March 7, 2018 Today In Frankfort; Praying for HB 166 !

Image may contain: one or more people, crowd and text

As I sat here patiently waiting for the Kentucky Legislature to take a vote on HB 166, I was thinking of a way to say,

“Thank-You”

to ALL of the people who took a stand this year in Kentucky!

No automatic alt text available.

Jaime Montalvo   Justin Lewandoski   Eric Michelle Crawford   Pat Dunegan   Jennifer Dunegan   Dan Seum   Sally Oh   Dan Malano Seum   Tony Ashley   Elihu Shepherd   Tim Simpson   Henry Fox   Gina Daugherty   Chad Wilson    Thomas Tony Vance    Rebecca Collins   Blackii Effing Whyte 

There are many more which have not been listed here! 

Remembering also those that have in past years took up this fight and were the leaders from the beginning!

No automatic alt text available.

Gatewood Galbraith – Wikipedia   Galbraith supported the legalization of recreational marijuana use, arguing that the framers of the US Constitution “did not say we have a Constitutional right to possess alcohol. They said we have a Constitutional right to privacy in our homes, under which fits the possession of an extremely poisonous alcohol. Now this is the law in Kentucky today. In fact, it is these rulings that keep the Kentucky State Police from kicking down the doors of people possessing alcohol in Kentucky’s 77 ‘dry’ counties right now and hauling their butts off to jail. Now Marijuana is a demonstrably less harmful substance than alcohol and presents far less of threat to public welfare. So it also fits in a person’s right to privacy in their home. It’s beyond the police power of the state as long as I don’t sell it and it’s for my own personal use.”[10]

Craig Lee   Tony Adkins  Ron Moore  David Weigand   Angela Gatewood   Erin Grossman Vu  Robin Rider-Osborne   Paula Willett  Cher Ford-mccullough Brian McCullough  Mary Thomas-Spears  Lynne Wilson  Roland A. Duby   Hugh Yonn  Patrick Moore  

Again, I have missed so many names that should be listed here! 

Many people put their own lives on hold to take on Kentucky’s Cannabis battle, whether it be for medicinal, recreational or even palliative care, they all took a stand…and walked all the way to Frankfort to prove it.    Not literally, of course.  I hope they all had a decent ride to get there but surely there were a few old broken down cars in the parking lot as well.  But by the time they all left there yesterday evening it felt as though they had  literally walked those miles.

All different types of people working toward one cause – to get some kind of Cannabis reform into Kentucky!

At the end of the day, the vote for HB 166 was passed over!  A very disappointing outcome for many thousands of Kentuckians who very much needed that Bill to pass! 

How is it possible that legislation so favored by the citizens has not already become law? What is it about this legislation that has Kentucky’s legislators so scared that they are willing to buck the will of the majority of the citizens?
I am of course talking about the legalization of cannabis for medical uses. With 80% favorability and a multitude of benefits arising from the use of cannabis it is confounding to see the Assembly leadership refuse the will of the people and bury all cannabis bills in committee. For what purpose are they doing this?  LINK

When I first started posting to blogs about medical cannabis or “repeal prohibition” it was 2003.  That was 15 years ago.  By the time I became affiliated with the USMjParty it was 2005 and 2010 before I really became involved in any administration of the group.  I always fought for the repeal of prohibition as a whole, but most importantly for Cannabis because yes, I believe Cannabis is a medicine, but first it has to be recognized as a food or ‘herb’ that cannot be controlled by the U.N. or any Government entity!  It is our unalienable right to grow and use the plants that our “Creator” put here on this planet for us! Only commerce can be controlled by our Government, according to the Constitution.  Therefore what we grow on our property or consume in our homes is actually none of the Government’s business!  But they MADE it their business – a long time ago. 

To understand how they accomplished this takeover, you can read the “Elkhorn Manifesto” through this link.  That was the beginning of the downfall of the United States as we see it today.  The U.N. which was formed in 1945 with five founding members including the United States was the beginning of the NWO as we know it today.  The ONDCP and the 1961 Narcotic Convention as well as the 1970 Controlled Substance Act and the DEA instituted by Nixon, as a requirement of the 1970 CSA, as per the U.N., conveniently wrapped up our lives under the control of the NWO.  I wrote about this a couple of years ago and it has a lot of interesting links of information it that article.

