
Proposition 215 author, Dennis Peron, likewise denounced the initiative, saying it is not legalization,
but “thinly-veiled prohibition.”[2]
Compared to the present status of cannabis in California, many marijuana activists see this initiative
as a giant leap backward. Ironically, it appears that marijuana is more “legal” in California today than
it would be if this initiative were to pass.
The initiative itself is a hazy maze of regulations and controls, some of which are ambiguous and
confusing even for those well-versed in marijuana law. Understandably, many who have entered the
discussion seem to have bypassed the initiative altogether and gone straight to their own
assumptions of what an initiative that claims to legalize marijuana might entail, injecting the debate
with as many misconceptions as facts. But for an issue that would have such a direct and
unprecedented impact on our daily lives, it’s crucial to decide your vote based on knowledge, rather
than assumption.
To clarify a few of the most glaring myths about the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative, I
have compiled this guide to help you VOTE KNOW!
Myth #1: The initiative will end the War on Drugs and substantially reduce marijuana arrests, saving
millions in prison costs.
Fact: Hardly. The federal drug war will continue to drone on, of course, and growing or possessing
any amount of marijuana would still be illegal under federal law. Anyone growing or possessing
cannabis without a doctor’s recommendation would still be subject to arrest and seizure by the
federal police—although on the bright side, the Obama administration recently announced it will no
longer raid individuals who are operating in compliance with medical marijuana law.[3]
Contrary to popular assumption, the drug war in California will not end, nor will it be impacted much
by the initiative. This is because the initiative doesn’t call for full legalization; it proposes to legalize
possession of only up to one ounce. And in California, there is no “drug war” being fought against
possession of up to one ounce, because marijuana is already decriminalized.
The penalty for carrying an ounce is a mere citation and maximum $100 fine.[4] Moreover,
possession of one ounce is on its way to being downgraded from a misdemeanor to an infraction,
because the state Senate voted in June to reclassify its status. [5] No one goes to jail for having an
ounce or less in California, and no one gets arrested, because it is not an arrestable offense.
One often-quoted statistic in the initiative debate is that misdemeanor marijuana possession
arrests reached 61,388 in 2008.[6] However, it is important to note that this statistic does not refer to
any arrest demographic that the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative would affect. This
statistic refers only to possession of more than one ounce, possession by minors and possession
on school grounds—offenses which the initiative will not legalize. It does not refer to nor does it
include marijuana arrests for possession of one ounce or less, because this is not an arrestable
offense. Therefore, the initiative would have no impact on reducing these arrests rates.
Statistically, the demographic that accounts for nearly one-quarter of total arrests for marijuana
possession in California happens to be those in the 18-20 age group. But because the initiative
explicitly makes it illegal for even adults age 18-20 to possess marijuana, these arrests will not
decrease, and the drug war against young adults will rage on.
Furthermore, since the initiative would keep possession of amounts greater than one ounce illegal
and likewise maintain the illegality of private sales of any amount, the overall impact that the initiative
would have on ending the drug war, reducing arrest rates and saving on prison costs would be
negligible, at best.
As an example of how highly misunderstood this initiative and its potential impact on the drug war is,
the California NAACP recently pledged their support for the initiative based on the belief that it will put
an end to the disproportionately high number of African-American youth going to jail “over a joint.” [7]
But in reality, the initiative will have no impact on this phenomenon whatsoever. As it is now, the
State of California does not jail people for having a joint; it is not an arrestable offense. And, as
mentioned above, possession of up to one ounce is on its way to being reclassified from a
misdemeanor to an infraction—which carries no criminal-record stigma. The state does, however,
incarcerate people for selling small amounts of marijuana. And since this initiative keeps private
marijuana sales illegal, no matter the quantity, there will be no decrease in the number of African
Americans—or anyone else—arrested for selling a joint.
Not only does the initiative do little or nothing to end the drug war, but ironically, it could in fact
expand the drug war, because it imposes new prohibitions against marijuana that do not exist
currently.
Contrary to the belief that it will keep people out of jail for marijuana, this initiative actually creates
new demographics of people to incarcerate. (See Fact #2 and Fact #3) It is difficult to see how the
government would save on court and imprisonment costs if the initiative merely shifts arrests from
one demographic to another.
Myth #2: The initiative will keep young adults out of jail for using marijuana.
Fact: This initiative would put more young people in jail for pot. If it becomes law, any adult 21 or over
who passes a joint to another adult aged 18-20 would face six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. [8]
(NORML's Web site reports that the current penalty for a gift of marijuana of 1 oz. or less is a $100
fine.[9])
Myth #3: You'll be able to light up freely in the privacy of your home.
Fact: That depends. Under the initiative, even adults consuming marijuana in the privacy of their
homes could face arrest if there are minors present (not something one would expect from an
initiative that claims to treat marijuana like alcohol and tobacco)[10]. Current marijuana law contains
no such restrictions. Thanks to Prop. 215, which legalized marijuana for medicinal use, cannabis
consumers have been legally free to smoke in the privacy of their homes since 1997. This initiative
seeks to undermine that freedom, making it absolutely illegal to smoke marijuana if there are
minors present. (The initiative is ambiguous with regard to whether “present” means being in the
same room as the consumer, the same house, the same apartment building, or within wafting
distance—apparently leaving this up to the interpretation of judges.) There is no exception for
medical marijuana patients or for parents consuming in the presence of their own children.
Myth #4: Under the initiative, anyone 21 or over will be allowed to grow marijuana in a 5’x5’ space.
Fact: Not quite. This allotment is per property, not per person. If you share a residence with other
people, you’ll be sharing a 5’x5’ grow space, as well. Even if you own multiple acres that many
people live on, if it is considered one parcel, the space restriction of 5’x5’ (3-6 plants) will still apply.
[11] Plus, if you rent, you will be required to obtain permission from your landlord—which they may
be unwilling to grant since doing so will subject them to forfeiture by the federal government.
Myth #5: Adults 21 and over will be able to possess up to one ounce of marijuana without penalty.
Fact: Perhaps the most ironic piece of the puzzle is that the initiative to legalize marijuana actually
makes it illegal to possess marijuana if it was purchased anywhere other than the very few licensed
dispensaries in the state.[12] So if this initiative passes, better not get caught carrying marijuana you
bought off your neighbor, your current dealer, or at a party; you could get arrested. And if you do buy
from a licensed dispensary, better keep your receipts, because the burden of proof will be on you.
Not only is this inconvenient, but it sets the industry up to be monopolized.
What’s more, if your city decides not to tax cannabis, then buying and selling marijuana in the city
limits would remain illegal. You would be permitted to possess and consume marijuana, but you
would be required to travel to another city that taxes cannabis to buy it.[13] This is a move towards
decreased, not increased, access. And since the initiative is so ambiguous that cities are destined
to be tied up in a legal quagmire over how to interpret it, many local governments might find it
simpler just to opt-out and send its citizens elsewhere. Indeed, 129 cities did just that with medical
marijuana, banning it outright, while still others have established moratoriums against
dispensaries. In fact, of the entire state, only the city of Oakland has endorsed the initiative. A vote for
the initiative will therefore not ensure local access to purchase marijuana legally.
Myth #6: The initiative will free up cops to focus on bigger crimes.
Fact: Decriminalization has already achieved this. The California Police Chiefs Association publicly
admits that they do not waste their time on cases involving an ounce or less.[14] Moreover, many
cities have already passed measures that require law enforcement to make marijuana possession
their lowest priority.
What the initiative would do is create new prohibitions where there were none before, obligating
police officers to spend valuable time enforcing them. The cases cops presently de-prioritize are
minor offenses, like simple possession. But the initiative takes minor offenses and reclassifies
them as more serious crimes (e.g., passing a joint to an adult 18-20). Law enforcement’s time is
freed up by the elimination of prohibition, not by exchanging old prohibitions for new ones.
Myth #7: Marijuana tax revenue will go toward education and health care.
Fact: As it is now, state budget cuts have resulted in the closing of state parks, and health care for
impoverished children has been revoked, not to mention thousands of government lay-offs. But
marijuana taxes will not be earmarked for health care, public education, the re-opening of state
parks, or rehiring of laid-off government employees. Instead, the initiative specifically states that any
marijuana tax revenue can be used toward enforcing the new prohibitions that the initiative enacts.
[15] In this regard, not only does the initiative not end the drug war, it apparently taxes the drug to
fund the drug war.
Myth #8: Marijuana growers will be able to sell cannabis legally.
Fact: Currently, marijuana growers in California who have a medical recommendation can and do
grow and provide marijuana legally. Entire economies in Northern California exist on this industry.
However, the initiative would make it illegal for anyone to sell marijuana, unless they own a licensed
dispensary.[16] (See Fact #9)
Many have suggested that growers could open marijuana-tasting venues, similar to wine-tasting at
vineyards. A grower might have a chance of opening such a place, but only if he gave his product
away for free, because selling it would be illegal unless he successfully navigated the notoriously
difficult and prohibitively expensive process of obtaining licensure.
Myth #9: Anyone can obtain a license to legally sell cannabis and compete in the market.
Fact: Few people will be able to compete in the multibillion-dollar marijuana market if the initiative
passes. This is because the licensing process, engineered in Oakland, is exceptionally restrictive.
Of the more than a thousand dispensaries operating in California until a recent L.A. crackdown, only
a handful were licensed. (Conveniently, Richard Lee, the millionaire behind the initiative, owns one
of them). In Oakland, the city that’s setting the precedent in the tax cannabis push, a license costs
$30,000. Per year. Not to mention the rigorous application process, in which even well-established,
law-abiding dispensaries have been denied.
Furthermore, Oakland has started a trend of capping the number of licensed dispensaries allowed
to operate (in Oakland, that number is four). This all but guarantees that the average, small-time
marijuana grower will be shut out of this multibillion-dollar industry, concentrating the profits of the
potential economic boon in the hands of a small minority of wealthy entrepreneurs who are already
making moves to monopolize the industry. Under this initiative, the marijuana industry will not be a
free market in which everyone has a chance to compete. Instead, the initiative could mark the
beginning of the corporatization of marijuana. (See also Fact #15)
Myth #10: Medical marijuana patients would be exempt from the initiative.
Fact: This is not exactly true. While amendments were made ostensibly to prevent the initiative from
affecting current medical marijuana law, a careful reading of the initiative reveals that this is not, in
fact, the case. Certain medical marijuana laws are exempt from the prohibitions the initiative would
enact, while others are glaringly absent.
Cultivation is one such law that is noticeably non-exempt.[17] In spite of the fact that the tax cannabis
Web site says otherwise, the only medical marijuana exemptions that the Regulate, Control and Tax
Cannabis Initiative actually makes are with regard to possession, consumption and purchase limits,
which only ensure that patients would still be allowed to buy medicine at dispensaries. The word
“cultivate” is conspicuously absent. Whereas today a person with a doctor’s recommendation has
the right to grow up to an unlimited number of plants, the initiative would drastically reduce that
number to whatever can fit in a 5’x5’ footprint (around 3-6 plants—per property, not per person). This
will force many patients to resort to buying instead of growing their own medicine, because of the
inconvenience caused by producing multiple grows a year rather than growing a year’s supply of
medicine at one time, as many patients currently do outdoors. And growing indoors—which typically
requires special grow lights, an increase in hydro use, and a lot of time and attention—is a
comparatively expensive endeavor.
The initiative would further impact medical marijuana patients by banning medicating in the privacy
of their own homes if there are minors present, as well as in public (currently perfectly legal[18])—an
invaluable liberty to those with painful diseases who would otherwise have to suffer until they got
home to relieve their pain.
Finally, the medical marijuana laws that are exempted from this initiative apparently only apply to
cities. For medical marijuana patients who live in an area that has county or local government
jurisdiction, according to a strict reading of the initiative, medical marijuana laws are not exempt.[19]
Myth #11: Marijuana smokers will be free to smoke cannabis wherever cigarette smoking is allowed.
Fact: Actually, that's the way it is now in California. There is no law prohibiting medical marijuana
from being smoked wherever cigarette smoking is permitted.[20] Young adults taking bong hits in
Golden Gate Park on a Sunday afternoon is just part of the San Francisco scenery. However, if this
initiative passes, that freedom would disappear and we could see cops policing smoking areas to
enforce this law.[21]
Myth #12: Currently imprisoned non-violent marijuana offenders would be released.
Fact: The initiative makes no call to release prisoners who are behind bars for any marijuana
offense, no matter how minor. In fact, because it introduces new prohibitions where none exist now,
the initiative could potentially be responsible for locking even more people up for marijuana.
Myth #13: Counties in which marijuana cultivation currently thrives will experience increased
economic growth.
Fact: Entire economies could collapse in counties that currently rely on cultivating marijuana. Right
now, the multibillion-dollar marijuana industry is legally subsidizing thousands of incomes in areas
where unemployment is skyrocketing. For example, Mendocino County, the biggest pot-producing
county in the U.S., reports that a full two-thirds of its economy is dependent on marijuana.[22] Much
of this is due to current state medical marijuana laws, which allow people to legally cultivate plants
and provide them to marijuana pharmacies. But this economy supports more than just farmers.
Many local store owners report that without marijuana farmers patronizing their businesses with
cash, they would go out of business. Moreover, legitimate medical marijuana growers employ tens
of thousands of seasonal workers, mostly young adults, who have managed to eke out a living in a
region where none other exists, and who otherwise would have few local options to support
themselves. The more humble among them are able to make a living that sustains them modestly
throughout much of the year. Thousands more are able to subsidize low-paying jobs, make up for
shortages in their college funding, and start creative projects such as fashion design, music
production, or art. But because the initiative would limit the number of plants one could grow from up
to an unlimited amount to about six, thousands of small-time medical marijuana farmers and the
young adults they employ would face economic displacement and hardship, or join the ranks of the
unemployed. (For more on this, see Fact #15.)
Myth #14: The initiative will create an employment boon similar to California’s wine industry.
Fact: Comparisons with the wine industry are no true basis for determining the potential revenue
recreational marijuana could create, because the wine industry does not operate under the same
restrictions the marijuana industry would face. Namely, there’s no cap on how many wineries can
operate in California, or how many grapes each vineyard can grow. There are currently almost 3,000
vineyards in the state, whereas since the April crackdown in L.A., there are fewer than 300
dispensaries (of which only a few are licensed). Moreover, if cities continue to follow the trend set by
Oakland and cap the number of licensed dispensaries allowed to operate, then the thousands of
people currently legally employed by dispensaries would dwindle drastically.
Myth #15: The initiative will limit the viability of Mexican drug cartels.
