Why I am voting no on prop 19!

[215forLife]

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".

"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The bill was later found unconstitutional and repealed in the supreme court case Leary v. United States "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

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/LegalizationNation/archives/2010/08/06/oaklands-cannabis-cash-contributing-to-mayoral-race

""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,""
[/quote]
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...

""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 "inspite 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:

"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 its 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."

 

[215forLife]

Oh and here is yet ANOTHER CALIFORNIA LAWYER SINGING THE SAME TUNE I HAVE FOR THE LAST YEAR NOW.

Dragonfly Is Correct About Prop. 19's Impact on Patients
Submitted by letitiapepper on Thu, 2010-08-19 16:52.

Dragonfly's analysis has been trashed on the Internet by pro-Prop. 19 bloggers. So I did my own analysis as to whether Prop. 19 would change the laws related to medical marijuana, and in my opinion she's absolutely correct.

I have been an attorney for almost 30 years. I went to Hastings College of the Law, one of California’s top schools, was on the Hastings Law Journal, and have more than 20 years of experience working as a judicial research attorney for the State of California and for the federal district court. I prepared draft opinions in which I presented, from a neutral rather than adversarial perspective, the applicable laws and facts, with conclusions about final results/consequences. (I even once worked (from 1984 to 1987) as a business and municipal law litigation associate at Best, Best & Krieger (yep, the same law firm that’s been advising lots of cities to ban medical marijuana (MM) collectives).)

So, I’m well-qualified to review Prop. 19. Plus, I had a reason to do so.

Two years ago, I became a medical marijuana patient after terrible problems with side effects from prescription medications and after doing research on cannabis. Since I am convinced that marijuana is the non-prescription answer for many diseases, including mine (multiple sclerosis), I want to be able to grow my own medication, and to be able to experiment with and make as many different variants of cannabis-based medications as possible.

Based on my expertise and review of prop. 19, I can now state, categorically, that if Proposition 19 passes, it WILL affect medical marijuana patients and collectives. It will limit patients to tiny grow areas -- one per parcel, not one per patient -- and allow cities to legally ban collectives (the current bans are, in my opinion, illegal). And it will probably cause the price of marijuana to go up, put the profits from marijuana into the hands of a few large businesses instead of a lot of small businesses, and, depending on the goodwill of politicians in Santa Cruz, put compassionate collective groups like the Wo/Man’s collective out of business. But let’s skip speculation about how decreased competition affects prices, and just stick to whether or not, as a matter of alw, Prop. 19 will change patients’ rights under the Compassionate Use Act, Health & Safety Code section 11362.5 (“the CUA”).

Inititatives like Prop. 19 are reviewed by courts using specific rules, generally known as rules of statutory interpretation. Under those rules, any arguments or statements by Chris Conrad or Russ Belville, or the flyers handed put by the pro-Prop. 19 people that claim medical marijuana patients won’t be affected, have no relevance. Instead, it’s the actual language of Prop. 19 that counts. (Get the complete text at http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.p...trol_and_Tax_Cannabis_Act_of_2010_(California). Only if the text is ambiguous will a court look any further than the text – and then only at certain items, such as ballot summaries -- not at general commentary by people like Conrad and Belville.

To see for yourself how Prop. 19 changes medical marijuana patients’ and collectives’ rights, look at the language of Prop. 19 and the official ballot summary. (The ballot summary is at http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.p...ornia_2010_ballot_propositions#Proposition_19.) First, note that the official ballot summary does not mention medical marijuana (MM), or MM patients and collectives, at all. Does that mean Prop. 19 is not intended to affect laws that relate to medical marijuana? No. Does it mean Prop. 19 IS intended to affect MM or patients? No. It’s just neutral. So, now let’s look at the text of Prop. 19.