The U.N. just issued a statement reminding all signatory Countries to be mindful of their “Treaties” regarding Marijuana.

Be mindful of the fact that it is not just Marijuana that they seek to control.  Control the food and medicine and you will control the people.

We are just now seeing how one world Government will work.  It is reaching into all facets of our lives, some not noticeable yet to the average person, not just whether or not Marijuana is “legal”. 

All of these things together, coupled with the fact that our Legislature has their own agenda for Kentucky influences the outcome of any Cannabis legislation being passed here. 

We still have a couple weeks to see what the outcome will be for the Citizens of Kentucky.  Will the hard work by our dedicated Activists pay off for the Patients who are in such need in our State?  We can only continue to pray and also continue calling

1-800-372-7181

and make sure your voice is heard!

As well, K.C.F.C. and others are gathering in Frankfort to show support.  You can follow them at this LINK.

There is a VERY good article documenting all of the Cannabis Bills in Kentucky this year at Kentucky Free Press.  If you haven’t already done so I encourage you to look at it.

Sally Oh,  who writes for Kentucky Free Press, was LIVE on Facebook on February 25th, explaining Medical Cannabis, States’ Rights & the Civil War  and I encourage you to view that video as well.

Sally Oh KY Free Press

Again, I want to thank everyone that has made an effort of any kind in Kentucky toward the repeal of Cannabis prohibition!  We all basically want the same thing – our patients to be taken care of and the freedom to possess, grow and consume a plant that our Creator blessed us with!

God Bless!

ShereeKrider

Image may contain: one or more people and text

http://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article203965849.html?fb_action_ids=1613192325466378&fb_action_types=og.comments

https://www.facebook.com/kcfc2014/

https://www.facebook.com/thomas.t.vance/posts/1613192325466378:0

https://www.facebook.com/152743612103544/photos/gm.414718132314283/154650008579571/?type=3&theater

Advertisements

The “Lessor of Evils” as a Defense for Marijuana

 

MARY 2

 

I must start out with a initial plea of Guilty but Innocent in Order to initiate the Process of establishing no “Mens Rae” with the Motion of a “Lessor of Evils” defense, based on having no other choice but evil in the case at hand!

As for guilt, I have none and I have already proven it by my already having plead Guilty and Not! Based on a Motion for a “Lessor of Evils”.

I am then given the chance to introduce all the evidence in Court that in fact proves my innocence and my lack of guilt in the case or crime I am being charged for…

The real two evil choices you/we are currently given in a Marijuana Case is either ~

A)

I/you/we know we are being forced into choosing between the Evil of choosing to “Uphold” an evil Abusive LIE… = Unconstitutional Controlled Substance Act = Prohibition which they created to divide the Market place for double the profit in order to drive prices, as this also allows for more venues or avenues, for them to profit in while they enslave everyone we love… and everything through their unconstitutionally declared “Foreign Synthetic War” on Nature, I mean drugs! The “drug war” which evidence shows has already destroyed too much and too many in America… While be forced to give up my/your already won Supreme Court decision of Leary vs The U.S, which established Constitutional Inalienable Sovereign Freedoms and Rights… While we bend over for Evil…

Or

B) We risk being deemed evil and getting arrested, criminalized, going to prison, or even worse dying… shot by a cop… For doing the right thing and flexing my Constitutional Inalienable Sovereign freedoms and rights to utilize this plant untaxed, which was upheld in the Supreme Courts Ruling in Leary vs The U.S.!

For my/your/our needs and or the needs of others…

Which they have deemed as evil? And want to call me/you/us a criminal for  violating and breaking their Unconstitutional Illegal overreach and Acts of Congress and Statutes… Not Law! to use this non-toxic food as it was freely Divinely and Sacramentally given to us as a nontoxic most nutritious meat first!  As we also now know that we are all in fact, Endocannabinoid based species or life forms and we also know that it is in fact malnutrition that causes the majority of disease and death…

While many are suffering in pain, in jails or prison, starving and dying from not having this food and the genocide and Slaves being caused by all their propaganda Legal Lies – Legalize BS Babble being told by their Big Corporate Industrial Synthetic Military Prison Church Complex!