Fact: Mexican drug cartels are already being undermined tremendously thanks to the legions of
small-time farmers growing in California. The Washington Post reported on October 7, 2009:
“Almost all of the marijuana consumed in the multibillion-dollar U.S. market once came from Mexico
or Colombia. Now as much as half is produced domestically, often by small-scale operators who
painstakingly tend greenhouses and indoor gardens to produce the more potent… product that
consumers now demand, according to authorities and marijuana dealers on both sides of the
border. … Stiff competition from thousands of mom-and-pop marijuana farmers in the United States
threatens the bottom line for powerful Mexican drug organizations in a way that decades of arrests
and seizures have not, according to law enforcement officials and pot growers in the United States
and Mexico.”[23]
These mom-and-pop growers don’t fit the stereotype of the gang-war era drug pusher or Mexican
drug cartel growing marijuana irresponsibly and setting forests on fire. Many of them are law-abiding
citizens, legally growing medical marijuana under Prop. 215. They’re the people you see at your
local organic health food store, or shopping in the community, putting much-needed cash directly
into the local economy while the national economy flounders in recession. These small-time
marijuana farmers use the money they earn from providing medicine to finance their kids’ education,
help out their laid-off parents and put themselves through school. In some cases, entire
communities depend on them.
However, if this initiative passes, these growers that are single-handedly undercutting the Mexican
drug cartels would no longer be able to legally operate and the face of the marijuana industry could
change from the local one we recognize to an impersonal corporate entity, leaving a spate of
displaced marijuana farmers in its wake.
One corporation that is poised to take the place of the mom-and-pop growers is AgraMed. While
Oakland’s city council prepares to consider a proposal in July to license four commercial indoor
marijuana farms in the city, AgraMed has plans to build a 100,000-sq.-ft. marijuana mega-farm near
Oakland International Airport that, “according to projections, could generate 58 pounds of pot a day
and $59 million a year in revenue.” The company’s president, Jeff Wilcox—a member of the steering
committee of the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative—reportedly hopes to “bring a degree
of corporate structure to the marijuana industry.”[24]
The language that backers of the initiative use itself is cause for concern among pro-marijuana
supporters. Instead of speaking out against the injustice of jailing people over a plant that is widely
known not only to be harmless, but beneficial, these multimillionaire supporters of the initiative
speak only of their intentions to corporatize marijuana. The owner of one leading marijuana
dispensary—that already earns well over $20 million a year—was quoted in the New York Times as
having aspirations to become the “McDonald’s of marijuana.”[25] The proprietors of Oakland’s new i-
Grow hydroponics store want it to be known as the “Wal-Mart” of grow stores.[26] Meanwhile,
Marijuana, Inc., a multimillion-dollar corporation, has plans to build cannabis resorts in the Northern
California counties that currently survive off the medical marijuana industry.[27] They intend to create
golf resorts with acres of marijuana gardens featuring hundreds of strains. (Apparently, under this
initiative, corporations would be permitted to grow quite large quantities of cannabis, while
cultivation would be restricted to 5’ x 5’ plots for everyone else.)
The accusations that medical marijuana growers oppose the initiative out of greed are clearly
grossly unfounded. It is obvious who has intentions of increasing their bottom line. Small-time
marijuana farmers simply want to continue making a humble living off the land. They are the ones
who built the marijuana industry, but this initiative seeks to allow corporations to take their hard work
and turn it into profits for themselves, locking farmers out of the industry entirely.
We have seen this trend before in the United States. Our history is replete with small farmers being
taken over by huge corporations. Hundreds of thousands of mom-and-pop businesses have been
forced out of business by conglomerates like Wal-Mart, Starbucks, and Monsanto, which those who
benefit from such takeovers have justified by calling it “progress.” But is it? And is this the sort of
“progress” we want to see take over the marijuana industry? Is this the world Peter Tosh had in
mind when he implored us to “legalize it?”
Marijuana may well be the final bastion of farmer-owned, worker-owned, business autonomy in this
country. Will we allow it, too, to go the way of nearly every other homegrown industry in the history of
the United States? We all hope for legalization. But must we have such a drastic, Faustian trade-off
for this freedom? And is it really freedom if we must lose our autonomy to gain it?
One farmer’s response to the news of Marijuana Inc.’s resort aspirations poignantly sums up the
pending reality should the initiative pass:
“Marijuana, Inc., has big plans to invade the Emerald Triangle and surrounding counties to really
capitalize on marijuana tourism. Maybe that sounds like fun to people that aren’t from around here,
but it is really going to take away a lot of opportunity from the locals who make this place what it is. I
feel that the people here who created this industry are going to be left in the dust for the most part…
There is just too much money at stake and that is what these guys are all about. This is the
equivalent of the giant hotels popping up on the Hawaiian Islands and the locals being told, ‘You
can still work at the resort. We’ll need maids and groundskeepers who’ll work for minimum wage...’”
[28]
What is currently a small-time, largely organic industry—on which entire economies survive, and
without which entire economies would collapse—could soon become dominated by corporations if
this initiative passes. The days of “knowing your dealer” and what goes into your pot could soon be
over, and marijuana, a sacrament to many, could become corporatized. Are corporations inherently
evil? No. But if we have the option to keep millions of dollars in our own communities, spread out
over hundreds of thousands of people, it hardly seems sensible to outsource this employment to
corporations and into the hands of a few.
Is it possible to have marijuana legalization without legalizing corporate takeover of the industry?
Absolutely. Will those who are passionate about marijuana live to regret voting in an initiative that
treats marijuana as a publicly-traded commodity and turns it into something as abhorrent as Wal-
Mart and McDonald’s? Absolutely. Do we have to settle for this? Absolutely not.
Myth #16: The price of marijuana will drop.
Fact: The value of marijuana might decrease if it becomes more commercially available and more
people grow their own, but the price of a product depends less on its value and more on the degree
of competition that exists with regard to selling it. Since your options for purchasing marijuana would
be among only a handful of licensed dispensaries in the state, there is no guarantee of a decrease
in price. Less competition means higher prices.
Indeed, by AgraMed’s own estimation, in order to make $59 million a year off 58 pounds per day,
they would have to charge $175 per ounce wholesale (roughly $2,800 per pound)—and that’s if they
produced 58 pounds 365 days a year. If they managed to produce that output only 5 days a week,
that price would leap to $245 an ounce (about $3900 per pound). With shelf-prices at dispensaries
often set at double the wholesale purchase price—not to mention the compulsory tax added onto
every ounce (which Richard Lee stated in an interview was "recommended" to be $50)—the price of
marijuana could potentially be higher than it is in our current market, in which the price of a pound
has already fallen to $2,000, according to a recent National Public Radio report; a direct result of
healthy competition, not its opposite.[29]
Myth #17: We can vote in the initiative and fix the tangles as they come up.
Fact: Initiatives create permanent statutes. Once an initiative is voted into law, it cannot be reversed.
It remains law forever. It is worth noting that this initiative makes some unusual provisions with
regard to amendments. For starters, it allows the legislature (traditionally hostile toward marijuana
legislation) to amend the initiative without voter approval. Furthermore, it allows amendments, but
“only to further the purposes of the Act.”[30] Under a monopolized, corporate-controlled distribution
process, the “purposes” might become more narrowly defined.
Many of the issues that pro-legalization supporters have with the initiative could be easily rectifiable
with a few sentences and an amendment-submission to the Attorney General’s office. It would have
required very little on the part of the initiative authors to remove the vagueness from the wording that
bans smoking cannabis in any “space” where minors are “present,” for example, or to add an
exemption for medical marijuana patients and parents consuming in the presence of their own
children. It would have required very little to write into the initiative a line that would exempt medical
marijuana patients from the public smoking ban and protect their right to grow medicine in amounts
sufficient for their individual needs. After all, these are items which should not be considered
luxuries under legalized marijuana; they should be rights. And we should settle for nothing less.
Unfortunately, the deadline to make changes to the initiative before the November elections has
already passed, and to achieve these changes via subsequent voter referendums would be a
complicated and drawn-out process that could take years. Making the initiative acceptable before
voting it into law is therefore essential.
Myth #18: This is our only chance to take a step in the direction of legalization.
Fact: This is only our first chance—and it is NOT our only choice. This November, volunteers for the
California Hemp and Health Initiative (CCHHI)—the initiative Jack Herer supported so much he lent
his legendary name to it—will be collecting signatures to be placed on the CCHHI on the ballot in
2012. Some highlights of this alternative to Prop. 19 include:
--The freedom to grow up to 99 plants—per adult, 21 years of age and older (not per residence as
under Prop. 19)—for personal use.
--Cannabis taxes shall not exceed $10.00 per ounce.
--The freedom to distribute cannabis among adults without a license. (Prop. 19 forbids distributing
cannabis except for those who manage to obtain a prohibitively expensive license.)
--The cost of a commercial license shall not exceed $1,000. (The cost for a commercial cannabis
vending license in Oakland is $60,000 per year. A commercial grow license is a whopping $211,000
per year.)
--No cannabis tax revenue will be allowed to assist law enforcement. (Prop. 19 specifically allows for
marijuana tax revenue to fund law enforcement.)
For those who have doubts about supporting Prop. 19 or the motives behind it, CCHHI is a viable
alternative. (For more on CCHHI, visit http://www.jackherer.com/initiative and http://youthfederation.
com/cchhi2012.html).
Myth #19: We can vote in Prop. 19, then vote in a better initiative later.
Likelihood: Although 2012 will offer us a brilliant alternative with the CCHHI/Jack Herer Initiative, the
more likely scenario is that by that time, big cannabis corporations will have all the money, power,
and influence they need to thwart any challenge to their monopoly. What do you suppose are the
chances of voting in an initiative like CCHHI--that emphasizes personal freedom over corporations
and seeks to fully legalize possession, cultivation, and distribution of marijuana--after the cannabis
corporations just spent two years multiplying their millions legally under the monopoly Prop. 19
creates, keeping everyone else out of the market, and making it illegal for you to buy your weed from
anyone but them? There IS no chance. For this reason, WE CANNOT VOTE FOR PROP. 19 NOW
AND THEN VOTE FOR CCHHI IN 2012 TO REPLACE IT. Because if Prop. 19 gets voted in, then
once it's in, big cannabis corporations will make sure it stays in, and that it continues to serve them
and not the people.
This is not our only chance to vote yes to legalization, but it may be our only chance to vote no to the
corporatization of cannabis.
What now?
The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative is not the only path to legalization. We have come
so far, and are now so close—it is imperative that we let the next step be the right one. Legalized
marijuana is within reach, yet the movement could be set back with such a problematic initiative at
the helm. Instead of rushing to pass a measure that prohibits marijuana under the guise of
legalization, we can choose an initiative that calls for true legalization and that has the full support of
marijuana law reform organizations and leaders of the movement.
The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative is rife with ambiguity, expands the War on Drugs,
undermines the medical marijuana movement, arrests more people for marijuana, offers no
protection for small farmers and insufficient protection for medical marijuana users, has a high
potential for monopolization, provides no regulations to prevent corporate takeover of the industry,
cartelizes the economy, and divides our community into poor, unlicensed, mom-and-pop gardener
versus rich, licensed, corporate farmer. And since the one thing that’s clear about the initiative is that
it’s vague, it could very easily prove to be a Pandora’s box of unintended consequences. Beyond its
vagueness, which itself is problematic, these side effects are inherently socially dangerous. The
impact that such a failed legalization initiative could have on the movement nation-wide could be
disastrous.
This is not a question of whether to legalize or not to legalize. Legalization is the goal and it is
inevitable. The question is whether we want to rush in and settle for an initiative that is so poorly-
worded as to be ambiguous, and so vague as to be open to vast interpretation from judges—or
choose a better option, like the Jack Herer Initiative, in 2012. If we hold out for a perfect initiative we
will wait forever. But if we at least hold out for an initiative that is direct, unambiguous, well-defined
and clearly written, we will have an unprecedented opportunity to inspire the world to join the
movement to legalize marijuana.
Many pro-legalization activists are rallying behind the idea of taking the time to choose an initiative
that will be a clear step up from the current cannabis situation of in California and will result in
increased access—not its opposite. Both NORML and the MPP, the foremost cannabis law reform
organizations in the country, have suggested we wait and make another attempt at legalization
during the 2012 elections. Dale Gieringer, Director of California’s NORML, said, “I do think it’s going
to take a few more years for us to develop a proposal that voters will be comfortable with.”[32]
Likewise, Bruce Mirken, MPP’s Director of Communications, was quoted as saying, “In our opinion,
we should wait and build our forces and aim at 2012.”[33]
Ultimately, the decision is not up to any organization; it’s up to YOU. How will you vote? Read the
initiative for yourself and just VOTE KNOW!
“I hope people find the hope and inspiration to broadcast this, understand (the initiative), read it, and
know that it's a step backwards. And we can do better. We will do better.” - Dennis Peron
Sidebar: What it Actually Says
About possessing marijuana bought somewhere other than a licensed outlet:
Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls: (g) prohibit and
punish through civil fines or other remedies the possession, sale, possession for sale, cultivation,
processing, or transportation of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully from a person pursuant to
this section or section 11300; [Section 11300: (i) possession for sale regardless of amount, except
by a person who is licensed or permitted to do so under the terms of an ordinance adopted
pursuant to section 11301.]
About the punishment for giving marijuana to adults age 18-20:
Section 4: Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors: (c) Every person 21 years of age or over
who knowingly furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer or give, any
marijuana to a person aged 18 years or older, but younger than 21 years of age, shall be punished
by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of up to six months and be fined up to $1,000 for each
offense.
About smoking in the presence of minors:
Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls: (c) “Personal
consumption” shall not include, and nothing in this Act shall permit: (iv) smoking cannabis in any
space while minors are present.
About using marijuana tax revenue to fund law enforcement against pot prohibition:
Section 11302: Imposition and Collection of Taxes and Fees (a) Any ordinance, regulation or other
act adopted pursuant to section 11301 may include imposition of appropriate general, special or
excise, transfer or transaction taxes, benefit assessments, or fees, on any activity authorized
pursuant to such enactment, in order to permit the local government to raise revenue, or to recoup
any direct or indirect costs associated with the authorized activity, or the permitting or licensing
scheme, including without limitation: administration; applications and issuance of licenses or
permits; inspection of licensed premises and other enforcement of ordinances adopted under
section 11301, including enforcement against unauthorized activities.
About medical marijuana exemptions:
B: Purposes, 7: Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying
and selling cannabis within that city’s limits remain illegal, but that the city’s citizens still have the
right to possess and consume small amounts except as permitted under Health and Safety
Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9. (Note: The word “cultivate” is conspicuously absent
here as well as in the exempted Health and Safety Sections that pertain to medical marijuana laws.)