Section 1, the name, is pretty straightforward. “This Act shall be known as the “Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010.” Notice it does not distinguish between cannabis used recreationally or medicinally. So, based on the name, it MIGHT affect patients by regulating, controlling and taxing marijuana used by patients. (By the way, aren’t the pro-Prop. 19 people referring to this as the “legalize, tax and regulate” proposition? I think the actual text doesn’t say that, because, in reality, cannabis is ALREADY legal in California as a medicine. So it wouldn’t have been truthful or accurate to claim, in the official ballot proposition, that Prop. 19 is going to legalize marijuana . . . . .)

Section 2, A., “Findings,” doesn’t mention MM or MM patients at all. It doesn’t say anything about the fact that marijuana is actually a very useful medicine, which people also use as a recreational drug.

Section 2, B., the “Purposes” section, at paragraph 1, states that one of the Proposition’s purposes is to “reform cannabis laws in a way that will benefit our state.” The law that relates to MM and MM patients is the Compassionate Use Act (CUA), H & S Code section 11362.5. Is section 11362.5 a “cannabis law”? Of course it is. So paragraph 1 indicates that one purpose of Prop. 19 is to reform cannabis laws – which include 11362.5. So a court would say, well, here’s some evidence that Prop. 19 might be intended to affect the Compassionate Use Act -- and thereby affect medical marijuana patients. But how? The court would have to keep reading the text to see.

Section 2, B, “Purposes” at paragraph 3, states that another intent is to create a legal regulatory framework to give California more control over, among other things, cultivation and distribution of cannabis. MM patients currently have a right to cultivate and distribute under the CUA. Because paragraph 3’s language applies to all cultivation and distribution without any exception, it seems it is intended to apply to cultivation and distribution of all cannabis, including by MM patients, and to cultivation and distribution by everyone, including patient collectives. As noted earlier, Prop. 19 makes no distinction between recreational and medicinal use.

Paragraph 6 of “Purposes” then specifically refers to patients and cannabis for medical purposes – so this makes it clear the Proposition is intended to affect MM and patients. How? Only to make access safer and easier, it says -- but not cheaper. I guess access will be safer and easier if you can buy from Big Weed, Inc. instead of growing it yourself, or getting it from a collective. But it will be more expensive for patients who have been allowed to grow as much as they need, because instead of being allowed to grow quantities large enough for each person’s medical problems, and/or to share collectively, Prop. 19 severely limits everyone’s rights to cultivate and distribute.

Paragraph 7 says that if cities ban the sale of cannabis, their 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.” This language could be interpreted to mean that, under 11362.5, MM patients continue to have the right to possess and consume larger quantities than Proposition 19’s ounce limit. But notice that Paragraph 7 specifically leaves out the right to cultivate. Why? This is a very meaningful omission of an existing right held by MM patients. Under Prop. 19, everyone becomes a mere consumer, a captive market to be exploited by a few businesses that get the permits to cultivate and distribute.

Under current law, H & S11362.5, subdivision (d), specifically exempts MM patients from H & S 11358 which makes cultivation illegal. Under the People v. Kelly case, MM patients have no numeric cap on what they can grow, just a requirement that it be related to a medical issue. Will the right to cultivate amounts related to medical issues be changed under Prop. 19? Yes. Here’s why.

Look at the text of Prop. 19, Section 2 (B), paragraph 14. It says that one purpose of Prop. 19 is to “Permit the cultivation of small amounts of cannabis for personal consumption.” We already know the “small amounts” are what can be grown in a 25 square foot garden (that’s 5 by 5 feet) – and that however many people live on a property will have to share that small space. So that is a really small amount.

Notice that section 14 says nothing about allowing the cultivation of larger amounts for medical use.



Don’t give up reading yet -- we’re getting to the smoking gun evidence that Prop. 19 has ALWAYS been INTENDED to affect medical marijuana patients and collectives, and was intentionally worded in a way to allow the pro-Prop. 19 people to make claims, OUTSIDE THE TEXT OF THE CONTROLLING LEGAL DOCUMENT, WHERE SUCH CLAIMS CAN’T BE USED TO INTERPRET THE PROPOSITION, that it doesn’t affect medical marijuana patients.