Just in order for us to… be, eat, heal, sleep, maintain,… Naturally as it was Divinely ordained by/in Nature and/or G-d…

As apposed to being forced to utilize addictive and/or become dependent and/or being poisoned by all of it… Their patented chemical synthetic look alikes… When we know for a fact, that Cannabis/Marijuana is non-toxic… Breaks Addiction and Dependency while it has has so many other good industrial uses… For our sustainability and tranquility!

https://marythomasspearsblog.wordpress.com/2017/04/12/is-no-mans-rae-the-plea-to-set-us-free/comment-page-1/#comment-5

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_of_two_evils_principle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leary_v._United_States

http://www.differencebetween.info/difference-between-statutory-law-and-constitutional-law

http://norml.org/library/item/introduction-to-the-endocannabinoid-system

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

 

409141_10150583715047994_761977993_10929233_130203296_n

 

 

A FEW OF THE FACTS AND DOCUMENTS FROM THE FIRST GO AROUND WITH KENTUCKY OVER MARIJUANA CHARGES IN 1995.

IN THIS FIRST CASE I WAS ORIGINALLY CHARGED WITH THREE FELONY COUNTS OF TRAFFICKING; WITH-IN 1000 YRDS OF A SCHOOL = 1 FELONY EACH, FOR A TOTAL OF 6 FELONIES. I FACED UP TO 45 YRS. BEHIND BARS ON EACH COUNT. THIS WAS MY FIRST DRUG OFFENSE.

FOR PROVIDING MEDICINE AND SACRAMENT (CANNABIS/MARIJUANA) TO A NARC POSING AS A CANCER PATIENT, WHO CAME TO MY MINISTRY ASKING ME FOR MY HELP.

SOME OF THE DOCUMENTATION IS FOUND HERE BELOW… AS I FIND THE REST, MORE WILL BE UPLOADED.

* THE IS THE SECOND NEWS ARTICLE WRITTEN ABOUT THIS CASE, AFTER CONVICTION WHILE ON PROBATION, DURING A REVOCATION CASE STEMMING FROM THE ORIGINAL CONVICTION, I WAS STILL TRYING TO MAKE MY POINT TO THE COURTS AND PROBATION AND PROVE TO THEM THAT THEY ALREADY KNOW MARIJUANA IS A MEDICINE {STILL TRYING TO LOCATE COPIES OF THE FIRST NEWS ARTICLE OF MY ARREST IN 1995}

NOTICE ALL THESE ARTICLES… THIS CASE… NEGLECTED TO MENTION THAT I AM A MINISTER, THAT THIS UNDERCOVER CAME TO MY MINISTRY REQUESTING HELP DISGUISED AS A CANCER PATIENT, OR ANYTHING AT ALL OF MY “FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS” TO FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR THE PRACTICE OF…

Daily News (Bowling Green, KY)

July 12, 1999

Section: News

The Politics of Pot (FRONT PAGE – HEADLINES)
For Warren County woman, smoking marijuana was a health issue; to the courts, it was a matter of law
Author: MELINDA J. OVERSTREET, the Daily News Online

Article Text:

Mary Louise Thomas had to make a choice: Give up smoking marijuana, which she contends enables her to function, or risk five years in prison.

“It was a choice between being ill and being in prison, basically,” Thomas said.

The Bowling Green woman, now 33, choose the latter and pleaded guilty in November to one count of trafficking marijuana within 1,000 yards of a school. She said marijuana helps relieve a variety of symptoms caused by glaucoma, multiple sclerosis and fibromyalgia.

She was sentenced to five years in prison, but the sentence was suspended with probation on the condition that she submit to random drug testing and that she not use drugs or alcohol.

Thomas and her attorney, Gatewood Galbraith of Lexington, didn’t object to the drug testing in general, but to testing for marijuana. The judge ordered the test anyway.