About leaving medical marijuana cultivation law in the hands of local government:
Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls: Notwithstanding any other provision of state
or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of
law to control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following: (a)
cultivation, processing, distribution, the safe and secure transportation, sale and possession for
sale of cannabis, but only by persons and in amounts lawfully authorized. (Note: This section
provides no exemptions for medical marijuana law.)
About the right to cultivate:
Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls: (ii) Cultivate, on
private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property
owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more
than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel.
____________
[1] Bruce Cain. “War Breaks out Within the Marijuana Legalization Movement (Part 1),” Examiner.
Sept. 26, 2009
[2] J. Craig Canada. “Proposition 215 author announces boycott of Blue Sky medical marijuana
dispensary,” Examiner. Oct. 15, 2009
[3] Carrie Johnson. “U.S. Eases Stance on Medical Marijuana,” Washington Post. Oct. 20, 2009
[4] National Organization for the Reformation of Marijuana Laws.
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4525
[5] Matt Coker. “State Bill Would Knock Possession of Less Than an Ounce of Marijuana to an
Infraction,“ Orange County Weekly. Jun. 4, 2010
[6] Mike Males, PhD and Daniel Macallair, MPA. “Marijuana Arrests and California’s Drug War: A
Report to the California Legislature,” Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. 2009. Note: This
study also reports the often-quoted statistic of misdemeanor marijuana possession arrests
reaching 61,388 in 2008. However, it is important to note that this statistic does not refer to any
arrest demographic that the Regulate, Control and Tax Initiative would affect. This statistic refers only
to possession of more than one ounce, possession by minors, and possession on school
grounds--offenses which the initiative will not legalize. It does not refer to nor does it include
marijuana arrests for possession of one ounce or less, because possession of one ounce or less
is not an arrestable offense. Therefore, the initiative would have no impact on reducing these arrests
rates.
[7] Brian Braiker. “California: Odd Bedfellows in the Pro-Pot Ballot Initiative,” ABC News. Apr. 5, 2010
[8] Section 4: Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors: (c) Every person 21 years of age or over
who knowingly furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer or give, any
marijuana to a person aged 18 years or older, but younger than 21 years of age, shall be punished
by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of up to six months and be fined up to $1,000 for each
offense.
[9] National Organization for the Reformation of Marijuana Laws. http://norml.org/index.cfm?
Group_ID=4525
[10] Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls: (c) “Personal
consumption” shall not include, and nothing in this Act shall permit: (iv) smoking cannabis in any
space while minors are present.
[11] Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls: (ii) Cultivate, on
private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property
owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more
than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel.
[12] Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls: (g) prohibit
and punish through civil fines or other remedies the possession, sale, possession for sale,
cultivation, processing, or transportation of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully from a person
pursuant to this section or section 11300; [Section 11300: (i) possession for sale regardless of
amount, except by a person who is licensed or permitted to do so under the terms of an ordinance
adopted pursuant to section 11301]
[13] B: Purposes, 7: Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that
buying and selling cannabis within that city’s limits remain illegal, but that the city’s citizens still have
the right to possess and consume small amounts. (Note: The word “cultivate” is conspicuously
absent.)
[14] Brian Braiker. “California: Odd Bedfellows in the Pro-Pot Ballot Initiative,” ABC News. Apr. 5, 2010
[15] Section 11302: Imposition and Collection of Taxes and Fees (a) Any ordinance, regulation or
other act adopted pursuant to section 11301 may include imposition of appropriate general, special
or excise, transfer or transaction taxes, benefit assessments, or fees, on any activity authorized
pursuant to such enactment, in order to permit the local government to raise revenue, or to recoup
any direct or indirect costs associated with the authorized activity, or the permitting or licensing
scheme, including without limitation: administration; applications and issuance of licenses or
permits; inspection of licensed premises and other enforcement of ordinances adopted under
section 11301, including enforcement against unauthorized activities.
[16] Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls: (g) prohibit
and punish through civil fines or other remedies the possession, sale, possession for sale,
cultivation, processing, or transportation of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully from a person
pursuant to this section or section 11300; [(b) retail sale of not more than one ounce per transaction,
in licensed premises, to persons 21 years or older, for personal consumption and not for resale]
[17] Medical marijuana exemptions: B: Purposes, 7: Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and
regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city’s limits remain illegal,
but that the city’s citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts except as
permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9. (Note: The word
“cultivate” is conspicuously absent.)
Although this refers to cities that decide not to tax marijuana, even in cities that do choose to tax, the
initiative explicitly supersedes medical marijuana law and gives local government control over how
much patients can cultivate, as seen in Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls:
Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances,
regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise
authorize, with conditions, the following: (a) cultivation, processing, distribution, the safe and secure
transportation, sale and possession for sale of cannabis, but only by persons and in amounts
lawfully authorized. (This section provides no exemptions for medical marijuana law.)
[18] Proposition 215 (Compassionate Use Act): Section 11362.79: Nothing in this article shall
authorize a qualified patient or person with an identification card to engage in the smoking of
medical marijuana under any of the following circumstances: (a) In any place where smoking is
prohibited by law.
[19] Medical marijuana exemptions: B: Purposes, 7: Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and
regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city’s limits remain illegal,
but that the city’s citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts except as
permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.
[20] Proposition 215 (Compassionate Use Act): Section 11362.79: Nothing in this article shall
authorize a qualified patient or person with an identification card to engage in the smoking of
medical marijuana under any of the following circumstances: (a) In any place where smoking is
prohibited by law.
[21] Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls (c) “Personal consumption” shall not include,
and nothing in this Act shall permit cannabis: (ii) consumption in public or in a public place
[22] Trish Regan. “California's Emerald Triangle: Small Towns, Big Money,” CNBC Marijuana and
Money Special Report. Apr. 20, 2010
[23] Steve Fainaru and William Booth. “Cartels Face an Economic Battle,” Washington Post. Oct. 7,
2009
[24] Kate McLean. “Pot: Semi-legal, Sold Everywhere,” The Bay Citizen. Jun. 5, 2010
[25] Jesse McKinley. “Don’t Call It ‘Pot’ in This Circle; It’s a Profession,” New York Times. Apr. 23,
2010
[26] Matthai Kuruvila. “IGrow: Walmart of Weed Opens in Oakland,” San Francisco Chronicle. Jan.
28, 2010
[27] Staff. “Marijuana, Inc Formerly Preachers Coffee Announces Name Change and 420 Friendly
Resorts Division,” Marketwire. May 26, 2010
[28] http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/s...,1318609.shtml
[29] Michael Montgomery. “Plummeting Marijuana Prices Create a Panic in California,” National
Public Radio. May 15, 2010
[30] Section 5: Amendment: Pursuant to Article 2, section 10(c) of the California Constitution, this Act
may be amended either by a subsequent measure submitted to a vote of the People at a statewide
election; or by statute validly passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, but only to
further the purposes of the Act.
[31] John Hoeffel. “Measure to Legalize Marijuana Will be on California's November Ballot,” Los
Angeles Times. Mar. 25, 2010
[32] Stu Woo. “Legal-Pot Backers Split on Timing,” Wall Street Journal. Oct. 3, 2009.
[33] “California Marijuana Legalization Initiative Effort Underway, Aimed at 2010 Ballot,” Drug War
Chronicle. Jun. 19, 2009
Read the initiative at: taxcannabis.org/index.php/pages/initiative
Posted by dragonfly at 12:01 PM
OF AGGRAVATION, WORK I SUFFERED THROUGH TO PLACE ALL THIS INFORMATION HERE IN ONE
SPOT WHERE EVERYONE COULD FIND IT, EXAMINE IT AND COMPARE IT.
THE FOLLOWING ARE MY VIEWS, WRITTEN RESPONSES. AS WELL AS, THE VIEWS AND
RESPONSES OF OTHERS, INCLUDING EXPERTS AND PROFESSIONALS. THEIR EXPLANATIONS
AND SOME OF THE DOCUMENTATION ABOUT WHY PROP. 19 AND WHY THE "LEGALIZE = LEGAL
LIES PROPAGANDA" IT IS BASED UPON, MAKES IT BAD LEGISLATION. END PROHIBITION [ . ]
"IF I AM WRONG. THEN WHY ALL THE CENSORSHIP ? ANOTHER RESPONSE/COMMENT/POST
DELETED"
by Diverse Sanctuary on Saturday, August 21, 2010 at 2:31pm
A RESPONSE I POSTED TO THIS ARTICLE
"The 8 Most Absurd Excuses for Trying to Defeat Legal Pot | | AlterNet"I've collect...
http://www.alternet.
org/story/147891/the_8_most_absurd_excuses_for_trying_to_defeat_legal_pot/comments/#disqus
_thread
DELETED
WHY ?
WHAT WAS THE RESPONSE I POSTED ?
THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE CONTAINS WITH-IN IT THE PRIMARY REASON CALI. SHOULD VOTE
NO ON PROP. 19
IN RESPONSE TO M.P.P. AND RAND PAUL'S WISHY WARSHY POLITICS
by Diverse Sanctuary on Wednesday, August 18, 2010 at 3:54pm
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/rand-paul-now-opposed-to-medical-marijuana {WHO ALSO
DELETED THIS RESPONSE}
YES, I SAID "WISHY WARSHY" POLITICS FOR A REASON. THIS IS ALL ABOUT "WAR" THEY THE
POLITICIANS = CORPORATE BOUGHT GOVERNMENT DO "WISH" TO CONTINUE.
SO I AM TO BE SURPRISED THAT RAND PAUL IS YET ONE MORE OF HIS KIND ?
YOU KNOW THE TYPE OF POLITICIAN THAT CHANGES HIS MIND ACCORDING TO THE LOBBY
OR THE POLLS AND SPEAKS WITH A FORKED TONGUE.
DID YOU KNOW THE WORD POLITICS COMES FROM THE LATIN "POLI" = "MANY" AND "TICS" =
"BLOODSUCKING PARASITES"
WHICH IN MY OPINION EXPLAINS THE ENTIRE MESS
WHILE EXPLAINING WHY MOST AMERICANS DO NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY READ
THOUGH I MUST SAY. I AM RATHER DISAPPOINTED IN RAND PAUL FOR HAVING NO REAL
TRUTH, KNOWLEDGE, BACKBONE OR BALLS.
JUST AS DISAPPOINTED AS I AM IN CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM, AS WELL AS VOTER REFORM
{OR THE LACK OF REPAIR TO THE MACHINES OR THE SYSTEM}
I ASK YOU ?
HOW IS IT THAT NOT EVERY POLITICIAN AND EDUCATED AMERICAN ISN'T COMING FORWARD
AND DEMANDING THE TRUTH TO BE RELEASED AND TOLD IN SUPPORT OF THE
CANNABIS/MARIJUANA/HEMP PLANT, IT'S FREEDOM, IT'S PROTECTION, IT'S USE, IT'S SCIENCE
AND IT'S EMERGENCY UTILIZATION AT THIS POINT IN OUR HISTORY ?
GOD FEARING OR NOT ?
FACTS ARE FACTS AND TRUTH IS TRUTH.
I MEAN BESIDES THE FACT THAT "THIS IS 2010."
SOME MORE IMPORTANT FACTS IN MAKING THIS CASE ARE...
* NEARLY HALF OF ALL AMERICAN'S ARE UN-EMPLOYED, HOMELESS, OR UNABLE TO PAY
TAXES.
* THE HUNGER RATE IS AT AN ALL TIME HIGH IN THE U.S.A.
* NEARLY 80 % OF AMERICAN'S ARE IN NEED OF MEDICAL TREATMENT OR DOCTORS CARE;
NEARLY 1/3 ARE CONSIDERED DISABLED; AND MILLIONS WHO ARE STILL UNABLE TO AFFORD
HEALTH CARE GO UNTREATED.
*ENVIRONMENTAL TOXINS AND DISASTERS ARE AT AN ALL TIME HIGH. WITH AT LEAST TWO
"HISTORICAL SPILLS" AFFECTING THE U.S. IN THE LAST YEAR.
*WHEN CLEAN ENERGY IS SO DESPERATELY NEEDED ON A GLOBAL SCALE.
*WHEN ALL THESE ISSUES ABOVE ARE GLOBAL ISSUES.
*WHILE PEOPLE, PATIENTS, FAMILIES, HOMES AND FARMS ARE DESTROYED, LOST,
IMPRISONED AND DIE.
*WHILE THE EARTHS NATURAL RESOURCES ARE BEING DEPLETED AND WARS ARE BEING
FOUGHT OVER THEM.
IN SO MANY SO-CALLED WARS INVENTED AND CREATED BY CORPORATIONS AND
GOVERNMENT FOR PROFIT.
LIKE THIS FAILED SO-CALLED WAR ON DRUGS.
ALL BASED IN LIES CREATED AND REPEATED BY MEN.
FROM THE CORPORATION, TO THE POLITICIAN, ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THEIR CORPORATE
AND FEDERALLY FUNDED OFFICES, SCHOOLS, CHURCHES AND EVEN THE "LEGALIZATION"
GROUPS AND ORGS. WHO REPEAT THEIR "LEGALIZE" - "LEGAL LIES" PROPAGANDA. WHILE
THEY SELL THEIR LIES, MEMBERSHIPS, COLLECT INFO AND LYE IN WAIT TO PROFIT EVEN
MORE THROUGH GMO PATENT, OWNERSHIP, COMMERCIALIZATION, BIG PHARMA, BIG CHEMA
AND TOTAL CONTROL OVER THE PLANT.
THE EGOIST, THE LAZY AND/OR THE GREEDY FEED ON THE UN-INFORMED, UNDER-
EDUCATED, DESPERATE, NEEDY OR WELL MEANING.
"THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS" {OF SOME AND THE EVIL
MANIPULATIONS OF OTHERS.}
WHILE LEADING THE WAY TO GIVING BIG BROTHER = BIG GOV EVEN MORE POWER TO PASS
AND ISSUE ALL SORTS OF NEW AND IMPROVED RESTRICTIONS. I MEAN REGULATIONS AND
CONTROL OVER THE PLANT AND IT'S MANY USES.
AS THEY CONTINUE TO FILL THEIR INDUSTRIAL PRISON COMPLEX.