In Section 2 (C), “Intent,” paragraph 1 lists all the existing laws that Prop. 19 is intended to affect, and paragraph 2 lists all the laws it is NOT intended to affect. Here’s the important point:

Neither paragraph 1 nor paragraph 2 mention the Compassionate Use Act (CUA), which is found in H & S Code section 11362.5. If the Prop. 19 people really did not intend to affect patients and collectives, they would have included section 11362.5 in paragraph 2. They didn’t.

Now, since the Pro-Prop. 19 people clearly need the support of MM patients, they obviously did not want to include the CUA and H & S section 11362.5 in paragraph 1 and admit that Prop. 19 will affect patients. So that’s why Prop. 19 is silent about 11362.5, the CUA. The pro-Prop. 19 people are counting on the average voter not knowing anything about statutory interpretation rules. Under those rules, if Prop. 19 had specifically stated in Section 2, “Intent,” that it was NOT intended to affect H & S 11362.5, then the courts would interpret it as not affecting 11362.5. But because the intent section is silent, the courts will look at the language of the proposition to figure out the intent. And as noted above, the Purposes section at paragraphs 6 and 7, already provides evidence that the Proposition is intended to affect MM and MM patients.

Why would the Prop. 19 people set things up like this? This is no accident; a lot of attorney work and money went into drafting this thing to accomplish the desired results – results presumably desired by Richard Lee and friends. Why would they want to be sure that patients’ current rights to grow and distribute are SEVERLY limited, while running around telling efveryone they are not affected?

Well, in addition to being potential voting support for Prop. 15, MM patients also reflect a LARGE and VALUABLE potential market share for the “commercial cannabis industry” this proposition is intended to create. It is going to be contrary to the commercial interests of whoever wants to create a “commercial cannabis industry” to let such a large group of potential cannabis consumers continue to cultivate and share with each other, via the collective system, cannabis – instead of being FORCED TO BUY IT FROM THE “COMMERCIAL CANNABIS INDUSTRY.”

Prop. 19 is clearly aimed at reducing competition by restricting who can cultivate and distribute.



Prop. 19, if passed, will be interpreted as affecting patients and collectives because the Prop. 19 folks intentionally chose not to specify that it was NOT intended to affect patients in Section 2, “Intent.”

So why are the pro-Prop.19 lying about what it will do? Something sneaky’s going on.

 

[Haps]

It is good you can have the freedom to express yourself. Here in real non med america, we are shot down daily, just praying the greedy fucks in cali don't blow it and vote no, like you. If this vote fails, it will set us back a decade. Voting no is the greedy choice.

Set our people free, vote yes.

H

 

[erbium]

Quick summary - I want to still be able to make enough money to live like a king with the little work it takes to grow grade a herb. Fuck the people going to prison, fuck the people going to jail, fuck everyone who doesn't want to help me squeeze the last dollar out of a completely fucked up "medical" system.

If you were doing it to help people you would not be worried about the money.

You are so transparent.

Guess what, most people on here are growers and you are still the minority. The smokers don't give 2 fucks about websites like these. When it hits the poles you greedy fucks are gone.

 

[215forLife]

you didnt read the original post then... cause you would have read this

""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/a...ents/25359.pdf

That is the Oakland cultivation ordinance. That is based out of pure greed that was written by Richard Lee's puppet Rebecca Kaplan to put Lee's competition (the small and medium growers) out of business.

 

[215forLife]

It would seem like Lee is being the greedy one here.

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

215forLies!!!!!!

 

[PoopyTeaBags]

you fuckers in cali confuse me i can see both sides of the story and yet cant wade through all the BULLSHIT... I dont know what it will do to legalize hopefully free the world... On the other hand it could just push it into corporate hands and only the rich...

im actually glad im not in cali beacause i dont want that responsibility...

 

[215forLife]

215forLies!!!!!!