She told her probation officer she would try other treatments, but “if nothing else was working – if the medications didn’t ease the pain and I wasn’t able to function – that I would go back to using marijuana,” she said.

Thomas began noticing the symptoms of multiple sclerosis in 1987. She began using marijuana to treat those symptoms within a year, although it wasn’t officially diagnosed until 1995.

With glaucoma, pressure from eye fluid builds up which damages the optic nerve. The condition can cause migraine headaches, vomiting and can lead to blindness, she said, and marijuana has been proven in several studies to reduce the pressure.

Fibromyalgia causes muscle tissue to draw up and harden, and marijuana is a natural muscle relaxer, she said, which “eases the pain.” Since the pain makes her so uncomfortable, a “side effect” of fibromyalgia is insomnia. She contends smoking marijuana allows her to rest.

Thomas said the fibromyalgia and multiple sclerosis also make it difficult for her to swallow, leave her with little appetite and nausea, but the marijuana helps all this, too.

But even with all the good that she said the drug does her, Thomas doesn’t deny she broke the law. She admits to selling marijuana to an undercover officer, but she believed he was also using it for medicinal purposes after they discussed it for several weeks before the sale. She said she would only sell it to adults “who were using it in a healthy manner as I was” and not to children, as might be inferred by the charge of trafficking near a school.

Thomas said she only sold enough to cover the expense of buying her own.

In March she failed a drug screening after she went back to her treatment of choice, causing her probation to be revoked June 23.

“I had stated to (Circuit Judge John D. Minton Jr.) that it was a medication I needed … and if they were going to lock me up for trying to remain healthy, they needed to go ahead and do so,” Thomas said.

She said he granted her a medical-cause hearing, but it didn’t seem that any of the evidence presented backing the medicinal use of marijuana was really considered.

Minton said he is “ethically prohibited from commenting on a pending case.”

Seven states have legalized some medicinal use of marijuana, but the medical community has not embraced it. Kentucky isn’t one of these states.

Galbraith is appealing the probation revocation to the Kentucky Court of Appeals, because Thomas smoked the marijuana for medicinal purposes. He claims that in this, as well as other pending cases, the criminalization of marijuana is unconstitutional because it invades an individual’s right of privacy and is an unreasonable use of police force.

Caption:
Mary Louise Thomas keeps the lights in her house turned off and the curtains drawn to lessen the effects of glaucoma. Thomas is challenging the revocation of her probation on the grounds her marijuana use was for medicinal purposes. (Photo by Paul Conrad)

Copyright, 1999, News Publishing LLC (Bowling Green, KY)
Record Number: /bgd/raw/articles/stories/199907/12/marijuana_news.html

REPORTERS DON’T LISTEN AND DON’T REPORT ANYTHING ACCURATELY

I HAVE S.M.S. {STIFF MAN’S SYNDROME, I WAS THE FIRST WOMAN IN THE WORLD DIAGNOSED AND ONLY THE THIRD PERSON IN THE WORLD TO HAVE BEEN DIAGNOSED AT THE TIME… SO IT BECAME KNOWN AS S.P.S. STIFF PERSON’S SYNDROME TODAY}, IT IS LIKE M.S. AND WAS TOLD I HAD M.S. FROM 1987 UNTIL 1995, AND IT IS STIFF MAN’S THAT STIFFENS/HARDENS THE TISSUE NOT FIBROMYALGIA AND I EXPLAINED ALL THIS TO THEM AT THE TIME… IDIOTS !

I ALSO FOR THE RECORD HAVE OPEN-ANGLE GLAUCOMA, 3 RUPTURED DISK IN MY NECK AND 2 IN MY LOWER BACK, P.T.S.D. AND I HAVE HAD A FEW GO AROUNDS WITH CANCER, ON MY THIRD NOW.