THEY INVENTED, AT THE SAME TIME IN HISTORY THAT THEY CAME UP WITH U.S. CITIZENSHIP,
S.S., AND THE I.R.S. SHORTLY AFTER THE "CIVIL WAR" IN ORDER TO DECLARE YOU DEAD =
"YOUR NAME IN CAPITAL LETTERS". IN ORDER TO BUY AND SELL THE "SOVEREIGNTY OF THE
INDIVIDUAL"= STATE CITIZENS OR COMMON MAN, INCLUDING THE RECENTLY FREED SLAVE
THROUGH THE STOCK MARKET TO THE WORLD BANKS AND CORPORATIONS IN ORDER
REPLACE OUR GOLD AND REPAY OUR WAR DEBT. THROUGH EVEN MORE SLAVERY.
WHY YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS WHEN YOU ANSWER TO THE COURTS OR THE JUDGES BENCH.
BENCH IN LATIN = BANK. THIS IS WHY THE JUDGE WEARS BLACK.
I MEAN AFTER ALL, WE DO HAVE MORE PEOPLE IN PRISON FOR THE "ILLEGAL USE OF LEGAL
DRUGS" {PRESCRIPTION DRUGS, ALCOHOL, OVER THE COUNTER...} THAN WE DO FOR THE
"ILLEGAL USE OF PROHIBITED DRUGS".
LET US NOT FORGET THIS IS THE VERY SAME GOVERNMENT THAT HOLDS A "LEGAL U.S.
PATENT" FOR THE MEDICAL USE OF CANNABIS, WHICH NOTES IT CAN BE USED TO CURE
CANCER. "US Patent # 6630507 titled "Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants" which
is assigned to The United States of America, as represented by the Department of Health and
Human Services." WHILE THEY DE-NIGH ANY PROOF OR EVIDENCE EXIST THAT IT IS A
MEDICINE. "
WHILE THEY CONTINUE TO DENIGH KNOWING ANY CURE EXIST FOR CANCER,... AS THEY
CONTINUE TO ALLOW THESE PATIENTS TO DIE AND BE IMPRISONED.
WHO CLAIMS IT AND IT'S USE IS AGAINST FEDERAL LAW
DESPITE THESE FACTS...
*THEY CONTINUE TO "USE" IT... AS THEY GROW AND PROVIDE IT TO 6 REMAINING FEDERAL
PATIENTS.
*THEY RECOGNIZED IT AS LEGAL THROUGH TAXATION IN THE 1937 MARIJUANA TAX ACT.
WHICH WAS REPEALED {1969 Leary v. United States} AND YET, THEY CURRENTLY "USE" IT TO
EXCEPT TAXES ON THE PROFITS MADE BY MEDICAL CANNABIS GROWERS, TAX STAMPS, ...
*THEY WHO MADE THE HISTORIC FILM "HEMP FOR VICTORY" LOBBYING THE AMERICAN
FARMER TO GROW HEMP FOR THEIR "USE" AFTER PASSING THE 1937 MARIJUANA TAX ACT.
*WHO THEN REGULATED IT THROUGH DEA AND THE 1970 CSA "CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE
ACT" AND THEN "USED" IT TO DECLARE A WAR ON DRUGS.
*WHO'S USDA HAS ALREADY RECOGNIZED IT'S "USE" IN FACTS THAT THEY DOCUMENTED OF
IT'S ABILITIES TO CLEAN AND RESTORE TOXIC GROUND WATER, SOIL AND AIR IN THEIR
REPORT
http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/management/files/sq_utn_3.pdf
*THOUGH THEY REFUSE TO "USE" IT FOR THIS GOOD PURPOSE AND CONTINUE TO ATTEMPT
TO ERADICATE IT FROM THE WILD. DESPITE THEIR OFFICE OF THE E.P.A., THEIR ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL BIOLOGY OF THE "WEB OF LIFE" SCIENCE, AND THEIR OWN E.S.A. "ENDANGERED
SPECIES ACT" THAT THEY CREATED TO KEEP ANY SPECIES FROM BEING ERADICATED.
ALLOWING A DOMINO AFFECT THAT ENDANGERS MANY SPECIES AND ALL LIFE.
*WHO "On December 10th 2009 the United States House of Representatives passed the Omnibus
Spending Appropriations Bill of 2010. The bill contains language that authorizes Washington D.C. to
implement it's medical marijuana program Initiative 59. Thus congress legislated accepted medical
use for cannabis. The United States Senate passed the same bill on December 13th 2009. With the
stroke of a pen on December 16th President Barack Obama signed into United States Law
accepted "use" for medical cannabis."
http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform-hiv-aids-religion-belief-reproductive-freedom/president-signs-
omnibus-bill-including
WHO'S VA {A FEDERAL OFFICE} THEN APPROVED IT'S MEDICAL "USE" FOR OUR VETERAN'S
{BUT ONLY TO THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD TO LIVE IN STATES WITH CURRENT LAWS ?}
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2010/July/25/medical-marijuana-for-vets.aspx
*AS THEY ALL CONTINUE TO TALK OUT BOTH SIDES OF THEIR A$$E$
*WHILE THEY PLOT TO DESTROY AND "USE" IT ONCE AGAIN FOR THEIR PROFIT ! A HOLY
SACRED PLANT THAT WAS TO BE GIVEN AND RECEIVED FREELY
GEN. 1: 11-12 ~ "HERB YIELDING SEED","WHO'S SEED WAS IN ITSELF"
GEN. 1: 29 ~ "TO YOU IT SHALL BE FOR MEAT"
PS. 104: 14 ~ "FOR THE SERVICE OF MAN"
EXODUS 30: 22-30 ~ "fragrant cane" FROM THE HEBREW TORAH = "KANEH BOSEM" = CANNABIS
~ "FOR THE ANOINTING OF PRIEST AND HEALING"
HIGHLY REGARDED AND REVERED AS THE "TREE OF LIFE"
REV. 22:2 ~ "FOR THE HEALING OF THE NATIONS"
REV. 1-8 ~ "I AM THE APHA AND OMEGA"
A PLANT WHO'S SEED IS PROVEN TO CONTAINS THE HIGHEST PROTEIN AND ALL OF THE
ALPHA AND OMEGAS.
THAT FROM THE BEGINNING WAS GIVEN AS MEAT. AS WELL AS FOR THE HEALING AND
SERVICE OF MAN. THAT IF IT WAS FARMED COULD EASILY FEED THE WORLD BOTH BREAD
AND MILK.
WONDER IF IT HAD NOT BEEN REMOVED FROM OUR GARDENS AND OUR TABLES. IF SO MANY
WOULD BE IN NEED IT'S MEDICINE TODAY ? PROVEN TO HEAL, RESTORE CELLS AND FIGHT
DISEASE.
CONSIDERING THAT THE MAJORITY OF DISEASE AND ILLNESSES ARE CAUSED BY
MALNUTRITION, POOR NUTRITION AND/OR A LACK OF CLEAN GROUND WATER = DRINKING
WATER.
A PLANT THAT IS PROVEN SAFER THAN ASPIRIN AND OUR DRINKING WATER. WHICH IS ALSO
PROVEN TO HEAL ADDICTION.
WHICH IS PROVEN AND KNOWN TO RESTORE OUR TOXIC SOIL, GROUND WATER AND AIR AS
IT GROWS. RESTORING THE EARTH NATURALLY.
PROVEN TO PROVIDE A CLEAN ENERGY ALTERNATIVE TO OIL, COAL, GASOLINE, FUEL...
CREATING A CLOSED CARBON CYCLE WHILE IT BURNS. RESTORING OUR OZONE.
A PLANT THAT ALSO PROVIDES CLOTHING, SHELTER, INK, PLASTIC, RUBBER, CEMENT,...
AS WELL AS PROVIDING SPIRITUAL HEALING AND GOD'S ANOINTING.
THERE WILL COME A TIME WHEN AMERICA AS A COUNTRY AND ENTIRE OUR GLOBE WILL
HAVE TO FIND A NEW WAY TO EMPLOY AND SUSTAIN IT'S SELF. OTHER THAN THROUGH WAR,
CAPITALISM = ADDICTION = CONSUMERISM, SLAVERY, DEATH, AND THE CONSUMPTION OF
OUR CHILDREN AND THE EARTH'S RESOURCES.
JUST SAY NO !
TO GMO HEMP
JUST SAY NO !
TO PROP 19 IT IS A LIE.
IN THE END, IT WILL NOT KEEP YOU FROM BEING FINED, FROM ENDING UP IN COURT OR
GOING TO JAIL. IT DOES NOT PROMISE THOSE WHO NEED THE MEDICINE WILL RECEIVE IT OR
WILL BE ABLE TO AFFORD IT. IT ONLY GIVES THEM MORE CONTROL.
IF YOU MUST PASS A BILL AND JUST SAY NOW...
SUPPORT BRUCE CAIN AND M.E.R.P. NOW ! TODAY !
http://www.newagecitizen.com/MERP.htm
JUST SAY NO !
TO BIG GOVERNMENT, SOCIAL SECURITY & U.S. CITIZENSHIP. IT'S A LIE. {LIKE OUR FEDERAL
RESERVE} ASK HOW MANY ON IT ARE SOCIALLY SECURE IN THEIR PRESENT NEEDS. IT ONLY
STEALS YOUR LIFE & SOVEREIGNTY = NATURAL BORN FREEDOMS AND RIGHTS. MAKING YOU
A PRODUCT OF THE STOCK MARKET OWNED BY THE GOVERNMENT & WORLD BANK. A SLAVE
TO REPAY OUR NATIONAL DEBTS.
SEE THE EVIDENCE HERE
http://www.designingyourworld.com/Redemption
CALL OUT FOR COMPLETE GOVERNMENT REFORM NOW !
JUST SAY NO !
TO THE U.N. WHICH AT THIS POINT IS THE N.W.O. WHICH = OLD WORLD ORDER {LOOK AT THE
OLD TESTAMENT AND THE STORY OF ISRAEL}
SINCERELY,
MUCH PEACE & LOVE...
REV. MARY
I SHOULD HAVE ADDED IF CALI WANTS PERSONAL USE THEY SHOULD SUPPORT AND HONOR
JACK HERER'S WISHES & INITIATIVE
http://www.jackherer.com/initiative.html
BUT IT TOO WOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN DELETED.
AT SOME POINT YOU HAVE TO ASK YOURSELF. WHY I AM CONTINUOUSLY CENSORED BY ALL
THOSE MAJOR ORGANIZATIONS, GROUPS, FORUMS, RAGS,... WHO CLAIM TO BE IN THIS SO-
CALLED TRUTH ABOUT CANNABIS MOVEMENT. INCLUDING MAIN STREAM NEWS,...???
DOES DELETING OR BLOCKING THE TRUTH REALLY CHANGE IT OR MAKE IT GO AWAY ?
THERE ARE OTHERS WHO SEE PAST THE SMOKE SCREEN
A NOTE FROM BRUCE CAIN THE AUTHOR OF M.E.R.P.
I am forming a group that is out to oppose Prop19 and push forward with MERP and CCHH. The
story done on ASA was just great as it exposes the sort of crap that has been going on for decades
now. This group already has at least two very smart attorneys and possible one ex-Judge. Send me
your email so I can send you an invitation to join this group.
Bruce Cain
www.newagecitizen.com/NoOnProp19.htm
A COMMENT BY GATEWOOD GALBRAITH CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR IN KY. OPPOSING PROP. 19
Gatewood said...
I am an out-of-state observer who may have a hand in writing the future marijuana laws of Kentucky.
I immediately felt great hope when I first heard about the "legalization" forthcoming in Nov. in
California but when I heard that my good friends Jack Herer and Dennis Peron opposed its
passage, I was greatly intrigued. Now I thoroughly understand their positions. Thanks for your
exhaustive effort. I can sympathize with having such a burden lifted. Gatewood Galbraith
July 15, 2010 7:06 AM
IN RESPONSE TO, "WHY PRO-POT ACTIVISTS OPPOSE PROP. 19: 19 REASONS TO VOTE KNOW"
http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-pro-pot-activists-oppose-2010-tax.html
WHY PRO-POT ACTIVISTS OPPOSE PROP. 19: 19 REASONS TO VOTE KNOW
“People think it’s legalization, it’s being sold as legalization—even though it’s the opposite of
legalization.” - Dennis Peron, author of Prop. 215 that legalized medical marijuana in California
Dragonfly De La Luz
When most marijuana activists, growers and consumers first heard about an initiative that would
legalize cannabis in California, they thought it was a pipe dream come true. To many, legalization
implied that it would no longer be a crime to possess, consume or distribute marijuana. Cannabis
consumers rejoiced at the idea of being able to buy from their neighbors or at parties—just as they
already do—with no legal retribution. Small-time growers envisioned being free to sell their product
to those who sought them out, with no legal repercussions. Marijuana activists thought it meant that
people would stop getting arrested for pot, and that the drug war would finally be over. But now that
the initiative is headed to ballot, many pro-legalization supporters are coming out against it. Why?
Simply put, the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative does not reflect most people’s ideas of
what legalization would be. The media often incorrectly reports that this initiative calls for “full
legalization” of marijuana. It does not. In fact, it reverses many of the freedoms marijuana
consumers currently enjoy, pushes growers out of the commercial market, paves the way for the
corporatization of cannabis, and creates new prohibitions where there are none now. Apparently, to
be pro-legalization and pro-initiative are two different things entirely.
The late-Jack Herer, legendary marijuana activist known as the father of the legalization movement,
vehemently opposed the initiative. In the last words of his impassioned final speech, moments
before the heart attack that would eventually claim his life, he urged people not to support it.[1]
Proposition 215 author, Dennis Peron, likewise denounced the initiative, saying it is not legalization,
but “thinly-veiled prohibition.”[2]
Compared to the present status of cannabis in California, many marijuana activists see this initiative
as a giant leap backward. Ironically, it appears that marijuana is more “legal” in California today than
it would be if this initiative were to pass.
The initiative itself is a hazy maze of regulations and controls, some of which are ambiguous and
confusing even for those well-versed in marijuana law. Understandably, many who have entered the
discussion seem to have bypassed the initiative altogether and gone straight to their own
assumptions of what an initiative that claims to legalize marijuana might entail, injecting the debate
with as many misconceptions as facts. But for an issue that would have such a direct and
unprecedented impact on our daily lives, it’s crucial to decide your vote based on knowledge, rather
than assumption.
To clarify a few of the most glaring myths about the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative, I
have compiled this guide to help you VOTE KNOW!
Myth #1: The initiative will end the War on Drugs and substantially reduce marijuana arrests, saving
millions in prison costs.
Fact: Hardly. The federal drug war will continue to drone on, of course, and growing or possessing
any amount of marijuana would still be illegal under federal law. Anyone growing or possessing
cannabis without a doctor’s recommendation would still be subject to arrest and seizure by the
federal police—although on the bright side, the Obama administration recently announced it will no
longer raid individuals who are operating in compliance with medical marijuana law.[3]
Contrary to popular assumption, the drug war in California will not end, nor will it be impacted much
by the initiative. This is because the initiative doesn’t call for full legalization; it proposes to legalize
possession of only up to one ounce. And in California, there is no “drug war” being fought against
possession of up to one ounce, because marijuana is already decriminalized.
