[shaggyballs]

The pitch by Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, U.S. Rep. Ted Lieu, Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia, Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer and members of the Drug Policy Alliance, was straightforward: For too long, people of color have been disproportionately arrested for small-time cannabis crimes; it's time we legalize it. Proposition 64 passed with overwhelming support and now allows those 21 and older to hold up to an ounce — and opens the doors of the burgeoning marijuana industry to minorities. "The spirit of the initiative is to right those wrongs," Newsom told L.A. Weekly at the pro-64 event at LA Plaza de Cultura y Artes downtown.

Today, investors are licking their chops over the prospect of a "green rush" when recreational retailers and weed makers are allowed to open for business Jan. 1. But critics wonder if the government officials now charged with rolling out regulations are hiding behind an expensive paywall that could inadvertently hinder access to the very people — minorities and other pot-business hopefuls — whom Proposition 64 was supposed to benefit.

Los Angeles cannabis czar Cat Packer had not even been approved by the City Council when her first advertised public appearance as executive director of the Los Angeles Department of Cannabis Regulation was announced this week: She's scheduled to speak at a nearly $895-per-person California Cannabis Business Conference in Anaheim. Organizers added Packer, along with state insurance commissioner David Jones, to the speaker lineup for the event Sept. 21-22. The keynote speaker is California Bureau of Cannabis Control chief Lori Ajax, better known as the state's first marijuana czar. According to the conference, Ajax will provide "insights on what business owners can expect as they prepare for success in 2018."

"It's nuts," says legalization critic Scott Chipman, Southern California chairman of the group Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana. "This is an industry whose entire premise is to use a dangerous addictive substance to make money. This has never been about just keeping people out of jail."

Dale Gieringer, director of California NORML, praised Ajax for her accessibility but criticized the alleged profiteering displayed by events like the California Cannabis Business Conference. "She held events all over the state," he says. "She appeared and answered questions for free.

"But there are people out there charging for these conferences, and there are so many of them," he adds. "The people profiting most from this are the people holding the conferences. I caution anybody about trying to cash in on the green rush. It's sort of like the gold rush — the people who cashed in were mainly the ones who sold equipment to the gold miners."

The organizer of the Anaheim conference, the California Cannabis Industry Association, contributed $22,151.32 to candidates and measures, including Proposition 64, last year, according to California Secretary of State figures. Recipients also include Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon and other fellow members of the lower house, who often were rewarded in the amount of $4,200, according to those state records. We reached out to the CCIA multiple times but no one responded.

Source
https://www.laweekly.com/news/easy-ac...y-1000-8548534

[St. Phatty]

Originally Posted by shaggyballs

The organizer of the Anaheim conference, the California Cannabis Industry Association, contributed $22,151.32 to candidates and measures, including Proposition 64, last year, according to California Secretary of State figures. Recipients also include Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon and other fellow members of the lower house, who often were rewarded in the amount of $4,200, according to those state records. We reached out to the CCIA multiple times but no one responded.

These conferences are comparable to the more informal meet-ups that have occurred, basically, forever.

But I can't say the Official Cannabis Conferences are an improvement over the informal post-harvest fellowship events.

But I am glad that fewer people are being incarcerated for simple possession. Normally there would be a voice in the back of my mind, "are you sure about that ?"

Oregon just passed a law reducing possession of all drugs to misdemeanors, under certain amounts.


That's progress, BUT - if I drove cross-country with an ounce of Trip Weed, and a water pipe ... there's still a very good chance that I would be pulled over and than subject to civil asset forfeiture.

Freedom-wise, we ain't there yet.

[oldchuck]

It appears you are quoting somebody or some publication, Shaggy. It would be nice if you put it in quotes and cited the source. It's a useful convention.

I appreciate your usual contrarian point of view although I am more inclined to consider big Cannabis an inevitability and learn to deal with it. But still I want to encourage you to continue fighting it. However, a few posts on this global forum populated mostly by people who are pro Cannabis and must deal with totally illegal weed, doesn't amount to much real fighting. I wish you would land your punches where they are more useful.

[Emperortaima]

We want decriminalization not legalization

[Jhhnn]

Originally Posted by Emperortaima

We want decriminalization not legalization

I think you need to define decriminalization.

[rolandomota]

Your customers cant buy weed if their in jail. So yea its about keeping low level offenders out of jail and high level offenders that are the competition in jail and out of the legal market also making money with a less harmful alternative to dangerous legal things like alcohol tobacco and pharmaceuticals that sometimes dont work or are very poisonous.
I know its unfair for most of us who dont have money to start a legal mj business but thats just how it goes in the business world

[Pious]

Originally Posted by oldchuck

It appears you are quoting somebody or some publication, Shaggy. It would be nice if you put it in quotes and cited the source. It's a useful convention.

This. All you have to do to hide the referrer info is paste whatever source/link you so desire after https://anonym.to/?. Here's a link to this very thread using that method.

https://anonym.to/?https://www.icmag...d.php?t=345235

[shaggyballs]

Originally Posted by oldchuck

It appears you are quoting somebody or some publication, Shaggy. It would be nice if you put it in quotes and cited the source. It's a useful convention.

I appreciate your usual contrarian point of view although I am more inclined to consider big Cannabis an inevitability and learn to deal with it. But still I want to encourage you to continue fighting it. However, a few posts on this global forum populated mostly by people who are pro Cannabis and must deal with totally illegal weed, doesn't amount to much real fighting. I wish you would land your punches where they are more useful.

Fixed, source added above.
Just a quick tip, I forgot where I found the info at so I used Google and found it very easy.

I agree big Cannabis is an inevitability if we do not ban together and fight.
Learning to deal with it is not the best method by any means, in fact it may just be one of the biggest problems with current legalization.

People should never just deal with what they feel is wrong.
Hypothetical Example
I live in a bad part of town women get raped there everyday, cops do nothing.

I feel this is very wrong but I just deal with it.
I am not trying to poke at you,so please receive it with an open mind.

Time is now to stand up for what we believe is right and to put a stop to big $$$$$$$ pushing us around!

[gaiusmarius]

interesting thread

[stoned-trout]

Big cannabis will crush us all..and have a huge budget for enforcement to takedown offenders like nev3r before seen..,the black market is gonna get scary..,yeehaw.,.