And what did Richard Lee say???

"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=0,0

 

[215forLife]

I thought Prop 19 would have no effect on medical marijuana??? Yet Lee is quoted as saying the opposite by the media.

 

[rick shaw]

I did a little digging about Letitia Pepper,the attorney that wrote that opinion that you are holding as grail.She is an English and Home Economics teacher from Riverside,went to Hastings did work in business and public law,running for Mayor.How many days have you been clean 215?

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

I thought Prop 19 would have no effect on medical marijuana??? Yet Lee is quoted as saying the opposite by the media.

Funny how quick you are to intentionally misinterpret.

All Lee said was that the anti towns will most likely remain anti and that those who don't know how to regulate mj will have a model to follow.

That's it. If you want to lie and misguide voters, it just shows us the type of person you are.

But I guess that's why you keep making these threads.

Because your bullshit gets called out in the other threads and makes you look like a fucking d.bag

 

[vta]

Come out from behind the tree!

 

[215forLife]

Ask her yourself then... ask Dale G too... He doesn't seem to throw around the insults like some of you.

dave@***********.com[/email]; dherrick@*********.net; martinvictor@******.com; martinvictor@********.net; Lanette Davies <********@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sun, August 22, 2010 11:42:53 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Legal Aalysis of Prop. 19 Shows It Will Affect Patients' Rights to Grow and Distribute

Hi Letitiia,
I share your concern about balkanization of marijuana enforcement under the local option system proposed by Prop. 19.
I'm happy to report that Assemblyman Tom Ammiano is drafting an implementation bill to address this & other problems in the initiative. As you know, Prop 19 specifically authorizes the legislature to pass legislation to advance its purposes. Ammiano wants to propose a system of uniform, statewide penalties for MJ akin to alcohol, with the maximum penalty for unlawful cultivation, sales, etc., becoming misdemeanors instead of felonies. Should 19 pass, there will be strong support in Sacramento for enacting uniform state regulations on MJ. Even if 19 fails, I suspect the lawmakers will move to enact more uniform state regulations on medical MJ.
- Dale G.