The penalty for carrying an ounce is a mere citation and maximum $100 fine.[4] Moreover,
possession of one ounce is on its way to being downgraded from a misdemeanor to an infraction,
because the state Senate voted in June to reclassify its status. [5] No one goes to jail for having an
ounce or less in California, and no one gets arrested, because it is not an arrestable offense.
One often-quoted statistic in the initiative debate is that misdemeanor marijuana possession
arrests reached 61,388 in 2008.[6] However, it is important to note that this statistic does not refer to
any arrest demographic that the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative would affect. This
statistic refers only to possession of more than one ounce, possession by minors and possession
on school grounds—offenses which the initiative will not legalize. It does not refer to nor does it
include marijuana arrests for possession of one ounce or less, because this is not an arrestable
offense. Therefore, the initiative would have no impact on reducing these arrests rates.
Statistically, the demographic that accounts for nearly one-quarter of total arrests for marijuana
possession in California happens to be those in the 18-20 age group. But because the initiative
explicitly makes it illegal for even adults age 18-20 to possess marijuana, these arrests will not
decrease, and the drug war against young adults will rage on.
Furthermore, since the initiative would keep possession of amounts greater than one ounce illegal
and likewise maintain the illegality of private sales of any amount, the overall impact that the initiative
would have on ending the drug war, reducing arrest rates and saving on prison costs would be
negligible, at best.
As an example of how highly misunderstood this initiative and its potential impact on the drug war is,
the California NAACP recently pledged their support for the initiative based on the belief that it will put
an end to the disproportionately high number of African-American youth going to jail “over a joint.” [7]
But in reality, the initiative will have no impact on this phenomenon whatsoever. As it is now, the
State of California does not jail people for having a joint; it is not an arrestable offense. And, as
mentioned above, possession of up to one ounce is on its way to being reclassified from a
misdemeanor to an infraction—which carries no criminal-record stigma. The state does, however,
incarcerate people for selling small amounts of marijuana. And since this initiative keeps private
marijuana sales illegal, no matter the quantity, there will be no decrease in the number of African
Americans—or anyone else—arrested for selling a joint.
Not only does the initiative do little or nothing to end the drug war, but ironically, it could in fact
expand the drug war, because it imposes new prohibitions against marijuana that do not exist
currently.
Contrary to the belief that it will keep people out of jail for marijuana, this initiative actually creates
new demographics of people to incarcerate. (See Fact #2 and Fact #3) It is difficult to see how the
government would save on court and imprisonment costs if the initiative merely shifts arrests from
one demographic to another.
Myth #2: The initiative will keep young adults out of jail for using marijuana.
Fact: This initiative would put more young people in jail for pot. If it becomes law, any adult 21 or over
who passes a joint to another adult aged 18-20 would face six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. [8]
(NORML's Web site reports that the current penalty for a gift of marijuana of 1 oz. or less is a $100
fine.[9])
Myth #3: You'll be able to light up freely in the privacy of your home.
Fact: That depends. Under the initiative, even adults consuming marijuana in the privacy of their
homes could face arrest if there are minors present (not something one would expect from an
initiative that claims to treat marijuana like alcohol and tobacco)[10]. Current marijuana law contains
no such restrictions. Thanks to Prop. 215, which legalized marijuana for medicinal use, cannabis
consumers have been legally free to smoke in the privacy of their homes since 1997. This initiative
seeks to undermine that freedom, making it absolutely illegal to smoke marijuana if there are
minors present. (The initiative is ambiguous with regard to whether “present” means being in the
same room as the consumer, the same house, the same apartment building, or within wafting
distance—apparently leaving this up to the interpretation of judges.) There is no exception for
medical marijuana patients or for parents consuming in the presence of their own children.
Myth #4: Under the initiative, anyone 21 or over will be allowed to grow marijuana in a 5’x5’ space.
Fact: Not quite. This allotment is per property, not per person. If you share a residence with other
people, you’ll be sharing a 5’x5’ grow space, as well. Even if you own multiple acres that many
people live on, if it is considered one parcel, the space restriction of 5’x5’ (3-6 plants) will still apply.
[11] Plus, if you rent, you will be required to obtain permission from your landlord—which they may
be unwilling to grant since doing so will subject them to forfeiture by the federal government.
Myth #5: Adults 21 and over will be able to possess up to one ounce of marijuana without penalty.
Fact: Perhaps the most ironic piece of the puzzle is that the initiative to legalize marijuana actually
makes it illegal to possess marijuana if it was purchased anywhere other than the very few licensed
dispensaries in the state.[12] So if this initiative passes, better not get caught carrying marijuana you
bought off your neighbor, your current dealer, or at a party; you could get arrested. And if you do buy
from a licensed dispensary, better keep your receipts, because the burden of proof will be on you.
Not only is this inconvenient, but it sets the industry up to be monopolized.
What’s more, if your city decides not to tax cannabis, then buying and selling marijuana in the city
limits would remain illegal. You would be permitted to possess and consume marijuana, but you
would be required to travel to another city that taxes cannabis to buy it.[13] This is a move towards
decreased, not increased, access. And since the initiative is so ambiguous that cities are destined
to be tied up in a legal quagmire over how to interpret it, many local governments might find it
simpler just to opt-out and send its citizens elsewhere. Indeed, 129 cities did just that with medical
marijuana, banning it outright, while still others have established moratoriums against
dispensaries. In fact, of the entire state, only the city of Oakland has endorsed the initiative. A vote for
the initiative will therefore not ensure local access to purchase marijuana legally.
Myth #6: The initiative will free up cops to focus on bigger crimes.
Fact: Decriminalization has already achieved this. The California Police Chiefs Association publicly
admits that they do not waste their time on cases involving an ounce or less.[14] Moreover, many
cities have already passed measures that require law enforcement to make marijuana possession
their lowest priority.
What the initiative would do is create new prohibitions where there were none before, obligating
police officers to spend valuable time enforcing them. The cases cops presently de-prioritize are
minor offenses, like simple possession. But the initiative takes minor offenses and reclassifies
them as more serious crimes (e.g., passing a joint to an adult 18-20). Law enforcement’s time is
freed up by the elimination of prohibition, not by exchanging old prohibitions for new ones.
Myth #7: Marijuana tax revenue will go toward education and health care.
Fact: As it is now, state budget cuts have resulted in the closing of state parks, and health care for
impoverished children has been revoked, not to mention thousands of government lay-offs. But
marijuana taxes will not be earmarked for health care, public education, the re-opening of state
parks, or rehiring of laid-off government employees. Instead, the initiative specifically states that any
marijuana tax revenue can be used toward enforcing the new prohibitions that the initiative enacts.
[15] In this regard, not only does the initiative not end the drug war, it apparently taxes the drug to
fund the drug war.
Myth #8: Marijuana growers will be able to sell cannabis legally.
Fact: Currently, marijuana growers in California who have a medical recommendation can and do
grow and provide marijuana legally. Entire economies in Northern California exist on this industry.
However, the initiative would make it illegal for anyone to sell marijuana, unless they own a licensed
dispensary.[16] (See Fact #9)
Many have suggested that growers could open marijuana-tasting venues, similar to wine-tasting at
vineyards. A grower might have a chance of opening such a place, but only if he gave his product
away for free, because selling it would be illegal unless he successfully navigated the notoriously
difficult and prohibitively expensive process of obtaining licensure.
Myth #9: Anyone can obtain a license to legally sell cannabis and compete in the market.
Fact: Few people will be able to compete in the multibillion-dollar marijuana market if the initiative
passes. This is because the licensing process, engineered in Oakland, is exceptionally restrictive.
Of the more than a thousand dispensaries operating in California until a recent L.A. crackdown, only
a handful were licensed. (Conveniently, Richard Lee, the millionaire behind the initiative, owns one
of them). In Oakland, the city that’s setting the precedent in the tax cannabis push, a license costs
$30,000. Per year. Not to mention the rigorous application process, in which even well-established,
law-abiding dispensaries have been denied.
Furthermore, Oakland has started a trend of capping the number of licensed dispensaries allowed
to operate (in Oakland, that number is four). This all but guarantees that the average, small-time
marijuana grower will be shut out of this multibillion-dollar industry, concentrating the profits of the
potential economic boon in the hands of a small minority of wealthy entrepreneurs who are already
making moves to monopolize the industry. Under this initiative, the marijuana industry will not be a
free market in which everyone has a chance to compete. Instead, the initiative could mark the
beginning of the corporatization of marijuana. (See also Fact #15)
Myth #10: Medical marijuana patients would be exempt from the initiative.
Fact: This is not exactly true. While amendments were made ostensibly to prevent the initiative from
affecting current medical marijuana law, a careful reading of the initiative reveals that this is not, in
fact, the case. Certain medical marijuana laws are exempt from the prohibitions the initiative would
enact, while others are glaringly absent.
Cultivation is one such law that is noticeably non-exempt.[17] In spite of the fact that the tax cannabis
Web site says otherwise, the only medical marijuana exemptions that the Regulate, Control and Tax
Cannabis Initiative actually makes are with regard to possession, consumption and purchase limits,
which only ensure that patients would still be allowed to buy medicine at dispensaries. The word
“cultivate” is conspicuously absent. Whereas today a person with a doctor’s recommendation has
the right to grow up to an unlimited number of plants, the initiative would drastically reduce that
number to whatever can fit in a 5’x5’ footprint (around 3-6 plants—per property, not per person). This
will force many patients to resort to buying instead of growing their own medicine, because of the
inconvenience caused by producing multiple grows a year rather than growing a year’s supply of
medicine at one time, as many patients currently do outdoors. And growing indoors—which typically
requires special grow lights, an increase in hydro use, and a lot of time and attention—is a
comparatively expensive endeavor.
The initiative would further impact medical marijuana patients by banning medicating in the privacy
of their own homes if there are minors present, as well as in public (currently perfectly legal[18])—an
invaluable liberty to those with painful diseases who would otherwise have to suffer until they got
home to relieve their pain.
Finally, the medical marijuana laws that are exempted from this initiative apparently only apply to
cities. For medical marijuana patients who live in an area that has county or local government
jurisdiction, according to a strict reading of the initiative, medical marijuana laws are not exempt.[19]
Myth #11: Marijuana smokers will be free to smoke cannabis wherever cigarette smoking is allowed.
Fact: Actually, that's the way it is now in California. There is no law prohibiting medical marijuana
from being smoked wherever cigarette smoking is permitted.[20] Young adults taking bong hits in
Golden Gate Park on a Sunday afternoon is just part of the San Francisco scenery. However, if this
initiative passes, that freedom would disappear and we could see cops policing smoking areas to
enforce this law.[21]
Myth #12: Currently imprisoned non-violent marijuana offenders would be released.
Fact: The initiative makes no call to release prisoners who are behind bars for any marijuana
offense, no matter how minor. In fact, because it introduces new prohibitions where none exist now,
the initiative could potentially be responsible for locking even more people up for marijuana.
Myth #13: Counties in which marijuana cultivation currently thrives will experience increased
economic growth.
Fact: Entire economies could collapse in counties that currently rely on cultivating marijuana. Right
now, the multibillion-dollar marijuana industry is legally subsidizing thousands of incomes in areas
where unemployment is skyrocketing. For example, Mendocino County, the biggest pot-producing
county in the U.S., reports that a full two-thirds of its economy is dependent on marijuana.[22] Much
of this is due to current state medical marijuana laws, which allow people to legally cultivate plants
and provide them to marijuana pharmacies. But this economy supports more than just farmers.
Many local store owners report that without marijuana farmers patronizing their businesses with
cash, they would go out of business. Moreover, legitimate medical marijuana growers employ tens
of thousands of seasonal workers, mostly young adults, who have managed to eke out a living in a
region where none other exists, and who otherwise would have few local options to support
themselves. The more humble among them are able to make a living that sustains them modestly
throughout much of the year. Thousands more are able to subsidize low-paying jobs, make up for
shortages in their college funding, and start creative projects such as fashion design, music
production, or art. But because the initiative would limit the number of plants one could grow from up
to an unlimited amount to about six, thousands of small-time medical marijuana farmers and the
young adults they employ would face economic displacement and hardship, or join the ranks of the
unemployed. (For more on this, see Fact #15.)
Myth #14: The initiative will create an employment boon similar to California’s wine industry.
Fact: Comparisons with the wine industry are no true basis for determining the potential revenue
recreational marijuana could create, because the wine industry does not operate under the same
restrictions the marijuana industry would face. Namely, there’s no cap on how many wineries can
operate in California, or how many grapes each vineyard can grow. There are currently almost 3,000
vineyards in the state, whereas since the April crackdown in L.A., there are fewer than 300
dispensaries (of which only a few are licensed). Moreover, if cities continue to follow the trend set by
Oakland and cap the number of licensed dispensaries allowed to operate, then the thousands of
people currently legally employed by dispensaries would dwindle drastically.
Myth #15: The initiative will limit the viability of Mexican drug cartels.
Fact: Mexican drug cartels are already being undermined tremendously thanks to the legions of
small-time farmers growing in California. The Washington Post reported on October 7, 2009:
“Almost all of the marijuana consumed in the multibillion-dollar U.S. market once came from Mexico
or Colombia. Now as much as half is produced domestically, often by small-scale operators who
painstakingly tend greenhouses and indoor gardens to produce the more potent… product that
consumers now demand, according to authorities and marijuana dealers on both sides of the
border. … Stiff competition from thousands of mom-and-pop marijuana farmers in the United States
threatens the bottom line for powerful Mexican drug organizations in a way that decades of arrests
and seizures have not, according to law enforcement officials and pot growers in the United States
and Mexico.”[23]
These mom-and-pop growers don’t fit the stereotype of the gang-war era drug pusher or Mexican
drug cartel growing marijuana irresponsibly and setting forests on fire. Many of them are law-abiding
citizens, legally growing medical marijuana under Prop. 215. They’re the people you see at your
local organic health food store, or shopping in the community, putting much-needed cash directly
into the local economy while the national economy flounders in recession. These small-time
marijuana farmers use the money they earn from providing medicine to finance their kids’ education,
help out their laid-off parents and put themselves through school. In some cases, entire
communities depend on them.
However, if this initiative passes, these growers that are single-handedly undercutting the Mexican
drug cartels would no longer be able to legally operate and the face of the marijuana industry could
change from the local one we recognize to an impersonal corporate entity, leaving a spate of
displaced marijuana farmers in its wake.