I ALSO EXPLAINED I TOLD THE JUDGE {A MATTER OF COURT RECORD} IN THE CASE THAT I HAD ALREADY TRIED ALL THEIR DRUGS AND TREATMENTS AND THAT IF THEY WERE GOING TO ARREST ME FOR USING MEDICAL MARIJUANA THEY NEEDED TO NOT WASTE ANY MORE OF THEIR TIME OR THE TAX PAYERS MONEY – THAT I WOULD NEVER PASS ANY DRUG TEST FOR THC AND THAT THEY SHOULD GO AHEAD AND LOCK ME AWAY NOW TO AVOID THE ADDED TIME AND COST

* THIRD NEWS ARTICLE (EDITORIAL)

Daily News (Bowling Green, KY)

July 15, 1999

Section: Editorials

Marijuana battle
Medicinal uses of drug must be at least explored

Article Text:

The case of Mary Louise Thomas of Bowling Green brings the national debate about the legalization of marijuana for medicinal use to the local level.

Ms. Thomas suffers from glaucoma, multiple sclerosis and fibromyalgia. Glaucoma can increase pressure on the optic nerve, cause migraine headaches and vomiting, while fibromyalgia causes muscles to harden, causing severe pain.

Ms. Thomas claims marijuana helps alleviate her symptoms.

The medical community has not rallied to support such claims. Medical professionals claim pain medication can do everything marijuana can, with fewer side effects.Yet using marijuana for medicinal reasons has a number of articulate – and surprising – defenders. Richard Brookhiser, an editor of the conservative political magazine National Review, has supported the drug’s legalization since he used it during a bout with testicular cancer.

Despite medical professionals’ testimony to the contrary, marijuana did help him when traditional drugs failed to ease his pain, Mr. Brookhiser said. Because of the government’s prejudice against marijuana, it has never been tested sufficiently and fairly by federal labs, he claimed.

Clearly, those who use marijuana because they are sick and hurting are in an entirely different category than the casual drug user. They are no threat to society, and one can sympathize with their condition. All they seek to do is alleviate their pain.

Although the law in Kentucky prohibits such use, there should be leniency shown to people who use marijuana exclusively for medical reasons.

The law must be just and wise and also, at times, merciful.

To penalize a woman for trying to ease her suffering is not wise, just or merciful.

It also would be wise for the federal government to do definitive scientific experiments with marijuana to discover if it does have the therapeutic properties that supporters claim.

Copyright, 1999, News Publishing LLC (Bowling Green, KY)
Record Number: /bgd/raw/articles/stories/199907/15/marijuana_editorials.html

SOME OF THE FACTS…

THEY CAN NOT TAX A PROHIBITED SUBSTANCE!
{1969 Leary v. United States}

MARIJUANA IS NOT ILLEGAL… IT IS HOW EVER A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE…

CONTROLLED BY WHAT ??? POLICE ???

NO !

CONTROLLED BY THE 1937 TAX ACT & D.E.A.’S CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE ACT.

A TAX MOST HAVE NEVER BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO PAY.

AND AN ACT THAT SAYS, “MARIJUANA IS A SCHEDULE 1 AND HAS NO MEDICAL VALUE WHAT SO EVER”… LOL !

SO IF IT HAS NO MEDICAL VALUE… WHY CREATE THIS ?

MARINOL IT’S MAN MADE COUNTER PART = THE MAN MADE THC PILL.

SEE IT IS ONLY EVIL WHEN THEY SAY… AND ONLY HAS NO MEDICAL VALUE IN IT’S FREE AND NATURAL AND IN THE GOD GIVEN GROW IT IN YOUR GARDEN FORM…

REALLY THIS IS ALL ABOUT THEM GETTING THE MOST PROFIT.

MY FIRST MARINOL RECOMMENDATION FOR SMS, BEFORE MARINOL IS RESCHEDULED TO A SCHEDULE THREE. CLICK ON ANY DOCUMENT BELOW TO VIEW FULL SIZE COPIES.

MARINOL IS THE MAN MADE THC PILL

THAT THEY NOW CAN PRESCRIBE TO ANYONE LIKE TYLENOL 3

AT THE GIANT COST OF APPROX $350 FOR 30 PILLS

AND IT ISN’T NEARLY AS AFFECTIVE AS THE REAL DEAL.