> Hi Dale & Brenda,
> Actually, Marla is looking for two more "No on Prop. 19" people, not more "Yes" people.
> The collective to which I belong is supporting two people, Jody and Ken, who were arrested (looks like a set-up to stop cars with California plates in Arizona) while driving back to California from Kansas to visit Jody's grandmother. They had not only their medications and California recommendations, but all their medical records with them. Their medications included concentrates, so they are being charged with major felonies. Current offer on the table for both of them, I think, is 10 years' formal probation!
> Prop. 19 will result in more searches, not fewer, because municipalities will be able to conduct administrative searches after getting a warrant. I represented someone whose property was searched pursuant to a warrant related to an alleged public nuisance, and it's just as easy to lie or fail to state all relevant facts to get an administrative warrant as a criminal warrant. Plus, this system sets people up for fines of as much as $1,000.00 per day for what most people would otherwise view as no big deal -- a branch that extends a few inches outside a 5 foot square area.
> Then, let's say an administrative search warrant for the outside yard shows that you decided to try to grow TWO plants, not one, in your 25 square foot garden. (The Rancho Cordova ordinance appears to allow only 1 plant outside; read it and you'll see this.) A city could speculate that the presence of two plants instead of one is evidence of growing for sale -- prohibited under the ordinance -- and go back to get a second warrant to search inside your house for more evidence of sales.
> Let's say you had two pounds of marijuana from what you managed to save from YEARS of growing under Prop. 19's restrictive limits, since the pro-19 folks are telling people you can legally hang onto anything you can grow and save from year to year -- despite Prop. 19's ounce limits. (Theoretically, I think this claim is true, based on the Prop's language. Practically speaking, I doubt most MM patients would be able to save anything from year to year, since growing one "garden of 25 square feet/1 plant is not enough for most people's problems, and certainly not enough when two or more patients in one household have to share a plot as required.)
> A warrant to search inside would turn up your hoarded two pounds -- and bingo! it's now up to you to defend yourself from a charge of growing for sale!
> Even if people actually read Prop. 19 carefully, they are not likely to figure these problems out, because to really understand to whom it applies you must have an understanding of statutory interpretation. And to anticipate problems like the use of administrative search warrants, you need to have had some specific experiences with them and realize that allowing cities to regulate marijuana in every way means -- tah-dah -- administrative search warrants!
> That is why I think that Richard Lee and friends are scam artists. Having drafted things myself, I can see the care which went into drafting this darn thing in a way to allow its proponents to make claims that are actually unsupported by the wording. (You did all get the analysis I did about statutory interpretation and why Prop. 19 DOES seriously affect MM patients, right?)
> So, more soon on the local, as opposed to state-wide, criminalization of activities! Think it's difficult navigating your way from state to state in the possession of marijuana? Wait until each California CITY has its own rules and regulations. It's the Balkanization of California -- we are being returned to the Dark Ages. I think I'll get t-shirts printed up with "Richard Lee, Prince of Darkness" on them. (Of course, they won't be quite as funny as the "Prince of Darkness" T-shirts that commemorated the inventor of the [terrible] electrical system in Jaguars . . . .)
>
>
> From: brenda kershenbaum <*********@yahoo.com>
> To: dale gierenger <canorml@igc.org>; dale gierenger <canorml@igc.org>
> Cc: letitia pepper <letitiapepper@yahoo.com>
> Sent: Sun, August 22, 2010 10:16:41 AM
> Subject: Fw: Fw: Legal Aalysis of Prop. 19 Shows It Will Affect Patients' Rights to Grow and Distribute
> hi dale, meet letitia who did the analysis...rancho cordova is already implementing the 5 by 5 grown rule,,,just need to vote on it...anyway, there are some debate forums, and they are looking for a yes person...might that be you? brendax did you know richard was arrested in Idaho? plead guilty to a bit of a joint, and some pills, lost two days, and $1000,,,which is a kind of tax...avoid idaho...we really have to attack the interstate commerce clause...if you drive through idea with meds, , they are looking for people coming from montana, they get stopped, searched, and "taxed," new law...early resolution there...what makes us think that if there is a one ounce retriction that will prevent the police from searching a car, etc...control, and rules allow this...we are very opposed to the stupidity of this law, and the vocal people seem to be connected to richard lee, who, if we are generous, has a nice vision, but is very short sighted, and too trusting of the government as it now stands...jack would never have approved this. in my opinion, and I spend lots of time with him, as did joy graves. Dan Herer did not.
>
> ----- Forwarded Message ----
> From: Letitia Pepper <letitiapepper@yahoo.com>
> To: brenda kershenbaum <*********@yahoo.com>
> Sent: Sun, August 22, 2010 6:20:53 AM
> Subject: Re: Fw: Legal Aalysis of Prop. 19 Shows It Will Affect Patients' Rights to Grow and Distribute
> Dale said that "That is, Prop 215 & SB 420 still permit cultivation, distribution, etc. for medical cannabis outside the "strictly controlled legal system." No.
> Prop. 19 only "excepts," for medical purposes as previoulsy allowed in 11362.5, "possession and consumption" -- not cultiavtion and dsitribution. So if Prop. 19 passes, patients have no right to cultivate more than everyone else, and no right to distribute via collectives.
>
> F


--

Dale Gieringer - dale@canorml.org
Please join me at 'Just Say Now!', NORML's 39 Annual National Conference in Portland Oregon, September 9-11, 2010. For online registration, accommodations, speakers & schedule, expo tables and conference sponsorship opportunities, check out norml.org/conference.

California NORML, 2261 Market St. #278A, San Francisco CA 94114 -(415) 563- 5858 - www.canorml.org

 

[Preacher]

You're really claiming that corporations taking up the manufacture of weed would make it more expensive for consumers?