One corporation that is poised to take the place of the mom-and-pop growers is AgraMed. While
Oakland’s city council prepares to consider a proposal in July to license four commercial indoor
marijuana farms in the city, AgraMed has plans to build a 100,000-sq.-ft. marijuana mega-farm near
Oakland International Airport that, “according to projections, could generate 58 pounds of pot a day
and $59 million a year in revenue.” The company’s president, Jeff Wilcox—a member of the steering
committee of the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative—reportedly hopes to “bring a degree
of corporate structure to the marijuana industry.”[24]
The language that backers of the initiative use itself is cause for concern among pro-marijuana
supporters. Instead of speaking out against the injustice of jailing people over a plant that is widely
known not only to be harmless, but beneficial, these multimillionaire supporters of the initiative
speak only of their intentions to corporatize marijuana. The owner of one leading marijuana
dispensary—that already earns well over $20 million a year—was quoted in the New York Times as
having aspirations to become the “McDonald’s of marijuana.”[25] The proprietors of Oakland’s new i-
Grow hydroponics store want it to be known as the “Wal-Mart” of grow stores.[26] Meanwhile,
Marijuana, Inc., a multimillion-dollar corporation, has plans to build cannabis resorts in the Northern
California counties that currently survive off the medical marijuana industry.[27] They intend to create
golf resorts with acres of marijuana gardens featuring hundreds of strains. (Apparently, under this
initiative, corporations would be permitted to grow quite large quantities of cannabis, while
cultivation would be restricted to 5’ x 5’ plots for everyone else.)
The accusations that medical marijuana growers oppose the initiative out of greed are clearly
grossly unfounded. It is obvious who has intentions of increasing their bottom line. Small-time
marijuana farmers simply want to continue making a humble living off the land. They are the ones
who built the marijuana industry, but this initiative seeks to allow corporations to take their hard work
and turn it into profits for themselves, locking farmers out of the industry entirely.
We have seen this trend before in the United States. Our history is replete with small farmers being
taken over by huge corporations. Hundreds of thousands of mom-and-pop businesses have been
forced out of business by conglomerates like Wal-Mart, Starbucks, and Monsanto, which those who
benefit from such takeovers have justified by calling it “progress.” But is it? And is this the sort of
“progress” we want to see take over the marijuana industry? Is this the world Peter Tosh had in
mind when he implored us to “legalize it?”
Marijuana may well be the final bastion of farmer-owned, worker-owned, business autonomy in this
country. Will we allow it, too, to go the way of nearly every other homegrown industry in the history of
the United States? We all hope for legalization. But must we have such a drastic, Faustian trade-off
for this freedom? And is it really freedom if we must lose our autonomy to gain it?
One farmer’s response to the news of Marijuana Inc.’s resort aspirations poignantly sums up the
pending reality should the initiative pass:
“Marijuana, Inc., has big plans to invade the Emerald Triangle and surrounding counties to really
capitalize on marijuana tourism. Maybe that sounds like fun to people that aren’t from around here,
but it is really going to take away a lot of opportunity from the locals who make this place what it is. I
feel that the people here who created this industry are going to be left in the dust for the most part…
There is just too much money at stake and that is what these guys are all about. This is the
equivalent of the giant hotels popping up on the Hawaiian Islands and the locals being told, ‘You
can still work at the resort. We’ll need maids and groundskeepers who’ll work for minimum wage...’”
[28]
What is currently a small-time, largely organic industry—on which entire economies survive, and
without which entire economies would collapse—could soon become dominated by corporations if
this initiative passes. The days of “knowing your dealer” and what goes into your pot could soon be
over, and marijuana, a sacrament to many, could become corporatized. Are corporations inherently
evil? No. But if we have the option to keep millions of dollars in our own communities, spread out
over hundreds of thousands of people, it hardly seems sensible to outsource this employment to
corporations and into the hands of a few.
Is it possible to have marijuana legalization without legalizing corporate takeover of the industry?
Absolutely. Will those who are passionate about marijuana live to regret voting in an initiative that
treats marijuana as a publicly-traded commodity and turns it into something as abhorrent as Wal-
Mart and McDonald’s? Absolutely. Do we have to settle for this? Absolutely not.
Myth #16: The price of marijuana will drop.
Fact: The value of marijuana might decrease if it becomes more commercially available and more
people grow their own, but the price of a product depends less on its value and more on the degree
of competition that exists with regard to selling it. Since your options for purchasing marijuana would
be among only a handful of licensed dispensaries in the state, there is no guarantee of a decrease
in price. Less competition means higher prices.
Indeed, by AgraMed’s own estimation, in order to make $59 million a year off 58 pounds per day,
they would have to charge $175 per ounce wholesale (roughly $2,800 per pound)—and that’s if they
produced 58 pounds 365 days a year. If they managed to produce that output only 5 days a week,
that price would leap to $245 an ounce (about $3900 per pound). With shelf-prices at dispensaries
often set at double the wholesale purchase price—not to mention the compulsory tax added onto
every ounce (which Richard Lee stated in an interview was "recommended" to be $50)—the price of
marijuana could potentially be higher than it is in our current market, in which the price of a pound
has already fallen to $2,000, according to a recent National Public Radio report; a direct result of
healthy competition, not its opposite.[29]
Myth #17: We can vote in the initiative and fix the tangles as they come up.
Fact: Initiatives create permanent statutes. Once an initiative is voted into law, it cannot be reversed.
It remains law forever. It is worth noting that this initiative makes some unusual provisions with
regard to amendments. For starters, it allows the legislature (traditionally hostile toward marijuana
legislation) to amend the initiative without voter approval. Furthermore, it allows amendments, but
“only to further the purposes of the Act.”[30] Under a monopolized, corporate-controlled distribution
process, the “purposes” might become more narrowly defined.
Many of the issues that pro-legalization supporters have with the initiative could be easily rectifiable
with a few sentences and an amendment-submission to the Attorney General’s office. It would have
required very little on the part of the initiative authors to remove the vagueness from the wording that
bans smoking cannabis in any “space” where minors are “present,” for example, or to add an
exemption for medical marijuana patients and parents consuming in the presence of their own
children. It would have required very little to write into the initiative a line that would exempt medical
marijuana patients from the public smoking ban and protect their right to grow medicine in amounts
sufficient for their individual needs. After all, these are items which should not be considered
luxuries under legalized marijuana; they should be rights. And we should settle for nothing less.
Unfortunately, the deadline to make changes to the initiative before the November elections has
already passed, and to achieve these changes via subsequent voter referendums would be a
complicated and drawn-out process that could take years. Making the initiative acceptable before
voting it into law is therefore essential.
Myth #18: This is our only chance to take a step in the direction of legalization.
Fact: This is only our first chance—and it is NOT our only choice. This November, volunteers for the
California Hemp and Health Initiative (CCHHI)—the initiative Jack Herer supported so much he lent
his legendary name to it—will be collecting signatures to be placed on the CCHHI on the ballot in
2012. Some highlights of this alternative to Prop. 19 include:
--The freedom to grow up to 99 plants—per adult, 21 years of age and older (not per residence as
under Prop. 19)—for personal use.
--Cannabis taxes shall not exceed $10.00 per ounce.
--The freedom to distribute cannabis among adults without a license. (Prop. 19 forbids distributing
cannabis except for those who manage to obtain a prohibitively expensive license.)
--The cost of a commercial license shall not exceed $1,000. (The cost for a commercial cannabis
vending license in Oakland is $60,000 per year. A commercial grow license is a whopping $211,000
per year.)
--No cannabis tax revenue will be allowed to assist law enforcement. (Prop. 19 specifically allows for
marijuana tax revenue to fund law enforcement.)
For those who have doubts about supporting Prop. 19 or the motives behind it, CCHHI is a viable
alternative. (For more on CCHHI, visit http://www.jackherer.com/initiative and http://youthfederation.
com/cchhi2012.html).
Myth #19: We can vote in Prop. 19, then vote in a better initiative later.
Likelihood: Although 2012 will offer us a brilliant alternative with the CCHHI/Jack Herer Initiative, the
more likely scenario is that by that time, big cannabis corporations will have all the money, power,
and influence they need to thwart any challenge to their monopoly. What do you suppose are the
chances of voting in an initiative like CCHHI--that emphasizes personal freedom over corporations
and seeks to fully legalize possession, cultivation, and distribution of marijuana--after the cannabis
corporations just spent two years multiplying their millions legally under the monopoly Prop. 19
creates, keeping everyone else out of the market, and making it illegal for you to buy your weed from
anyone but them? There IS no chance. For this reason, WE CANNOT VOTE FOR PROP. 19 NOW
AND THEN VOTE FOR CCHHI IN 2012 TO REPLACE IT. Because if Prop. 19 gets voted in, then
once it's in, big cannabis corporations will make sure it stays in, and that it continues to serve them
and not the people.
This is not our only chance to vote yes to legalization, but it may be our only chance to vote no to the
corporatization of cannabis.
What now?
The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative is not the only path to legalization. We have come
so far, and are now so close—it is imperative that we let the next step be the right one. Legalized
marijuana is within reach, yet the movement could be set back with such a problematic initiative at
the helm. Instead of rushing to pass a measure that prohibits marijuana under the guise of
legalization, we can choose an initiative that calls for true legalization and that has the full support of
marijuana law reform organizations and leaders of the movement.
The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative is rife with ambiguity, expands the War on Drugs,
undermines the medical marijuana movement, arrests more people for marijuana, offers no
protection for small farmers and insufficient protection for medical marijuana users, has a high
potential for monopolization, provides no regulations to prevent corporate takeover of the industry,
cartelizes the economy, and divides our community into poor, unlicensed, mom-and-pop gardener
versus rich, licensed, corporate farmer. And since the one thing that’s clear about the initiative is that
it’s vague, it could very easily prove to be a Pandora’s box of unintended consequences. Beyond its
vagueness, which itself is problematic, these side effects are inherently socially dangerous. The
impact that such a failed legalization initiative could have on the movement nation-wide could be
disastrous.
This is not a question of whether to legalize or not to legalize. Legalization is the goal and it is
inevitable. The question is whether we want to rush in and settle for an initiative that is so poorly-
worded as to be ambiguous, and so vague as to be open to vast interpretation from judges—or
choose a better option, like the Jack Herer Initiative, in 2012. If we hold out for a perfect initiative we
will wait forever. But if we at least hold out for an initiative that is direct, unambiguous, well-defined
and clearly written, we will have an unprecedented opportunity to inspire the world to join the
movement to legalize marijuana.
Many pro-legalization activists are rallying behind the idea of taking the time to choose an initiative
that will be a clear step up from the current cannabis situation of in California and will result in
increased access—not its opposite. Both NORML and the MPP, the foremost cannabis law reform
organizations in the country, have suggested we wait and make another attempt at legalization
during the 2012 elections. Dale Gieringer, Director of California’s NORML, said, “I do think it’s going
to take a few more years for us to develop a proposal that voters will be comfortable with.”[32]
Likewise, Bruce Mirken, MPP’s Director of Communications, was quoted as saying, “In our opinion,
we should wait and build our forces and aim at 2012.”[33]
Ultimately, the decision is not up to any organization; it’s up to YOU. How will you vote? Read the
initiative for yourself and just VOTE KNOW!
“I hope people find the hope and inspiration to broadcast this, understand (the initiative), read it, and
know that it's a step backwards. And we can do better. We will do better.” - Dennis Peron
Sidebar: What it Actually Says
About possessing marijuana bought somewhere other than a licensed outlet:
Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls: (g) prohibit and
punish through civil fines or other remedies the possession, sale, possession for sale, cultivation,
processing, or transportation of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully from a person pursuant to
this section or section 11300; [Section 11300: (i) possession for sale regardless of amount, except
by a person who is licensed or permitted to do so under the terms of an ordinance adopted
pursuant to section 11301.]
About the punishment for giving marijuana to adults age 18-20:
Section 4: Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors: (c) Every person 21 years of age or over
who knowingly furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer or give, any
marijuana to a person aged 18 years or older, but younger than 21 years of age, shall be punished
by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of up to six months and be fined up to $1,000 for each
offense.
About smoking in the presence of minors:
Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls: (c) “Personal
consumption” shall not include, and nothing in this Act shall permit: (iv) smoking cannabis in any
space while minors are present.
About using marijuana tax revenue to fund law enforcement against pot prohibition:
Section 11302: Imposition and Collection of Taxes and Fees (a) Any ordinance, regulation or other
act adopted pursuant to section 11301 may include imposition of appropriate general, special or
excise, transfer or transaction taxes, benefit assessments, or fees, on any activity authorized
pursuant to such enactment, in order to permit the local government to raise revenue, or to recoup
any direct or indirect costs associated with the authorized activity, or the permitting or licensing
scheme, including without limitation: administration; applications and issuance of licenses or
permits; inspection of licensed premises and other enforcement of ordinances adopted under
section 11301, including enforcement against unauthorized activities.
About medical marijuana exemptions:
B: Purposes, 7: Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying
and selling cannabis within that city’s limits remain illegal, but that the city’s citizens still have the
right to possess and consume small amounts except as permitted under Health and Safety
Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9. (Note: The word “cultivate” is conspicuously absent
here as well as in the exempted Health and Safety Sections that pertain to medical marijuana laws.)
About leaving medical marijuana cultivation law in the hands of local government:
Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls: Notwithstanding any other provision of state
or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of
law to control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following: (a)
cultivation, processing, distribution, the safe and secure transportation, sale and possession for
sale of cannabis, but only by persons and in amounts lawfully authorized. (Note: This section
provides no exemptions for medical marijuana law.)
About the right to cultivate:
Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls: (ii) Cultivate, on
private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property
owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more
than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel.
____________
[1] Bruce Cain. “War Breaks out Within the Marijuana Legalization Movement (Part 1),” Examiner.
Sept. 26, 2009
[2] J. Craig Canada. “Proposition 215 author announces boycott of Blue Sky medical marijuana
dispensary,” Examiner. Oct. 15, 2009
[3] Carrie Johnson. “U.S. Eases Stance on Medical Marijuana,” Washington Post. Oct. 20, 2009
[4] National Organization for the Reformation of Marijuana Laws.