I MOVED IN THE 7TH YR OF THIS CASE TO OHIO

OHIO PROBATION/REHAB PETITIONS KENTUCKY TO STOP DRUG TESTING… KENTUCKY HAD ALREADY STOPPED DRUG TESTING NEARLY A YR BEFORE I MOVED TO OHIO {DUE TO ME REFUSING TO PAST THEM FOR MARIJUANA},,, BUT THE OLD ORDER FOLLOWED ME TO OHIO, SO THEN THEY BEGAN THE DRUG TESTING AGAIN {AND AGAIN, I REFUSE TO PASS ALL TEST GIVEN}.

KENTUCKY CLOSES PROBATION EARLY, AFTER I REFUSE TO PASS ANY AND ALL TEST FOR THC.

AFTER 8 YRS OF REFUSING TO PASS DRUG TEST FOR MARIJUANA, FAILING EVERY TEST GIVEN TO ME BUT ONE. I PASSED ONE TO PROVE I COULD QUIT ANYTIME I WANTED AND THAT I WAS NOT ADDICTED TO MARIJUANA.

THE DRUG TESTING WAS STOPPED.

THE KENTUCKY MARIJUANA TAX STAMP WAS PASSED

THE TAX LAW….

State Code
Kentucky
§138.872
Tax Rate
$3.50/gram if owner possesses 42.5 grams or more
$1000/plant if owner possesses 5 plants or more
Penalty for Nonpayment (Civil and Criminal ) 200% of Tax and Interest and Class C Felony
Additional Information
Withstood constitutional challenge on the grounds of double jeopardy in Kentucky v. Bird, 979 SW 2d 515

THE LAWS WERE THEN CHANGED AND WHAT USE TO BE A LAW OF 1 JOINT BEING THE SAME FELONY CHARGE AS 1000 LBS. {< THE LAW I WAS CHARGED UNDER}, EIGHT OZ.’S OR LESS BECAME A TICKET ABLE OFFENSE {ON FIRST OFFENSE} WITH OUT THE STAMP.

KENTUCKY MARIJUANA LAW

More Information on Illegal Drug Laws

Code Section 218A.010, et seq.
Possession Class A misdemeanor (includes less than 5 plants); over 5 plants: Class D felony
Sale Under 8 oz.: Class A misdemeanor; Subsequent offense: Class D felony; 8 oz. to 5 lbs.: Class D felony; Subsequent offense: Class C felony Over 5 lbs.: Class C felony; Subsequent offense: Class B felony; Possession of over 8 oz. is prima facie evidence of intent to sell
Trafficking –

THIS FIRST CASE ABOVE MADE “LEGAL HISTORY” IN THE U.S.

I WAS THE FIRST FELON CONVICTED FOR DRUG TRAFFICKING IN THE U.S. TO NEVER SERVE ANY SIGNIFICANT TIME BEHIND BARS.

SERVING A TOTAL OF APROX. 160 DAYS THROUGH-OUT THE ENTIRE 8 YR. BATTLE

WHILE FLUNKING EVERY DRUG TEST GIVEN…

THEN A COUPLE YRS LATER I DID IT AGAIN IN MASON OHIO

I CAN SAFELY SAY I KEPT MY WORD TO BOTH JUDGES AND I HAVE SUCCESSFULLY FAILED MORE THAN 100 STATE AND COURT ORDERED AND REQUIRED DRUG TEST FOR THC/MARIJUANA

THOUGH NO OTHER DRUGS WERE EVER FOUND IN MY SYSTEM.

TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THIS CASE OR MYSELF VISIT…

* ABOUT ME ~ SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS ~ A SHORT BIO ~ BY REV. MARY

CONTINUE READING…

“THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH THE GOOD INTENTIONS” OF SOME AND THE EVIL MANIPULATIONS OF OTHERS

“JUST SAY NO !” to the Legalize = Legal Lies Smoke Screen

 
 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 WASHY 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 WASHY” 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 UNEMPLOYED, 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 LIE 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 UNINFORMED, 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,  SOCIAL SECURITY, AND THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,  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 DENY ANY PROOF OR EVIDENCE EXIST THAT IT IS A MEDICINE. “

WHILE THEY CONTINUE TO DENY 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 VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, (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

Continue reading