You fail economics.

 

[215forLife]

You're really claiming that corporations taking up the manufacture of weed would make it more expensive for consumers?

You fail economics.

My claim is that if Richard Lee and friends are handed over a legal monopoly for the weed market in California that yes via UNLIMITED TAXATION, and LIMITED COMPETITION (after all anyone who see's a doctor and has a pulse can legally grow in California NOW)

Weed prices won't go anywhere, but the quality will suck. How much was an 1/8th in 1995? $20 How much is one now? $40-$60...

Actually you fail economics because if the only people who are allowed to grow are the people who also own the retail stores you will have a vertical monopoly which will make price manipulation easy.

http://www.ftc.gov/bc/edu/pubs/consumer/general/zgen01.shtm][/url]
Competition Counts
How Consumers Win When Businesses Compete

The FTC’s Bureau of Competition: Protecting Free Enterprise and American Consumers
What if there were only one grocery store in your community? What if you could buy a camera from only one supplier? What if only one dealer in your area sold cars?
Without competition, the grocer may have no incentive to lower prices. The camera shop may have no reason to offer a range of choices. The car dealer may have no motivation to offer a variety of car models and services.
Competition in America is about price, selection, and service. It benefits consumers by keeping prices low and the quality and choice of goods and services high.
Competition makes our economy work. By enforcing antitrust laws, the Federal Trade Commission helps to ensure that our markets are open and free. The FTC promotes healthy competition and challenges anticompetitive business practices to make sure that consumers have access to quality goods and services, and that businesses can compete on the merits of their work. The FTC does not choose winners and losers – you, as the consumer, do that. Rather, our job is to make sure that businesses are competing fairly within a set of rules.
Through its Bureaus of Competition and Economics, the FTC puts its antitrust resources to work, especially where consumer interest and consumer spending are high: in matters affecting energy, real estate, health care, food, pharmaceuticals, professional services, cable TV, computer technology, video programming, and broadband Internet access.
What is Antitrust?

The word “antitrust” dates from the late 1800s, when powerful companies dominated industries, working together as “trusts” to stifle competition. Thus, laws aimed at protecting competition have long been labeled “antitrust.” Fast forward to the 21st century: you hear “antitrust” in news stories about competitors merging or companies conspiring to reduce competition.
The FTC enforces antitrust laws by challenging business practices that could hurt consumers by resulting in higher prices, lower quality, or fewer goods or services. We monitor business practices, review potential mergers, and challenge them when appropriate to ensure that the market works according to consumer preferences, not illegal practices.
What kinds of business practices interest the Bureau of Competition? In short, the very practices that affect consumers the most: company mergers, agreements among competitors, restrictive agreements between manufacturers and product dealers, and monopolies. The FTC reviews these and other practices, looking at the likely effects on consumers and competition: Would they lead to higher prices, inferior service, or fewer choices for consumers? Would they make it more difficult for other companies to enter the market?

 

[Bacchus]

So you have to fake an "illness" to legally smoke cannabis in California. Sure sounds like freedom to me...

Your a greedy shelfish bastard....

 

[bird]

sounds to me as he has something against Lee?? i dunno

 

[mean mr.mustard]

Don't even bother trying to convince anyone of anything.

I was mentioning possibile downfalls of rushing legislation over a year ago, and nobody was willing to admit that it could hurt our cause in the end.

Eyes wide shut is a good way to vote.

 

[Frozenguy]

This bill doesn't even keep people out of jail for doing things that would send them to jail today. The bill is a joke.


And you dont have to lie to get medical MJ in California. Most people who smoke on a regular basis are more then likely self medicating whether they know it or not. For stress, anxiety, depression, appetite, motivation, what have you.

This bill may offer some of you the easy ability to come visit California on vacation and smoke at our beaches, driving our coast, but its unfair to ask us Californians to support such a slap in the face. It leads California's cannabis world in the wrong (overall) direction.