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4525
[5] Matt Coker. “State Bill Would Knock Possession of Less Than an Ounce of Marijuana to an
Infraction,“ Orange County Weekly. Jun. 4, 2010
[6] Mike Males, PhD and Daniel Macallair, MPA. “Marijuana Arrests and California’s Drug War: A
Report to the California Legislature,” Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. 2009. Note: This
study also reports the often-quoted statistic of misdemeanor marijuana possession arrests
reaching 61,388 in 2008. However, it is important to note that this statistic does not refer to any
arrest demographic that the Regulate, Control and Tax Initiative would affect. This statistic refers only
to possession of more than one ounce, possession by minors, and possession on school
grounds--offenses which the initiative will not legalize. It does not refer to nor does it include
marijuana arrests for possession of one ounce or less, because possession of one ounce or less
is not an arrestable offense. Therefore, the initiative would have no impact on reducing these arrests
rates.
[7] Brian Braiker. “California: Odd Bedfellows in the Pro-Pot Ballot Initiative,” ABC News. Apr. 5, 2010
[8] Section 4: Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors: (c) Every person 21 years of age or over
who knowingly furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer or give, any
marijuana to a person aged 18 years or older, but younger than 21 years of age, shall be punished
by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of up to six months and be fined up to $1,000 for each
offense.
[9] National Organization for the Reformation of Marijuana Laws. http://norml.org/index.cfm?
Group_ID=4525
[10] Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls: (c) “Personal
consumption” shall not include, and nothing in this Act shall permit: (iv) smoking cannabis in any
space while minors are present.
[11] Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls: (ii) Cultivate, on
private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property
owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more
than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel.
[12] Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls: (g) prohibit
and punish through civil fines or other remedies the possession, sale, possession for sale,
cultivation, processing, or transportation of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully from a person
pursuant to this section or section 11300; [Section 11300: (i) possession for sale regardless of
amount, except by a person who is licensed or permitted to do so under the terms of an ordinance
adopted pursuant to section 11301]
[13] B: Purposes, 7: Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that
buying and selling cannabis within that city’s limits remain illegal, but that the city’s citizens still have
the right to possess and consume small amounts. (Note: The word “cultivate” is conspicuously
absent.)
[14] Brian Braiker. “California: Odd Bedfellows in the Pro-Pot Ballot Initiative,” ABC News. Apr. 5, 2010
[15] Section 11302: Imposition and Collection of Taxes and Fees (a) Any ordinance, regulation or
other act adopted pursuant to section 11301 may include imposition of appropriate general, special
or excise, transfer or transaction taxes, benefit assessments, or fees, on any activity authorized
pursuant to such enactment, in order to permit the local government to raise revenue, or to recoup
any direct or indirect costs associated with the authorized activity, or the permitting or licensing
scheme, including without limitation: administration; applications and issuance of licenses or
permits; inspection of licensed premises and other enforcement of ordinances adopted under
section 11301, including enforcement against unauthorized activities.
[16] Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls: (g) prohibit
and punish through civil fines or other remedies the possession, sale, possession for sale,
cultivation, processing, or transportation of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully from a person
pursuant to this section or section 11300; [(b) retail sale of not more than one ounce per transaction,
in licensed premises, to persons 21 years or older, for personal consumption and not for resale]
[17] Medical marijuana exemptions: B: Purposes, 7: Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and
regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city’s limits remain illegal,
but that the city’s citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts except as
permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9. (Note: The word
“cultivate” is conspicuously absent.)
Although this refers to cities that decide not to tax marijuana, even in cities that do choose to tax, the
initiative explicitly supersedes medical marijuana law and gives local government control over how
much patients can cultivate, as seen in Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls:
Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances,
regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise
authorize, with conditions, the following: (a) cultivation, processing, distribution, the safe and secure
transportation, sale and possession for sale of cannabis, but only by persons and in amounts
lawfully authorized. (This section provides no exemptions for medical marijuana law.)
[18] Proposition 215 (Compassionate Use Act): Section 11362.79: Nothing in this article shall
authorize a qualified patient or person with an identification card to engage in the smoking of
medical marijuana under any of the following circumstances: (a) In any place where smoking is
prohibited by law.
[19] Medical marijuana exemptions: B: Purposes, 7: Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and
regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city’s limits remain illegal,
but that the city’s citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts except as
permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.
[20] Proposition 215 (Compassionate Use Act): Section 11362.79: Nothing in this article shall
authorize a qualified patient or person with an identification card to engage in the smoking of
medical marijuana under any of the following circumstances: (a) In any place where smoking is
prohibited by law.
[21] Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls (c) “Personal consumption” shall not include,
and nothing in this Act shall permit cannabis: (ii) consumption in public or in a public place
[22] Trish Regan. “California's Emerald Triangle: Small Towns, Big Money,” CNBC Marijuana and
Money Special Report. Apr. 20, 2010
[23] Steve Fainaru and William Booth. “Cartels Face an Economic Battle,” Washington Post. Oct. 7,
2009
[24] Kate McLean. “Pot: Semi-legal, Sold Everywhere,” The Bay Citizen. Jun. 5, 2010
[25] Jesse McKinley. “Don’t Call It ‘Pot’ in This Circle; It’s a Profession,” New York Times. Apr. 23,
2010
[26] Matthai Kuruvila. “IGrow: Walmart of Weed Opens in Oakland,” San Francisco Chronicle. Jan.
28, 2010
[27] Staff. “Marijuana, Inc Formerly Preachers Coffee Announces Name Change and 420 Friendly
Resorts Division,” Marketwire. May 26, 2010
[28] http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/s...,1318609.shtml
[29] Michael Montgomery. “Plummeting Marijuana Prices Create a Panic in California,” National
Public Radio. May 15, 2010
[30] Section 5: Amendment: Pursuant to Article 2, section 10(c) of the California Constitution, this Act
may be amended either by a subsequent measure submitted to a vote of the People at a statewide
election; or by statute validly passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, but only to
further the purposes of the Act.
[31] John Hoeffel. “Measure to Legalize Marijuana Will be on California's November Ballot,” Los
Angeles Times. Mar. 25, 2010
[32] Stu Woo. “Legal-Pot Backers Split on Timing,” Wall Street Journal. Oct. 3, 2009.
[33] “California Marijuana Legalization Initiative Effort Underway, Aimed at 2010 Ballot,” Drug War
Chronicle. Jun. 19, 2009
Read the initiative at: taxcannabis.org/index.php/pages/initiative
Posted by dragonfly at 12:01 PM
| Back to Top |
| Back to Top |
| Back to Top |
| Back to Top |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| Back to Top |
| Network Index |
| Back to Top |
| Back to Top |
A NOTE ABOUT THE CENSORSHIP IN THIS ISSUE.
"ALTERNET" NOW PROVIDES "PSYCO ANALYSIS" AS FREE SERVICE TO
DETERMINE "CENSORSHIP"
by Diverse Sanctuary on Saturday, August 21, 2010 at 11:23am
AFTER DELETING SEVERAL EDUCATIONAL, INFORMATIONAL BUT APPOSING
VIEWS AS A RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IN THEIR COMMENTS ONLY
TO HAVE THEM ALL DELETED WITH-IN MINUTES OF THEM BEING PLACED. AFTER
MY FIRST RESPONSE PLACED RECEIVED TWO IMMEDIATE LIKES RIGHT AWAY.
THE FIRST OF WHICH WAS {THE POST AT THE TOP OF THIS PAGE WRITTEN BY
MYSELF REV. MARY}
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=418261816980
THE LAST OF WHICH WERE WARNINGS THAT THEY COULD NOT SILENCE TRUTH
SIMPLY BY DELETING IT.
LAST COMMENT
DIVERSE_SANCTUARY wrote:
SENDING THE RESPONSE ~ TRUTH ~ YOU DELETED OUT TO ALL OF MY MEDIA
AND MAINSTREAM NEWS CONTACTS WITH A NOTE ABOUT PROP 19 ATTACHED.
SO IF IT WORRIED YOU TO HAVE IT HERE... WELL.......... YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE
TRIED TO SILENCE THE TRUTH
I RECEIVED THIS RESPONSE TO THAT WARNING.
[alternet] Re: Log In
...
From: Disqus <notifications-Q5UCVW8QZF@disqus.net>
...
buddys wrote, in response to DIVERSE_SANCTUARY:
I've read your comments and have come to the conclusion that you are in
serious need of psychiatric help!
Link to comment: http://disq.us/kxm9t
FUNNY THE COURTS TRIED TO PULL THIS SHI# TOO !
GUESS WHAT ALTERNET.
THAT EXCUSE
DIDN'T WORK FOR THE COURTS HERE IN THE STATE OF KENTUCKY
DIDN'T WORK FOR THE COURTS IN THE STATE OF OHIO
MY PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION IS A MATTER OF COURT RECORD THANK YOU !
AND SO IS MY IQ !
MY EDUCATION, EXPERIENCE AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS ARE WELL DOCUMENTED
NOT TO MENTION, " IT STILL DOESN'T EXPLAIN THE CENSORSHIP ! "
AND YOUR TOO FUNNY :D :D :D
I AM SERIOUSLY THINKING ABOUT SUING YOU FOR SUCH A DISCRIMINATORY
SLANDEROUS REPLY OF AN EXCUSE FOR YOUR CENSORSHIP OF OPPOSING
VIEWS.
ALONG WITH PROVIDING PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES OR DETERMINATIONS /
DIAGNOSIS I DO NOT BELIEVE LICENSED TO PROVIDE.
"STICK THAT IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE IT !"
FOR HOW LONG ARE THEY GOING TO GET BY WITH CALLING TRUTHERS CRAZY
AND TRYING TO LOCK THEM AWAY FOR TELLING THE TRUTH
NEED I REMIND THE WORLD OF THE STORY OF GALALAO ? WHO WAS SAID TO BE
CRAZY THEN THEY LOCKED HIM AWAY AS A HERETIC
http://4thefirsttime.blogspot.com/2007/09/1992-catholic-church-apologizes-to.html
IN ORDER TO SILENCE HIM = CENSORSHIP !
ANY LAWYERS OUT THERE INTERESTED IN PURSUING THIS ?
SINCERELY,
REV. MARY
A FAVORITE QUOTE FROM MARK TWAIN 1907,
"When I, a thoughtful and unblessed Presbyterian, examine the Koran, I know
that beyond any question every Mohammedan is insane; not in all things, but in
religious matters. When a thoughtful and unblessed Mohammedan examines the
Westminster Catechism, he knows that beyond any question I am spiritually
insane. I cannot prove to him that he is insane, because you never can prove
anything to a lunatic--for that is apart of his insanity and the evidence of it. He
cannot prove to me that I am insane, for my mind has the same defect that
afflicts his. All Democrats are insane, but not one of them knows it; none but the
Republicans and Mugwumps know it. All the Republicans are insane, but only
the Democrats and Mugwumps can perceive it. The rule is perfect: in all matters
of opinion our adversaries are insane.
PROVING THERE IS ALWAY MORE THAN ONE WAY TO SKIN A CAT
SHEREE KRIDER YOUR AWESOME ! THANKS FOR THE LAUGH ! LMAO !
http://blogs.alternet.org/shereekrider/2010/08/23/5/
OTHERS KNOWN TO DIRECTLY CENSOR THIS TRUTH
http://www.opposingviews.com
"ALTERNET" NOW PROVIDES "PSYCO ANALYSIS" AS FREE SERVICE TO
DETERMINE "CENSORSHIP"
by Diverse Sanctuary on Saturday, August 21, 2010 at 11:23am
AFTER DELETING SEVERAL EDUCATIONAL, INFORMATIONAL BUT APPOSING
VIEWS AS A RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IN THEIR COMMENTS ONLY
TO HAVE THEM ALL DELETED WITH-IN MINUTES OF THEM BEING PLACED. AFTER
MY FIRST RESPONSE PLACED RECEIVED TWO IMMEDIATE LIKES RIGHT AWAY.
THE FIRST OF WHICH WAS {THE POST AT THE TOP OF THIS PAGE WRITTEN BY
MYSELF REV. MARY}
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=418261816980
THE LAST OF WHICH WERE WARNINGS THAT THEY COULD NOT SILENCE TRUTH
SIMPLY BY DELETING IT.
LAST COMMENT
DIVERSE_SANCTUARY wrote:
SENDING THE RESPONSE ~ TRUTH ~ YOU DELETED OUT TO ALL OF MY MEDIA
AND MAINSTREAM NEWS CONTACTS WITH A NOTE ABOUT PROP 19 ATTACHED.
SO IF IT WORRIED YOU TO HAVE IT HERE... WELL.......... YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE
TRIED TO SILENCE THE TRUTH
I RECEIVED THIS RESPONSE TO THAT WARNING.
[alternet] Re: Log In
...
From: Disqus <notifications-Q5UCVW8QZF@disqus.net>
...
buddys wrote, in response to DIVERSE_SANCTUARY:
I've read your comments and have come to the conclusion that you are in
serious need of psychiatric help!
Link to comment: http://disq.us/kxm9t
FUNNY THE COURTS TRIED TO PULL THIS SHI# TOO !
GUESS WHAT ALTERNET.
THAT EXCUSE
DIDN'T WORK FOR THE COURTS HERE IN THE STATE OF KENTUCKY
DIDN'T WORK FOR THE COURTS IN THE STATE OF OHIO
MY PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION IS A MATTER OF COURT RECORD THANK YOU !
AND SO IS MY IQ !
MY EDUCATION, EXPERIENCE AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS ARE WELL DOCUMENTED
NOT TO MENTION, " IT STILL DOESN'T EXPLAIN THE CENSORSHIP ! "
AND YOUR TOO FUNNY :D :D :D
I AM SERIOUSLY THINKING ABOUT SUING YOU FOR SUCH A DISCRIMINATORY
SLANDEROUS REPLY OF AN EXCUSE FOR YOUR CENSORSHIP OF OPPOSING
VIEWS.
ALONG WITH PROVIDING PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES OR DETERMINATIONS /
DIAGNOSIS I DO NOT BELIEVE LICENSED TO PROVIDE.
"STICK THAT IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE IT !"
FOR HOW LONG ARE THEY GOING TO GET BY WITH CALLING TRUTHERS CRAZY
AND TRYING TO LOCK THEM AWAY FOR TELLING THE TRUTH
NEED I REMIND THE WORLD OF THE STORY OF GALALAO ? WHO WAS SAID TO BE
CRAZY THEN THEY LOCKED HIM AWAY AS A HERETIC
http://4thefirsttime.blogspot.com/2007/09/1992-catholic-church-apologizes-to.html
IN ORDER TO SILENCE HIM = CENSORSHIP !
ANY LAWYERS OUT THERE INTERESTED IN PURSUING THIS ?
SINCERELY,
REV. MARY
A FAVORITE QUOTE FROM MARK TWAIN 1907,
"When I, a thoughtful and unblessed Presbyterian, examine the Koran, I know
that beyond any question every Mohammedan is insane; not in all things, but in
religious matters. When a thoughtful and unblessed Mohammedan examines the
Westminster Catechism, he knows that beyond any question I am spiritually
insane. I cannot prove to him that he is insane, because you never can prove
anything to a lunatic--for that is apart of his insanity and the evidence of it. He
cannot prove to me that I am insane, for my mind has the same defect that
afflicts his. All Democrats are insane, but not one of them knows it; none but the
Republicans and Mugwumps know it. All the Republicans are insane, but only
the Democrats and Mugwumps can perceive it. The rule is perfect: in all matters
of opinion our adversaries are insane.
PROVING THERE IS ALWAY MORE THAN ONE WAY TO SKIN A CAT
SHEREE KRIDER YOUR AWESOME ! THANKS FOR THE LAUGH ! LMAO !
http://blogs.alternet.org/shereekrider/2010/08/23/5/
OTHERS KNOWN TO DIRECTLY CENSOR THIS TRUTH
http://www.opposingviews.com
| Back to Top |
| Back to Top |
IT SHALL BE KNOWN...
THAT THIS IS MY VERY PUBLIC ENDORSEMENT OF M.E.R.P. FOR IMMEDIATE LEGISLATION IN 2010
...
REF. PAGE
www.newagecitizen.com/merp.htm
I WOULD EXPECT AT LEAST AS MUCH URGENCY IN PASSING THIS LEGISLATION, AS WAS MUSTERED
UP TO RIP OFF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO BAIL OUT THE BANKS AND CORPORATIONS THROUGH
THE PASSAGE OF BILLS SUCH AS TARP IN OCT. 08 AND AGAIN IN YOUR RECENT FINANCIAL REFORM
BILL, JUST PASSED IN MAY OF THIS YEAR.
CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT WHAT IS TAKING PLACE IN THE GULF OF MEXICO TODAY COULD HAVE
BEEN AVOIDED ALTOGETHER IN HISTORY HAD IN NOT BEEN FOR THE GREEDY CAPITALIST AGENDA
OF THESE BANKS AND CORPORATIONS.
HEMP IS THE ALTERNATIVE TO WHAT IS TAKING PLACE IN THE GULF, AND SHOULD BE UTILIZED
BOTH IN THE REPLACEMENT OF OIL FOR FUEL AND IN THE CLEAN UP!
REF. PAGE
http://www.diversesanctuarysnews.ning.com/group/earthwatchnewsteam/forum/topics/bps-oil-spill-
proof-one-the
"FOR THE HEALING OF THE NATIONS" REV. 22: 1-2
REF. PAGE
http://www.diversesanctuary.ning.com/page/cannabis-the-holy-anointing `
THE URGENCY TO BAIL OUT BANKS AND CORPORATIONS, TO PROTECT THE PRECIOUS DOLLAR
"NOT WORTH THE COST OF PRINTING" AND WHICH CAN NOT BE EATEN IN THE END.
WEIGHS FAR LESS THAN THE NEED TO PROTECT OUR OCEANS AND WATER WHICH IS THE SOURCE
OF LIFE ON THIS EARTH.
NOT TO MENTION, THE SIDE AFFECTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PASSING OF THIS LEGISLATION FOR THE
HEALING NEEDED TO THE TOXIC PLACES WE HAVE CREATED BY OUR NATIONS DEPENDENCE UPON
MOLESTING MOTHER EARTH IN THE NAME OF "THE MONEY GOD THEY WORSHIP AND TRUST" WHICH
THEY LABEL SURVIVAL, FOR THEIR OWN EGOS SAKE.
WOULD BE GREAT FOR THE HEALTH AND ECONOMY UNITED STATES.
STARTING WITH THE FACT IT WOULD DRASTICALLY IMPACT AND REDUCE ANY EXISTING BLACK
MARKET, {CAUSED BY THE CURRENT PROHIBITION AND REGULATIONS} DIRECTLY AFFECTING AND
REDUCING ANY EXISTING CARTELS WHO'S BUSINESS IS CANNABIS BASED WITH-OUT EXPENDING
ANY MORE BLOOD OR FURTHER EXPENSES IN THIS MATTER.
WHILE OPENING UP VERTICALLY A WORLD OF NEW AVENUES OF INDUSTRY AND EMPLOYMENT,
THROUGH THE FIELDS OF AGRICULTURE, IN INDUSTRY, NUTRITION, MEDICINAL CANNABIS/HEMP.
NOT TO MENTION THE PRODUCTION OF 1000's OF CANNABIS/HEMP PRODUCTS. INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO ~ ONE OF THE HIGHEST PROTEIN & OMEGA RICH MILK AND FOODS, A PROVEN MEDICINE
AND CURE. CEMENT, INK, RUBBER, PLASTICS AND BIO-FUEL. MANY OF WHICH WILL BE TAXED
DURING SELLS AND REPORTED INCOME. HEALING OUR ECONOMY AND OUR NATIONS PEOPLE
ALL WHILE WE ARE CLEANING UP TOXIC SOIL, GROUND WATER, AND REPAIRING OUR DAMAGED
OZONE WHILE IT IS GROWN AND WHEN BURNED FOR FUEL.
I ASK YOU, "WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN RESTORING AND PROTECTING OUR EARTH AND
NATURAL RESOURCES ?"
SO I EXPECT YOU TO MOVE SWIFTLY UPON THIS, WHILE REMINDING YOU WE HAVE SEEN HOW
SWIFTLY YOU CAN MOVE WHEN IT COMES TO PROTECTING THE DOLLAR. THAT IS FILTERED BACK
TO YOU THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE BANKS AND WE HAVE ALSO WITNESSED YOUR PRAYERS FOR
BLESSINGS AS YOU CALLED UPON A GOD.
YOUR MAIN TASK ARE TO
1) COMPLETELY REMOVE MARIJUANA FROM THE "CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT OF 1970" ,
AFTER ALL IT IS KNOWN TO BE FAR MORE SAFER THAN ASPIRIN AND ONLY CRIMINALISES OTHER
WISE LAW ABIDING AMERICANS IN ORDER TO SERVE THE INTEREST OF THE INDUSTRIAL PRISON
COMPLEX {POLICE, LABS, ATTORNEYS, REHABS, COURTS, JUDGES, JAILS,...} WHILE FEEDING THEM
AND THEIR FAMILIES INTO SLAVERY.
2) IMMEDIATELY WITHDRAW FROM UN (OR OTHER) AGREEMENTS THAT PLACE ANY RESTRAINTS ON
THE UNREGULATED, UNTAXED PERSONAL USE AND CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA BY ANYONE OVER
THE AGE OF 18.
3) THE IMMEDIATE UTILIZATION AND THE AID OF HEMP TECHNOLOGY IN THE HEALING, CLEAN-UP
AND RESTORATION OF THE GULF OF MEXICO, {INCLUDING ANY AND ALL OTHER TOXIC SOIL OR
GROUND WATER IN THE U.S., AS WELL AS THE ALTERNATIVE TO THE GULF CRISES, AS A
REPLACEMENT FUEL. {BECAUSE AS YOU, YOURSELF SAID, "WE CAN'T AFFORD NOT TO".}
4) THE IMMEDIATE RELEASE AND FULL RESTORATION OF RIGHTS OF ALL PRISONERS
INCARCERATED WITH-IN THE US OVER MARIJUANA POSSESSION, CULTIVATION, TRAFFICKING, AND
ANY AND ALL RELATED PARAPHERNALIA, ECT... ANY AND ALL RELATED PENDING OR EXISTING
RECORDS OF CHARGES OR RELATED HISTORY ERASED.
5) END ALL REQUIRED OR COURT ORDERED DRUG TESTING FOR MARIJUANA ON ANYONE OVER THE
AGE OF 18 WITH-IN THE U.S.
RETURNING HEMP TO OUR GARDENS AND HOLISTIC SUSTAINABILITY TO THE CITIZENS, THE U.S.A.,
THE GLOBE.
IMPLEMENTING HEALING ON OUR OZONE, OUR SOIL, OUR GROUND WATER, OUR NATIONS PEOPLE.
YOU SHOULD BE AWARE THAT THE MAJORITY OF AMERICA WISHES TO SEE THIS COME TO PASS AS
QUICKLY AS I DO.
SO IF YOU WISH TO REMAIN IN OFFICE, UNLESS YOUR WISH IS TO SEE A REAL "CHANGE" COME TO
PASS, THROUGH THE NEXT ELECTION. WITH YOU MOVING OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE.
CREATE "REAL CHANGE" NOW!
"THEY WILL BE WATCHING."
SINCERELY,
MUCH PEACE & LOVE...
REV. MARY THOMAS-SPEARS
FOUNDER & WEB MASTER
DIVERSE SANCTUARY COMMUNITY NETWORK
diversesanctuary@yahoo.com
http://www.diversesanctuary.ning.com
http://www.diversesanctuarysnews.ning.com
http://www.myspace.com/diversesanctuary
http://www.designingyourworld.com
1 Corinthians 12:31 KJV: "For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged." -- Jesus
The Last Supper
FINALLY A QUOTE ~ FROM ICON TOMMY CHONG {FLIP FLOPPER} ON PROP. 19 ~
" I just watched a no on prop 19 vidio and it made me think. Apparently the
wording in prop.19 slants everything toward "big business" and away from
medical marijuana. I suggest everyone read prop 19 and decide for them selves.
Prop 19 dones not mention legalization...it ...mentions contro...l. That is scarey!
Remember marijuana tax stamps?..read 19 and make up your own mind... " tc ~
Thomas Chong ~ A FACEBOOK STATUS UPDATE
I HATE TO SAY IT, BUT EVEN SARAH PALIN KNOWS...
Sarah Palin wants cops to leave weed smokers alone | The Daily ...Jun 18, 2010 ... I am a right
minded libertarian, and am against the legalization of marijuana. I can see the big picture, with
people like SOROS funding the movement...
| Back to Top |
| PLEASE ENDORSE ~ The Vienna Declaration www.viennadeclaration.com |
| "EVEN OUT OF THE MOUTHS OF BABES" PROPOSITION 19, MONSANTO, AND GMO TERMINATOR CANNABIS |
| radicaljusticeman's blog ON THE ABOVE BROADCAST http://community.kpfz.org /node/17 |
| EXAMINE IT PROP 19 ON PDF |
| Back to Top |
| DESIGNING YOUR WORLD Copyright ©2010 |
| JACK HERER WAS AGAINST PROP 19 HIS FINAL WISHES FOR THE PLANT AND YOU WERE MADE CLEAR IN HIS LAST INITIATIVE DUBBED CCHH |
| VISITORS |
| THE FIRST AT THE TOP OF THE PYRAMID OF CORPORATIONS WAS/IS THE "CATHOLIC CHURCH" KATHOLIKOS IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK "KATA" A PREPOSITION WITH VARIOUS MEANINGS OFTEN MEANING DOWN OR NEGATIVE AS IN CATABOLIC OR CATASTROPHE "HOLOS" MEANING WHOLE AS IN HOLISTIC MEDICINE |
THE HEMP ALTERNATIVE SEND YOUR FREE TO CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT NOW THANK YOU ! |
WE ARE A SPECIES THAT IS BASED
ON AN ENDOCANNABINOID SYSTEM
AND WE HAVE ALLOWED AN HERB OF
THE FIELD, GIVEN TO US FOR MEAT. IN
GENESIS. THAT IS A CANNABINOID TO BE
PROHIBITED. WHEN CANNABIS IS A FOOD."
" IT'S GENOCIDE ! "
ON AN ENDOCANNABINOID SYSTEM
AND WE HAVE ALLOWED AN HERB OF
THE FIELD, GIVEN TO US FOR MEAT. IN
GENESIS. THAT IS A CANNABINOID TO BE
PROHIBITED. WHEN CANNABIS IS A FOOD."
" IT'S GENOCIDE ! "
| IT'S REALLY JUST ABOUT MAXIMIZING THEIR PROFITS ANY WAY THEY CAN CHECK OUT THIS TRUTH HOW TO MARKET FREEDOM & WHY THE DRUG WAR PERPETUATES IT'S SELF FROM BOTH ENDS |
FOLLOW THE
MONEY TRAIL
WHO IS FUNDING
LEGALIZATION &
WHAT IS THEIR AGENDA ?
articles-essays/entry/why_i
_support_legal_marijuana/
http://www.tokeofthetown.co
m/2010/10/billionaire_soro
s_gives_1_million_to_prop
_19_pot_l.php
MONEY TRAIL
WHO IS FUNDING
LEGALIZATION &
WHAT IS THEIR AGENDA ?
articles-essays/entry/why_i
_support_legal_marijuana/
http://www.tokeofthetown.co
m/2010/10/billionaire_soro
s_gives_1_million_to_prop
_19_pot_l.php
| IN THIS ISSUE from COULD this EXPLAIN some of the CENSORSHIP ??? http://blogs.forbes.com/cla reoconnor/2010/10/07/fac ebooks-sean-parker-outd oes-moskovitz-with-100k-f or-marijuana-bill/?boxes= HomepageSpecialStorySe ction |
| GMO SEED WATCH ON CANNABIS HEMP http://gmocannabiswatch.blogs pot.com/ |
| WHY THE WORDS USED ARE SO IMPORTANT |
| The Endocannabinoid System as an Emerging Target of Pharmacotherapy |
| GMO HEMP |
Through the Ministry Community and name of DIVERSE SANCTUARY, I / we currently
represent the KENTUCKY Chapter of American's For Cannabis Repealing Prohibition
represent the KENTUCKY Chapter of American's For Cannabis Repealing Prohibition
| Get our Portable Web Site for your site page or blog |
| MORE ABOUT the years of CENSORSHIP So ever ask yourself? WHY do THOSE CLAIMING to REPRESENT Y/OUR BEST INTEREST in the MARIJUANA/HEMP ISSUE= INDUSTRY... MISLEAD or LIE to EVERYONE ABOUT HEMP and/or GMO HEMP hemp.com - Monday January 30th 2012 GMO Crops Pulled From Wildlife Refuges "Sometimes we report on subjects that might not be directly related to Hemp, but we think they’re pretty darn important anyway." http://www.hemp. com/2011/01/gmo- crops-pulled-from- wildlife/ Think it's because they know GMO Hemp is the only way to control the "THC Levels" in the plant every crop in some locations every time it's planted. Due to the fact that THC is the plants "Sun Screen" which protects it from the sun and drought. Which means THC levels increase in the hemp plant by the closer hemp is planted to the sun or equator... and/or according to how much sun/light it receives & HIGHER LEVELS of THC = MARIJUANA right. Not to mention their profits increase from their full "ownership" of the plant through Patent [ . ] |